CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1794
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:48 am
 


PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Mowich Mowich:

I truly hope that this will finally wake-up liberal supporters to the fact that their support of this corrupt and possibly criminal government is badly misplaced.


I sincerely doubt that will happen.

Harper and his Conservatives drastically increased spending. Threw us back into deficit. Harper claimed they cut spending their last year, but if you read the budget, he didn't. Spending increased absolutely every year they were in power.

Finance Minister Paul Martin got finances in order after Mulroney. Once we had a surplus, taxes came down. He cut both personal and corporate taxes. Taxes remained fair and balanced. But Harper did not cut personal taxes at all, deeply cut corporate taxes. Finance Minister Paul Martin cut tax in 2001, the lowest income bracket from 17% to 15%. John Manley increased it to 15.5%. When Paul Martin was PM, the fiscal update of November 2005 cut it back to 15%. That was voted down by both NDP and Conservatives. When Harper Conservatives came out with their budget, that tax bracket stayed at 15.5%. They cut that tax bracket a year later, effective January 2007. Cancelling a Liberal tax cut and bringing it back a year later does not constitute a tax cut. Notice all tax brackets were the same on election day 2015 as they were election day 2006. Again counting the fiscal update of November 2005. But Harper Conservatives deeply cut corporate taxes. Paul Martin stated his intent to abolish both corporate capital tax and corporate surtax, and slash corporate income tax to 19%. Just before election day 2006, Martin Liberals did pass a law to abolish corporate capital tax. Conservatives tried to take credit for it, but they didn't do it, Martin Liberals did. And corporate income tax had been cut from 28% in 1993 to 21% in 2006. But Harper didn't stop at 19%, he slashed corporate income tax to 15%. So now multi-billion dollar corporations pay the same tax rate as the lowest income bracket. That includes people living below the poverty line. Those with a full-time job at minimum wage are above the poverty line, but still in the lowest income bracket. The fact multi-billion dollar corporations pay the same rate is obscene!

Harper's Conservatives were certainly not red Tories. Former Reform party members dominated. The CPC has often been called ReformaCons. Andrew Scheer is said to be just like Harper. His entire team is the same as Harper's. The CPC hasn't flushed out the ReformaCons yet. They won't be ready until they do.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1794
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:52 am
 


BRAH BRAH:
”Just I'm clear here, @JustinTrudeau was willing to corrupt his morals, and government, to protect #SNCLavalin jobs. But the 100,000+ Albertans who have lost their jobs due to this governments oil and gas policies, don't matter?

Anyone else livid about this?”

Yes. The government did more consultation on the pipeline than any project in Canadian history. Before they decided to build it. Once the government has made a decision, time for consultation is over. The government bought the damn thing! Time for debate is long since over! Get on with it! If the government doesn't start construction before it rises for summer vacation, it will be in very great trouble this election.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2146
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:55 am
 


Coach85 Coach85:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
While she stated generally it’s acceptable for them to contact her a few times to try and persuade her, after a certain point she believes no means no and they should have stopped.


At no point did she say that any pressure on the Attorney General was acceptable. I watched the testimony in it's entirety. In fact, she said it was inappropriate for anyone in the government to press, “the attorney general on things he/she cannot take into account,” such as partisan political concerns.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:
3) She also said the repeated position of the PMO is that they disagreed with her interpretation of the law (that it prevents her from overruling her prosecutor) and they asked her to get a second opinion from an external legal advisor. . She said multiple times in her testimony that they told her they were not asking her to break the law just to explore other opinions on the law. (but see #5 below)


Point being, the PMO has no business whatsoever interfering with a legal case. Suggesting a second opinion isn't appropriate. How a bunch of people working in the PMO interpret the law is irrelevant.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:
4)While JWR said repeatedly that there’s nothing wrong with the PMO “lobbying” her office to consider policy consequences from a certain position ( up to a point-see #2), such as concerns over job losses, in multiple meetings the PMO and allegedly JT himself also mentioned the impact those losses could have on election results, which is BAD NEWS FOR LIBERALS, because while pushing policy concerns are fair game, pushing partisan political concerns are definitely inappropriate.


She didn't use the term "lobby".

The term "lobby" is incorrect. It's not acceptable for anyone to "lobby" the Attorney General. It's acceptable to have conversations about issues that affect policy, jobs, economy, etc but it's not appropriate to try to influence(lobby) the decisions of the AG.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:
5) There’s an alleged quote from Butts towards the end of this affair along the lines of “ there’s no possible outcome that isn’t inappropriate” which suggests acknowledgment that this is more than just a difference of opinion between 2 different bureaus and is probably the smoking gun on why Butts had to go.


The actual quote was:

$1:
There is no solution here that does not involve some interference


The opinion of the PMO is irrelevant with respect to legal cases. It doesn't matter what they think and their influence cannot interfere.


BeaverFever BeaverFever:
So I accept JWR’s version of events and that the contact probably rose to the level of “inappropriate”. But I remind our Trudeau haters that “inappropriate” doesn’t automatically mean that anything “criminal” occurred or that there was any obstruction of justice - JWR doesn’t even allege that. The government is allowed to petition her office and there’s no maximum number of attempts that they’re limited to.


You keep repeating this false statement. There is no acceptable reason for any office to petition, lobby or pressure the Attorney General. None. Full stop.


R=UP R=UP


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2146
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:58 am
 


I'd rather she stay to since she seems quite willing to hang Trudeau out to dry for his digressions. But the fact remains that she's been accused of being involved in every Liberal controversy during the past year and a half/ So you can say nothing untoward happened in the Norman case but, as we've seen from the SNC-Lavalin affair. With this gov't where there's smoke there's usually fire.

But, since you were discussing your preference for JWR becoming Prime Minister if and when the Liberal Party comes to their senses and dumps Captain Fantastic, the point I was making was that her innocence or guilt is irrelevant because she's been tainted by association. And since in politics optics are everything the Liberal party would be better served to find someone who hasn't been accused of being in the room for every foul deed this administration committed.

BTW you're absolutely right that an accusation isn't proof of guilt and I'm sure you'll point that fact out whenever any unproven accusations are raised about other politicians on this forum. [B-o][/quote]
Absolutely.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2146
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 9:00 am
 


BRAH BRAH:
”Just I'm clear here, @JustinTrudeau was willing to corrupt his morals, and government, to protect #SNCLavalin jobs. But the 100,000+ Albertans who have lost their jobs due to this governments oil and gas policies, don't matter?

Anyone else livid about this?”

________________

:evil:


Count me in the livid category, BRAH.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12109
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 9:01 am
 


Winnipegger Winnipegger:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Mowich Mowich:

I truly hope that this will finally wake-up liberal supporters to the fact that their support of this corrupt and possibly criminal government is badly misplaced.


I sincerely doubt that will happen.

Harper and his Conservatives drastically increased spending. Threw us back into deficit. Harper claimed they cut spending their last year, but if you read the budget, he didn't. Spending increased absolutely every year they were in power.

Finance Minister Paul Martin got finances in order after Mulroney. Once we had a surplus, taxes came down. He cut both personal and corporate taxes. Taxes remained fair and balanced. But Harper did not cut personal taxes at all, deeply cut corporate taxes. Finance Minister Paul Martin cut tax in 2001, the lowest income bracket from 17% to 15%. John Manley increased it to 15.5%. When Paul Martin was PM, the fiscal update of November 2005 cut it back to 15%. That was voted down by both NDP and Conservatives. When Harper Conservatives came out with their budget, that tax bracket stayed at 15.5%. They cut that tax bracket a year later, effective January 2007. Cancelling a Liberal tax cut and bringing it back a year later does not constitute a tax cut. Notice all tax brackets were the same on election day 2015 as they were election day 2006. Again counting the fiscal update of November 2005. But Harper Conservatives deeply cut corporate taxes. Paul Martin stated his intent to abolish both corporate capital tax and corporate surtax, and slash corporate income tax to 19%. Just before election day 2006, Martin Liberals did pass a law to abolish corporate capital tax. Conservatives tried to take credit for it, but they didn't do it, Martin Liberals did. And corporate income tax had been cut from 28% in 1993 to 21% in 2006. But Harper didn't stop at 19%, he slashed corporate income tax to 15%. So now multi-billion dollar corporations pay the same tax rate as the lowest income bracket. That includes people living below the poverty line. Those with a full-time job at minimum wage are above the poverty line, but still in the lowest income bracket. The fact multi-billion dollar corporations pay the same rate is obscene!

Harper's Conservatives were certainly not red Tories. Former Reform party members dominated. The CPC has often been called ReformaCons. Andrew Scheer is said to be just like Harper. His entire team is the same as Harper's. The CPC hasn't flushed out the ReformaCons yet. They won't be ready until they do.


But, but her emails.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9860
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 11:32 am
 


Really, Trudeau needs to step down. Why not have JWR take over the reigns of the liberals. Actually, that won't work. She can tell the difference between right and wrong...


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2146
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:50 pm
 


Bardish Chagger is the PM's little lapdog - without an ounce of credibility or ability to address questions put to her in the House today that concern the testimony yesterday of Wilson-Raybould. Instead all we heard was a constant repetitious litany of ' the committee is doing its work'; liberals believe in jobs; and other such BS read from a page of notes. Clearly, she is totally incapable of any intelligent remarks of her own.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2146
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:52 pm
 


llama66 llama66:
Really, Trudeau needs to step down. Why not have JWR take over the reigns of the liberals. Actually, that won't work. She can tell the difference between right and wrong...


It won't work because I highly doubt she will remain a liberal for long if pretty socks gets his way. Better idea for the libs is to have Chrystia Freeland run for the position. She of all the liberals is the ONLY person who has an ounce of credibility and remains untainted by this scandal.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9860
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:48 pm
 


I'm assuming we've loaded Princess Pretty-Socks and his co-conspirators onto a rocket aimed at the sun. Freeland is not someone who I'd be interested in as PM. Maybe we right the injustice made when Princess Pretty-Socks was annointed leader of the Liberals... Make Marc Garneau PM.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1794
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:16 pm
 


You realize Justin is not going to allow criminal charges to be laid against himself. And he's not going to resign. The only way to get rid of him is an election. Liberals will lose seats this election, but I doubt they'll lose the election. Before this happened I said the only question was reduced majority or minority. Now... too soon to tell.

When I was in high school in 1979, our social studies teacher asked us to predict the outcome of the election. I predicted Pierre Trudeau would lose, Joe Clark would get a minority. The teacher said my predicted seat count was closest to the actual result. He was impressed. Justin is worried that if SNC Lavalin loses jobs, he'll be in trouble. I'm worried about the pipeline. Carbon tax will gain votes with environmentalists, but lose votes with every other taxpayer. There's a reason provincial Premiers are against it. Too soon to predict the election.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14747
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:17 pm
 


llama66 llama66:
I'm assuming we've loaded Princess Pretty-Socks and his co-conspirators onto a rocket aimed at the sun. Freeland is not someone who I'd be interested in as PM. Maybe we right the injustice made when Princess Pretty-Socks was annointed leader of the Liberals... Make Marc Garneau PM.


After watching Trudeau's latest news conference I'm pretty sure they'll have to drag him kicking and screaming out of his "ancestral" home at 22 Sussex Drive.


But, I do have a theory about what's really happening and why Jody Wilson Raybould hasn't been tossed out of the Liberal party as of yet. I honestly believe this whole scandal is being manipulated behind the scenes by the unseen power part of the Liberal Party who, like most of Canada have become more than a little disturbed at the antics of the self serving monster they put into power. And because of this concern they and JWR made the decision to sacrifice Trudeau on the alter of political scandal so they can find someone new and unsullied by this administrations controversies to run in the next federal election.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9860
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:33 pm
 


Winnipegger Winnipegger:
You realize Justin is not going to allow criminal charges to be laid against himself. And he's not going to resign. The only way to get rid of him is an election. Liberals will lose seats this election, but I doubt they'll lose the election. Before this happened I said the only question was reduced majority or minority. Now... too soon to tell.

When I was in high school in 1979, our social studies teacher asked us to predict the outcome of the election. I predicted Pierre Trudeau would lose, Joe Clark would get a minority. The teacher said my predicted seat count was closest to the actual result. He was impressed. Justin is worried that if SNC Lavalin loses jobs, he'll be in trouble. I'm worried about the pipeline. Carbon tax will gain votes with environmentalists, but lose votes with every other taxpayer. There's a reason provincial Premiers are against it. Too soon to predict the election.

And I don't doubt what you are saying. I think it would be in the interest of Nation he be removed. However, and maybe this is me being naive, I thought the whole point of checks and balances was to maintain a functional government. Maybe the GG needs to step in and dissolve parliament or something.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26095
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:14 pm
 


Oh ho...woh! This one dropped my jaw.

Junior made a great investment in media bribes if he's able to keep this one quiet:



And boy...did the ex high school drama teacher fuck up with that answer. It's a cookie cutter reply but does he even know when he's talking about "standing up for Canadian workers" he's talking about Canadian prostitutes for the spawn of Muammar Gaddafi.

Sometime it's difficult to believe how stupid that moron is. He's giving morons a bad name. Apparently they're even dumber than we thought they were.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1794
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:16 pm
 


llama66 llama66:
And I don't doubt what you are saying. I think it would be in the interest of Nation he be removed. However, and maybe this is me being naive, I thought the whole point of checks and balances was to maintain a functional government. Maybe the GG needs to step in and dissolve parliament or something.

GG? He has been disgraced in public, and SNC Lavalin has not gotten off. The criminal case is proceeding. JT has learned a hard lesson. That's it. This is not sufficient to remove the PM.

As for checks and balances: The Prime Minister and Prime Minister's Office has usurped powers and authority from Parliament with every PM. This has happened since leadership conventions were instituted in the 1920s.

You want checks and balances? The GG appoints ministers, the PM just recommends. In practice the PM appoints ministers, but the GG does have authority to overrule. That means the GG could re-institute JWR as AG.

Major checks and balances: government including the PM report to Parliament. Before the 1920s, caucus selected their leader, and caucus could remove the leader at any time. It was changed to a leadership convention to give power to average party members. But all parties failed to create a means to remove the leader. This became glaringly evident with Mulroney. And the leader has authority to veto candidate selection, and authority to appoint candidates. The leader even has unilateral authority to kick MPs out of caucus. That has reversed accountability. The leader is supposed to be accountable to caucus, and the PM is supposed to be accountable to Parliament. But the way it is now, caucus members are accountable to the leader. Michael Chong introduced a bill to fix that while Harper was PM, but Parliament chose to gut it. The didn't have courage to rejected it, instead gutted it so it meant nothing, then passed that.

In 2008 when Stephen Harper tried to make a bill a confidence motion, before Parliament had sat since the election, he got himself in trouble. If Parliament votes non-confidence soon after an election, the GG is required to ask the leader of the official opposition if he/she can form a coalition that holds the confidence of the majority of Parliament. Stéphane Dion formed a coalition with the NDP, and the Block wasn't part of the coalition but signed a document stating they would not vote non-confidence in a Liberal/NDP government for 6 months. This was clear cut to remove Stephen Harper, make Stéphane Dion PM. But the GG didn't, instead chose to prorogue government. That removed the motion from the order paper to vote non-confidence. Opposition parties could have just introduced a new motion. The GG chose to prorogue Parliament not just for a day or a week, but months. Long enough that the Liberal/NDP coalition broke up. Liberal members hated the idea of a coalition with the NDP so much that they pressured Stéphane to resign the leadership. Party rules said they couldn't force him out, they had to convince him to quit. They did. That wouldn't have happened if the GG allowed Parliament to vote non-confidence in 2008.

This demonstrates the how reticent the GG is to remove a sitting PM. JT has done less than Harper did in 2008. Since Michaëlle Jean actively interfered to prevent Parliament from removing Harper, why would you think Julie Payette would take extraordinary action to remove JT?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.