# Damning report says Trudeau violated ethics act during SNC-Lavalin affair



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

OK

This is the CBC headline...
Damning report says Trudeau violated ethics act during SNC-Lavalin affair
Obviously Trudeau & his cronies are ethical...can they sue the CBC for libel? Such unfair timing as elections are coming. We need our Ethics Commissioner immediately replaced.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

There is already a pissing contest going on with deniers in another thread on this issue.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

It was shut down for being too leading.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Here's a link to the story, in case someone is confused by Eder's sarcasm

https://globalnews.ca/news/5764034/justin-trudeau-snc-lavalin-broke-ethics-rules/
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/08/14/key-quotes-from-the-ethics-report-on-trudeau.html
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-snc-ethics-commissioner-violated-code-1.5246551


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Just a Guy said:


> It was shut down for being too leading.


I guess I should not be surprised.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Trudeau says he doesn't agree with the report as he was only protecting jobs of hard working Canadians.

That's been proven wrong many times over, as those construction jobs would not have been lost.

He just won't take actual responsibility. There's simply no contrition.

ltr


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

like_to_retire said:


> He just won't take actual responsibility. There's simply no contrition.


'I take responsibility,' says Trudeau in wake of damning report on SNC-Lavalin ethics violation
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-snc-ethics-commissioner-violated-code-1.5246551


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

It is deflection tactics without substance, just like post #2 of the now closed thread. Taking responsibility with a caveat is pretty meaningless given his prior violations. There will likely be more of these sorts of things if he wins re-election.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Lets review:

Parliament passes law to prevent private companies from using bribery, graft and corruption to make deals.

SNC Lavalin uses bribery, graft and corruption to make deals.

Threatened with exposure and prosecution, SNC Lavalin asks their buddy Justin Trudeau to pull a few strings and make the charges go away.

Justin Trudeau puts the pressure on the Justice Department to make the charges go away.

The whole affair blows up in his face.

Now all of a sudden it's about 'lost jobs' and 'he said - she said'. That's called putting the spin on it and it looks like they will get away with it. Nobody will go to jail and in 6 months the whole thing will be forgotten.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

To be fair, as the originator of the initial post I think it was very leading.

I'm not in full agreement that it was "partisan", beyond my suggestion that Liberals quite simply don't care if Trudeau behaves ethically.
Based on polling, I don't think they do.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trudeau is responsible for appointing an inept cabinet minister as the AG, (she also created the Huawei debacle) but it happens to many PMs.......as Harper demonstrated often.

The good news is he took charge and fought for Canadian jobs, even if she was willing to throw a Canadian company and jobs into the ditch.

Her "pal" found out it was all about JWR's quest to become the PM through a back door coup. It was never about "ethics" for JWR but about the job she demanded to keep.

How sad for Philpott to throw away a promising political future to support JWR. I bet she regrets it now.

If the Conservatives want to hold Canadian companies to a higher standard than their foreign competitors and throw jobs away......they can do that if they get elected.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

The ultimate hypocrite and virtue signaler. Ethical...not a chance. 

I accept the report and take full responsibility....but disagree with some of the findings.....Really? 

Never before have we had a PM so fervent to find as many wrongdoings by previous governments and apologize for them but then refuses to truly take responsiblity and apologize to Canadians for his own wrongdoings. Amazing........especially from the only PM I can ever recall that boasted that he would do politics differently, be more open and transparent etc etc. Truly shameful.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

sags said:


> Trudeau is responsible for appointing an inept cabinet minister as the AG, but it happens to many PMs.......as Harper demonstrated often.
> 
> The good news is he took charge and fought for Canadian jobs, even if she was willing to throw a Canadian company and jobs into the ditch.
> 
> ...


LOL.

Okay, so we have a PM who is unethical and incompetent. And a former AG who isn't either of those things. Great.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Incompetent is now defined as an AG that stands up to people doing illegal things. Can we all chip in and buy Sags a dictionary?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Incompetence is the Conservatives continuing to try to win the election with their "bad Justin.......bad, bad Justin" game plan even as they sink below the waves in the polls.

They need to come up with some policy that Canadians will support..........and pronto.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Incompetence is the Conservatives continuing to try to win the election with their "bad Justin.......bad, bad Justin" game plan even as they sink below the waves in the polls.
> 
> They need to come up with some policy that Canadians will support..........and pronto.


Absolutely.
But on what issue?The hardcore Liberals think political interference in a criminal trial is a GOOD THING.
I'm honestly doubting that anything will get the hardcore Trudeau Liberals to change their votes. How many ethics violations do we know of now?

The Democrats need better strategy than "orange man bad", and the Conservatives need a better strategy than "Justin Trudeau bad"


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

I thought MrMatt's initial thread was just fine. It is telling that the thread was shut down and locked so quickly. Talk about partisan.

_Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion found he violated the Conflict of Interest Act by trying to influence then-justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and get her to overrule a decision to not grant a deferred prosecution agreement to Quebec-based engineering firm SNC-Lavalin. 

"The evidence showed *there were many ways* in which Mr. Trudeau, either directly or through the actions of those under his direction, sought to influence the attorney general."

"The prime minister, directly and through his senior officials, used various means to exert influence over Ms. Wilson‑Raybould. The authority of the prime minister and *his office was used to circumvent, undermine and ultimately attempt to discredit* the decision of the director of public prosecutions as well as the authority of Ms. Wilson‑Raybould as the Crown's chief law officer," Dion said.

Dion found Trudeau contravened Section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act through a series of "*flagrant attempts to influence*" Wilson‑Raybould to reach an agreement with SNC-Lavalin to avoid criminal prosecution. _

This is the same d^ck that just brought Butt back on the payroll. No problem with that either. Trudeau's caveated response, accepting responsibility but not accepting responsibility, just further confirms what a narcissistic, entitled p.o.s. he is. Not all that different from Trump in the end.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

100% correct OMO on the thread and partisan, and on our not so honourable PM.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I agree the lock up of the thread was highly partisan but we probably knew that could happen. We also knew that Sags and likely others would now try their very best to deflect the dialogue and introduce non-relevant material. With that kind of blatant bull crap, another useless thread


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

So Trudeau did lobby too hard, but it was for good reasons so voters have already forgiven the minor indiscretion.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> I agree the lock up of the thread was highly partisan but we probably knew that could happen. We also knew that Sags and likely others would now try their very best to deflect the dialogue and introduce non-relevant material. With that kind of blatant bull crap, another useless thread


You are absolutely right on all counts.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Sags, I surely hope you don't really believe what you write most of the time. That is a truly scary thought.

I sincerely think it is simply time to refrain from digging your hole deeper and deeper. You have no ground to stand on in this matter. Time to bow out.....


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> So Trudeau did lobby too hard, but it was for good reasons so voters have already forgiven the minor indiscretion.


Interference with a criminal trial isn't a minor indiscretion. It's a serious problem of ethics. 

FFS, he has a majority government. He could have simply passed a law saying it is okay for Quebec companies to bribe people.


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

Sags.....please.....please....pretty please...refrain from this kind of dribble. The grown ups are trying to have a conversation here


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

What would Scheer have done ?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

fstamand said:


> What would Scheer have done ?


It is not relevant. He is not he PM. What you say is typical partisan tactics, try to deflect to an imaginary situation that cannot exist. We have to wait until PM Scheer potentially screws up in a similar matter.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

It’s funny how people think this is a partisan issue. “You’re just picking on Justin because he’s liberal”. I’d like to think most rational people would be against criminal behaviour no matter what political party was involved. Has Sheer committee a breach of ethics and been caught? Did he accept a paid vacation against the rules? Did the Green Party? Did the ndp?

No, none of them did. Does Justin even realize he did something wrong? No, he acts like Trump. Last I checked, trump was conservative, yet half the country is calling for his impeachment. 

Unethical, illegal, and immoral behaviour used to be punished in politics. I remember when people resigned their positions because a family member did something wrong. People generally agree politicians are getting worse as the years go by, maybe it’s because we don’t just allow this behaviour, we actively defend it as “good for the country”. 

One should watch the last episode of years and years. The grandmother‘s monologue is really good. The final scene with the prime minister was scary considering the new British prime minister who was elected after the show was produced.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

And how many scandals have Scheer's master achieved? Harper did a lot worse for Canada IMO. And I hate trudeau as much as the other guy.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I question anyone who is so fussed about Trudeau pulling strings for powerful friends, yet have zero issue with the Trump dog and pony show. Almost as if positions on these ethical issues are driven by ideological affiliation.


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

over time I have come to distrust all politicians...... 

Trudeau got caught and should pay a price.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Harper was voted out. So what’s the problem? People have to stop living in the past as if it’s a current event. Harper hasn’t committed any ethical issues, lied publicly to Canadians or anything else in 4 years, time to get over it. He’s not in power anymore...unlike Trudeau.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I question anyone who is so fussed about Trudeau pulling strings for powerful friends, yet have zero issue with the Trump dog and pony show. Almost as if positions on these ethical issues are driven by ideological affiliation.


This thread is about the current PM breaking the law in a country we hope is a lot more civilized than the cesspool down south. Save the Trump **** for a thread about how America is (will be) flaming out Roman empire style. We should all be disturbed about that gong show.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

One overlooked nuance is that Trudeau can do this. It is effort to make others influence that violates the principles of our democracy. For that he was found guilty.

Also the hacks are acting as expected. Give it a rest guys! No more pedestal for sags et al to defend the PM.

And paying Butts severance of $600k plus and the rehiring him! Let's shut down this thread right now?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Just a Guy said:


> It’s funny how people think this is a partisan issue. “You’re just picking on Justin because he’s liberal”. I’d like to think most rational people would be against criminal behaviour no matter what political party was involved. Has Sheer committee a breach of ethics and been caught? Did he accept a paid vacation against the rules? Did the Green Party? Did the ndp?
> 
> No, none of them did. Does Justin even realize he did something wrong? No, he acts like Trump. Last I checked, trump was conservative, yet half the country is calling for his impeachment.
> 
> ...


It's the other way around. When you elect a Liberal you expect a payola scandal in Quebec. I'm only surprised it took this long. No wonder the libs think Trudeau did nothing wrong, to them this is politics as usual.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> Harper was voted out. So what’s the problem? People have to stop living in the past as if it’s a current event. Harper hasn’t committed any ethical issues, lied publicly to Canadians or anything else in 4 years, time to get over it. He’s not in power anymore...unlike Trudeau.


Harper offered to buy a dying MP's vote. Just one example, and one I would put on par with pulling strings for a powerful company.

This isn't illegal. It is inappropriate, unseemly, etc. As others have said, politicians aren't angels and we would be foolish to throw one lot out expecting the next lot to be different. Therefore, it is naive to use this as a deciding factor in voting, to the exclusion of policy questions. I'm personally more annoyed with broken promises on things like electoral reform, which are at the end of the day more consequential.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canadians will decide if it matters at all, and so far it isn't looking like it does.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Liberals fell in the polls when the scandal broke. After things got sorted out and the revelations came out about the AG, the poll numbers reversed and Trudeau gained it back.

Conservatives are flogging an old blanket on this issue. Time to move on to something people actually care about.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Sags, just finish eating your crow like a good senior should.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

JWR was told by 2 Supreme Court judges that she had the authority to intervene in the SNC case and defer it to the DPA.

She admitted that she didn't even read their reports. She had her own agenda and didn't care what the damage would be from a criminal trial.

It is also revealed that she was already on shaky ground for showing a lack of judgement on other matters.

The reality is JWR wasn't competent and shouldn't have been appointed to the cabinet. That was the real mistake made by Trudeau.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-snc-ethics-commissioner-violated-code-1.5246551


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Sags, just finish eating your crow like a good senior should.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Andrew, get over Harper, he’s gone, has been for 4 years. He did bad things, got defeated. Now concentrate on today, we have a guy doing bad things, he needs to go. If Scheer wins and does bad things, he needs to go too.

No one cares, or can do anything about John A. McDonald either, we don’t complain about him anymore, so give up on Harper, he’s history. Worry about the present, get over your political bias and do what’s right for the country. Giving people who do the wrong thing a pass, it not the right thing to do, it leads to people like Trump. 

Can you imagine how bad the next guy is going to be if we give these people a pass???


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Did you miss the rest of my post? If Sheer is just going to do with Trudeau has done, then the rational thing to do is vote based on expected policy outcome differences.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

I think it has to be kept in mind that the ethics commissioner had access to much more information than any of us do (including some information from cabinet meetings although the Liberals were not always cooperative in this regard) and found a breach of ethics. Not sure why some, who don't have access to such information would have the arrogance to say that there was no ethics breach.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

heck, anyone who watched it and wasn't a liberal shill could see there was a breach of ethics. You didn’t need more information, it was very obvious. Of course, you probably needed to understand the definition of ethics and breach which is beyond some.

So Andrew, you’re assuming Sheer may do something, so he’s already guilty. You know what happens when you assume right? Let’s re-elect the guy we know will and has done it, much better idea.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Did you miss the rest of my post? If Sheer is just going to do with Trudeau has done, then the rational thing to do is vote based on expected policy outcome differences.


The deed has to be done first. C'mon Andrew, be rational. When a bum screws up, throw him/her out. Next up gets the same treatment. What we should be doing is throwing the bums out every 4 years until they start recognizing they can't keep abusing their electorate. Only when politicians recognize they have to walk the talk, will they start to be more responsible for their behaviours.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Probably best to keep minority governments to limit the damage of an elected dictatorship.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The Liberals fell in the polls when the scandal broke. After things got sorted out and the revelations came out about the AG, the poll numbers reversed and Trudeau gained it back.
> 
> Conservatives are flogging an old blanket on this issue. Time to move on to something people actually care about.


I agree. Liberal voters don't care if Trudeau is a criminal or not, they assume that everyone is a slimy POS like them.

Swing voters don't see to have a big problem with ethics, so we need another issue.

Conservative voters are very concerned with ethics, if we loose trust in the system we have a BIG problem.

The other thing is with so many people employed by the government, a LOT of people are holding their noses and voting for their government jobs.
Liberal governments rain money on government staff and unions. 
Some people will say screw ethics if it means I get a bigger paycheck.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canadians heard the evidence and decided the AG should have referred the matter to the DPA.

Two retired Supreme Court judges advised the AG she could do so, but she didn't read their reports and refused to consult with anyone.

She wanted SNC Lavalin to go to a criminal court and that was that. It appeared to be a personal grudge with her with the DPA or company.

Trudeau lobbied hard to keep Canadian jobs and Canadians respect that. The commissioner said he lobbied too hard and it was unethical to do so.

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer refusing to say what he would do in the same circumstances raises red flags for voters.

Canadians have decided that Trudeau was perhaps too passionate about doing the right thing, and don't care what anyone else says.

This is my view but it appears to be supported by the most current polls.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Quebec reporter Chantal Hebert said that by taking Trudeau and SNC Lavalin employees to task over his lobbying for jobs, Singh actually handed more seats to the Liberals in Quebec.

In an odd twist of fate, the Liberal seat count may actually have gone up after the commissioners report, due to the reaction by the opposition.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I believe that the PM should resign. IF he does not it will leave me in a conundrum in October since I cannot bring myself to vote for Andrew Scheer.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Canadians heard the evidence and decided the AG should have referred the matter to the DPA.
> 
> Two retired Supreme Court judges advised the AG she could do so, but she didn't read their reports and refused to consult with anyone.
> 
> ...


The Prosecutors office decided there was reasonable chance of conviction.
The AG didn't overrule them.

Trudeau pushed hard, going as far as recruiting former judges, his staff, other ministers, and non-partisan bureaucrats to apply pressure on the AG.

Trudeau doesn't believe criminal law applies to him, or people like him, or pretty much anyone as far as I can tell.

To be fair, this is a common nihilistic attitude, everything sucks and the foundations of our society aren't important.
Laws exist for other people, but we should be able to act how we wish.


As far as lobbying hard to keep Canadian jobs, this isn't a legal reason to lobby.
From the criminal code https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html 
Remediation agreements.
"the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest,"

That's the crazy part, the Liberals could have changed the law, however they simply chose to break it instead.

I'm not arguing that it is wrong for the PM to advocate for jobs. I'm arguing it's wrong for the PM to break the law.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Liberals already changed the law to allow for the DPA.

The prosecutor cannot consider national economic interests, which is why it is the AG who makes the ultimate decision on such matters.

The prosecutor decides if there is evidence to prosecute. They don't decide that prosecution is the best solution. That is the AG's responsibility.

If the AG had referred the matter to the DPA, it would not have been in any conflict of interest with the prosecutor's office.

This AG refused to even consider a referral, or even recognize the existence of the DPA. She failed in her duty to consider all available options.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Even today, JWR refuses to acknowledge that she had any obligation to seek counsel from anyone else for any reason. 

She was setting herself up to be the sole decision maker regarding justice in Canada. 

Her last order before leaving the justice cabinet post was for all government legal defense against indigenous lawsuits halt immediately. 

A lot of people believe her interests weren't aligned entirely with the government of Canada ?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Even today, JWR refuses to acknowledge that she had any obligation to seek counsel from anyone else for any reason.
> 
> She was setting herself up to be the sole decision maker regarding justice in Canada.
> 
> ...


Trudeau will never be held accountable. 
I just hope the next scandal pops in time for the election. It's going to be a doozy.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I believe that IF the Conservatives had a decent leader and IF the party was not so internally divided, the Conservatives would have a much better chance of success in October.

There is still a great deal of resentment inside factions of the Party over the disaster from last election. They had it in the bag at the start of the campaign. according to the polls. That projected slim majority was whittled away to a minority and then, after the Barbaric Practices Hotline fiasco, a defeat. Not one seat in Atlantic Canada plus a fatal loss in all but one of Canada's largest cities. 

The experienced Conservative election pros were apparently brushed aside by Harper's brain trust. This is still a two group Party...the red Tories and the Reformers. You can see it in the tepid announcements by Scheer. He wants to please the voters and both groups in his own party. Scheer seems more like a puppet than a leader to me.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

sags said:


> Canadians heard the evidence and decided the AG should have referred the matter to the DPA.
> 
> Two retired Supreme Court judges advised the AG she could do so, but she didn't read their reports and refused to consult with anyone.
> 
> ...





> The Liberals already changed the law to allow for the DPA.
> 
> The prosecutor cannot consider national economic interests, which is why it is the AG who makes the ultimate decision on such matters.
> 
> ...





> Even today, JWR refuses to acknowledge that she had any obligation to seek counsel from anyone else for any reason.
> 
> She was setting herself up to be the sole decision maker regarding justice in Canada.
> 
> ...


With apologies to OMO for using his line. 



> Sags, just finish eating your crow like a good senior should.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

ian said:


> I believe that IF the Conservatives had a decent leader and IF the party was not so internally divided, the Conservatives would have a much better chance of success in October.
> 
> There is still a great deal of resentment inside factions of the Party over the disaster from last election. They had it in the bag at the start of the campaign. according to the polls. That projected slim majority was whittled away to a minority and then, after the Barbaric Practices Hotline fiasco, a defeat. Not one seat in Atlantic Canada plus a fatal loss in all but one of Canada's largest cities.
> 
> The experienced Conservative election pros were apparently brushed aside by Harper's brain trust. This is still a two group Party...the red Tories and the Reformers. You can see it in the tepid announcements by Scheer. He wants to please the voters and both groups in his own party. Scheer seems more like a puppet than a leader to me.


I'm inclined to agree. It's disappointing as I've posted before because right now is a time the country needs a lot better than it has.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

As one pundit put it.......the October election is not a referendum on Trudeau. It is a choice between Trudeau and Scheer.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

sags said:


> The Liberals already changed the law to allow for the DPA.


Under the strong lobbying of SNC and others, it was fast tracked and attached to the budget omnibus bill of early 2018. There was a deliberate attempt to put this in place specifically for the SNC Lavalin case. Read the specifics, Sags, and not cherry pick. A change in law like that should have been under its own Bill and debated separately in Parliament. 

Yet more stink emanating from the PMO.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Would Conservatives apply the same legal standards to oil companies .....or just the Quebec company ?

I doubt it would be difficult to dig up some cases of oil companies breaching foreign laws or offering bribes somewhere in the world.

In fact, oil companies refusing to fund the clean up of abandoned oil wells in Alberta might even qualify.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

sags said:


> Would Conservatives apply the same legal standards to oil companies .....or just the Quebec company ?
> 
> I doubt it would be difficult to dig up some cases of oil companies breaching foreign laws or offering bribes somewhere in the world.


There you go again. More intentional deflection and deception from the specific content of this thread. What the Cons may have done is of no relevance until/if they have done something. Start a new thread when the Cons are in power and have done something slimy.

The reality here is the Liberals deliberately accelerated DPA legislative changes to fit their conundrum by slipping it into the budget omnibus bill. If that isn't slimy, then what is?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> Under the strong lobbying of SNC and others, it was fast tracked and attached to the budget omnibus bill of early 2018. There was a deliberate attempt to put this in place specifically for the SNC Lavalin case. Read the specifics, Sags, and not cherry pick. A change in law like that should have been under its own Bill and debated separately in Parliament.
> 
> Yet more stink emanating from the PMO.


The thing is they changed the law to allow DPA, but failed to change it enough to apply to SNC.
It's blatant incompetence.

Now the real question is what issue will get swing votes?
Lack of Liberal Ethics aren't enough of a problem. 


Regarding oil wells in Alberta, which companies aren't cleaning up their wells? 
AFAIK the problem is companies went bankrupt without covering the cost of cleanup.
This is the end game for Ontario windmills by the way, nobody is thinking about cleanup.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm certainly not happy about the report, but I still think Trudeau's actions were within the bounds of what's reasonable.

I do not view Harper as being any more ethical. Sometimes it's just a matter of luck what ends up getting pursued. Harper for example directly took instructions from the oil & gas industry, a deep level of corruption and lobbying power in politics that he was never punished for. He should have been pursued for these wrongs (and many others), but it never happened.

I view Trudeau as more honest and ethical than Harper was. He may have been a bit heavy handed on this one, but on the balance of pros vs cons I think Trudeau has proved to be an excellent leader.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

So, your logic is, as long as someone else is unethical, corrupt, commits illegal acts, etc. It’s alright. Let’s not hold anyone up to a higher standard. 

We certainly do get the government we deserve thanks to Jr. Sags, Sags, Humble...

I guess, at least now, you can all stop complaining about corrupt CEOs, since there are a bunch of corrupt CEOs that makes it okay. Of course we know hypocrisy when we see it. I’m sure it’s all Harper’s Fault. Keep living in the past.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

For the known Liberal fans on here please do some critical thinking instead of trying deflect blame or responsibility for the misdeeds of this Prime Minister, which is what this thread is about. Take off the rose coloured glasses and put down the Liberal KoolAid you're drunk on. 

This is an extremely important issue that goes to the very heart of trust in our leader, his government, and the separation/independence of law and political interference amongst other important factors. 

This isn't about JWR or Harper. It's about a PM who has breached ethical conflict of interest rules. His government has been investigated 5 times in 3+ years by the ethics commissioner in the 13 years of the existence of the new rules. 3 of his ministers were cleared and he has been twice found to have broken conflict of interest rules and acted unethically. Read the important text of the report. In the previous 10 years this has not happened before. He is now also a proven LIAR saying the GLOBE story was false On Feb 7 when it is a fact he knew it wasn't. 

It's incredible this is the same man who ad nauseum boasted and virtue signaled he would do politics differently- be open, honest and transparent. He has proven to any objective Canadian including the ethics commissioner this is simply not true. He hasn't been honest, open, or transparent and has demonstrated flagrant abuse of his office. 

He has been blatantly obstuctionist and misleading to the public and media. It took many months to get information from his office and for him to appear in the previous investigation. The ethics commissioner has not been allowed to complete his investigation since there are 9 other witnesses the new PCO for whatever partisan? reason won't allow to testify. 

It is also very revealing and disturbing that this PM can't and won't apologize to Canadians for his inappropriate behaviour (repeatedly), yet loves to apologize for previous government injustices to prop up his brand. He has tarnished his own reputation forever along with damaging the Liberal brand. He has embarrassed all of Canada with his shameful behaviour. It's amazing that he actually believes his own BS rhetoric about always doing what's right for Canadians. This type of behaviour demonstrates clearly he is not doing what is right. It's a terrible example for young and old citizens of this country. 

There is much more to be investigated about the relationship between this government and SNC, and the role or information related to other actors in this affair. Hopefully this will be done so Canadians can get the full picture. I'm betting it will get even uglier. 

No doubt there are many other unflattering pieces to this I haven't touched on. 

It's a sad day and speaks volumes that some people refuse to consider these facts and that there is something wrong here with the PM that should be troubling. IMO. devoting energy to deflecting, looking for scapegoats, suggesting whatabouts or excusing this behaviour as minor puts a person in some pretty ugly company. 

An excellent leader? Reasonable actions? Seriously?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

All of a sudden Conservatives are concerned about ethics ?...........LOL.

I remember when Rona Ambrose complained about Justin Trudeau's supposed breach of ethics on his vacation, while she called in from her friend's yacht in the Caribbean.

She had breached the ethics code by not reporting the "gifts" she received until after she got caught..........LOL.

Conservatives talk the talk but don't walk the walk. They are all hat and no cattle.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I think that Trudeau should resign.

But really, who actually believes that there is any difference in how ethically Liberals or the Conservatives act??? Comes down to my gang and your gang and your gang. It is all about gaining power and keeping power. Hardly a paper widths difference between the two when it come to that.

Having said that, I do not think that Scheer is anywhere near up to the challenge. Rona Ambrose would have been head and shoulders above Scheer, as would several other sitting Conservative MP's


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

James, like Sags, simply cannot stay 'on topic'. They have to willfully deflect and decept with extraneous 'what ifs' not germane to the topic. They simply don't get the irony of their own behaviours.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

What is the topic ? That Trudeau breached the ethics standard ? 

So he did......so what ? It isn't a crime. There is no penalty. He isn't going to resign over it.

The voters will decide in October. If that isn't acceptable to Conservatives........too bad.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Sags, try and stay up with us and on topic. This thread isn't about conservatives and you trying to deflect away from the misdeeds of this PM. Try as you might it won't ever repair how history will remember Trudeau and this scandal. Painting all conservatives with that brush, while ignoring a major issue like this is simply foolish and blind loyalty, something you demonstrate with abundance. 

Any responsible citizen or politician should be concerned about ethics regardless of political stripe. I don't condone unethical behaviour of any politician. That you do speaks volumes.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I agree this is not a criminal offence and agree it is up to voters to consider it in their decision making process this October.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> James, like Sags, simply cannot stay 'on topic'. They have to willfully deflect and decept with extraneous 'what ifs' not germane to the topic. They simply don't get the irony of their own behaviours.


Nothing ironic or off topic about it. I'm aware of the report, I've read a lot about the issue as it unfolded so I think I understand some of the nuances. The author of the report made his assessment, but I also make my own assessment based on the information I know.

In my assessment, it's not great that he overstepped, but it's also within the bounds of what is normal in politics. I referenced Harper as a data point for that, an example of serious corruption which never had a "report" written on it.

What's being forgotten in all this is that JWR had a personal beef. Much of her complaining and indignation was a platform to air her existing complaints of the core Liberal party, that had nothing to do with SNC. She was a bad team player, quite antagonistic towards her coworkers, even secretly recording private communications and taking them to the media.

Basically JWR stirred up trouble and noise over something that is _quite normal_ in politics. If Harper had hired anyone with her personality, we would have seen things like this blow up on him repeatedly as well. In other words, this only became an issue because JWR had an existing beef, and wanted to make an issue -- for her personal reasons.

*Harper was notoriously controlling and simply would not hire anyone with her demeanor, any kind of independent thinking. If Harper had hired JWR, there would be a report on him breaching ethics too*. Same for any PM.

I absolutely do not trust Scheer is to be more ethical than Trudeau, the very idea makes me laugh. The first thing he's going to do is allow the corporate energy lobby to overrule the best interests of Canadians -- corruption is baked into Scheer.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

To me the main thing is whether SNC Lavalin broke the law. It seems pretty clear they did, if they were innocent they wouldn't need pull to get off. It's like some guy sticking up a gas station then saying you can't arrest me, who would feed my family. You should have thought about that before you broke the law.
When they went to Trudeau to put the fix in he should have told them if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about, if you aren't don't expect me to save you and that would have been the end of it.
Now the Justice Minister is in **** for enforcing the law. Isn't that what the Justice Minister is supposed to do?
The rest is self serving bullshit.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

J4B, that you think you understand the nuances and information to make a better assessment than the ethics commissioner that was appointed by the PM is pretty funny and telling. Your blind faith Liberal loyalty and fettish on bringing up Harper all the time is so obviously clouding any chance you have of being objective. Most of us can easily see this. JWR didn't make Trudeau lie and be proven to operate unethically - twice in a few years. She didn't make him breach rules. He did that himself and directed others to follow his unscrupulous direction. Harper wasn't ever found in violation of ethics. Scheer hasn't been found to have done anything unethical. JWR hasn't been found to have done anything wrong by the ethics commissioner. 

Why don't you accept that your hero isn't the man he claimed he is, and the rest of the bull crap speculation you are raising is simply a desperate way to try to make yourself feel better about this whole thing.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

To be accurate.....JWR refused another cabinet post and demanded to keep her AG position, and then resigned from cabinet. 

It was revealed she secretly recorded conversations and she got the boot because nobody in caucus could trust her anymore.

She was the master of her own fate.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> To be accurate.....JWR refused another cabinet post and demanded to keep her AG position, and then resigned from cabinet.
> 
> It was revealed she secretly recorded conversations and she got the boot because nobody in caucus could trust her anymore.


Yeah, unbelievable. And then she tried inappropriately interfering with the person replacing her.


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

RBULL....had it right...thank God normal people can see the issue.....i enjoy reading.....sags...spread fairy dust over the pile of JT ****....trying to put lipstick on a pig can be indeed...challenging.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Hell hath no fury like a narcissist scorned and nobody can deny that Jody Wilson-Rayboud is all about herself.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> To be accurate.....JWR refused another cabinet post and demanded to keep her AG position, and then resigned from cabinet.
> 
> It was revealed she secretly recorded conversations and she got the boot because nobody in caucus could trust her anymore.
> 
> She was the master of her own fate.


To be fair, putting an aboriginal rights advocate in as the minister of aboriginal affairs was at best not well thought out, at worst, intentionally insulting.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Yes, JWR had an agenda, she stated it several times. She wanted the liberals to live up to their election promises to not be corrupt and to behave at a higher level of Ethics. 

Yes, she also didn’t want the new AG to kowtow to the PM and reverse her decision because it was unethical. If you just fire the person who’s not a yes man and replace them with a yes man why do we even need to position. JT should just fire everyone and just be a dictator. Maybe he can rival Amelda for the biggest shoe collection.

As for “secret” recordings, if you’re not doing anything wrong, why are you in fear? How do you win a he said, she said argument? It’s called proof. Of course, proving the liberals are corrupt is bad, only proving the conservatives are corrupt is allowed. Too bad that hasn’t happened.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Just a Guy said:


> Yes, JWR had an agenda, she stated it several times. She wanted the liberals to live up to their election promises to not be corrupt and to behave at a higher level of Ethics.
> 
> ...
> 
> As for “secret” recordings, if you’re not doing anything wrong, why are you in fear? How do you win a he said, she said argument? It’s called proof. Of course, proving the liberals are corrupt is bad, only proving the conservatives are corrupt is allowed. Too bad that hasn’t happened.


You're ridiculous JaG.

Make no mistake, the Conservative party would be in just as hot water with someone like JWR in there. You're really out of touch with reality if you think this about the Liberals and not about JWR's behaviour.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

sags said:


> To be accurate.....JWR refused another cabinet post and demanded to keep her AG position, and then resigned from cabinet.
> 
> It was revealed she secretly recorded conversations and she got the boot because nobody in caucus could trust her anymore.
> 
> She was the master of her own fate.





james4beach said:


> Yeah, unbelievable. And then she tried inappropriately interfering with the person replacing her.


What's unbelievable is that you can ignore the PM's inappropriate behaviour and then be shocked when a person appointed by your hero tapes a conversation that did no harm but to protect herself and prove the PM and his henchmen acted inappropriately. Caucus had no choice but to go along with the leaders decision since she wanted no part of their inappropriate tactics and lies. She couldn't trust them anymore and she was right.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

sags said:


> What is the topic ? That Trudeau breached the ethics standard ?
> 
> So he did......so what ?


I think your quote says quite a bit about your attitude. We have a PM who was determined to have been non-ethical by an independent, Liberal appointed ethics commissioner, who had access to evidence we are not privy to, and the response from Liberals is "So what?". This now the accepted standard for elected leaders? You are correct the voters will decide in October and sadly due to Sheer's incompetence Trudeau may be elected again.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Make no mistake, the Conservative party would be in just as hot water with someone like JWR in there..


But James, your statement appears to be saying that the Conservatives are just like the Liberals?

If so, why do you so dogmatically support the Liberals?

ltr


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

RBull said:


> What's unbelievable is that you can ignore the PM's inappropriate behaviour and then be shocked when a person appointed by your hero tapes a conversation that did no harm but to protect herself and prove the PM and his henchmen acted inappropriately. Caucus had no choice but to go along with the leaders decision since she wanted no part of their inappropriate tactics and lies. She couldn't trust them anymore and she was right.


I don't think you have a good read on JWR's character and what she did here. If she was working under Scheer or Harper, it would be the same result -- or worse.



like_to_retire said:


> If so, why do you so dogmatically support the Liberals?


I don't. I didn't even vote for Trudeau. I can just think independently and see things without deep rooted bias. I have voted for several of the major parties over the last few federal & provincial elections.

In my assessment, Trudeau has been a good PM.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Sags jr, I mean James. You seem to miss the point. I, unlike you, do not condone this behaviour by anyone. I don’t care if it’s liberal, conservatives, ndp or even your communist party. I think they should all be fired until we get some ethical, honest, leadership we can be proud of. 

I’m not willing to compromise, or forgive this type of crap. It’s getting worse every year because of people like you apologizing and trying to change history. Wake up and see how politicians are getting worse, not better.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Bombardier: we need a handout
Trudeau: sure thing

Loblaws: us too
Trudeau: no problemo

SNC-Lavalin: we need a law passed
Trudeau: consider it done

Veterans: we need help
Trudeau: that's more than we are able to give right now


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> I didn't even vote for Trudeau. I can just think independently and see things without deep rooted bias. I have voted for several of the major parties over the last few federal & provincial elections.
> 
> In my assessment, Trudeau has been a good PM.


The reason I take time to always respond to your posts is that you seem like such a smart guy.

In this case, I think you're wrong, and you should rethink your position.

This is not the guy you want to support.

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

So what........a parking ticket is more significant than this tiny boo boo. 

No crime....no foul....no resignation.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Andrew Scheer reminds me of one of those figures in a cuckoo clock that comes out from the back on a regular basis and says......resignation. investigation, resignation, investigation.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> Bombardier: we need a handout
> Trudeau: sure thing
> 
> Loblaws: us too
> ...


Convicted Terrorist: My family hates Canada, but I like money too!
Trudeau: Here's 10 million, but lets keep this quiet mkay?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Don’t forget, let’s get you the money fast so your victim’s wife, who won a judgement against you for a lot more and is having money problems raising her kid without a husband and his income can collect her rightful money.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Just a Guy said:


> Don’t forget, let’s get you the money fast so your victim’s wife, who won a judgement against you for a lot more and is having money problems raising her kid without a husband and his income can collect her rightful money.


Yup...Trudeau deliberately fast tracked payment of $10 million to a terrorist so that the a widow and child of the man he murdered couldn't collect what they were legally entitled to.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

james4beach said:


> I don't think you have a good read on JWR's character and what she did here. If she was working under Scheer or Harper, it would be the same result -- or worse.


To be clear I do not condone anything re anyone that is unethical. This thread is not about JWR. The PM chose her and now you are speculating about Scheer and Harper. Irrelevant. It misses the point I was making. You are shocked at her behaviour and completely ignore the inappropriate behaviour of the PM even calling him an excellent leader. Does this not seem like hypocrisy, similar to what we FREQUENTLY see from the PM himself? 





> I don't. I didn't even vote for Trudeau. I can just think independently and see things without deep rooted bias. I have voted for several of the major parties over the last few federal & provincial elections. In my assessment, Trudeau has been a good PM.





With respect James if that's true you'll be able to see that you yourself have one of the deepest rooted biases on this board. Why anyone with your smarts would brush off this scandal, all of the hypocrisy of this government and say he's an excellent leader is strange indeed. It is equally strange that you would think you have a better grasp of this issue than the ethics commissioner.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> The deed has to be done first. C'mon Andrew, be rational. When a bum screws up, throw him/her out. Next up gets the same treatment. What we should be doing is throwing the bums out every 4 years until they start recognizing they can't keep abusing their electorate. Only when politicians recognize they have to walk the talk, will they start to be more responsible for their behaviours.


So we should give Trudeau ten years before turfing him,like the last bum? Maybe the electorate should decide. I'm frankly of the opinion that this is just a middling scandal. Seems to me that he was been thoroughly punished for it. I am not willing to vote for Sheer on this consideration to the exclusion of all others. Sheer hasn't really said what he will do yet, but I'm sure there will be plenty of objectionable things there.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I agree. Liberal voters don't care if Trudeau is a criminal or not, they assume that everyone is a slimy POS like them.
> 
> Swing voters don't see to have a big problem with ethics, so we need another issue.
> 
> ...


Conservatives are only concerned by the transgressions of those who do not share their ideology. I can't take you seriously when you supported Harper and Trump. Your concern is not with any ethics breach.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Jody Wilson Rayboud and Jane Philpott were making the rounds on the news channels.

If one or both of them could just answer the questions as directly as they are asked by reporters, that would be a good thing.

People who tell the truth don't have to talk in circles the way these two always do.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Conservatives are more concerned about ethics??? Is this for real??? Not in my experience. Which Conservatives? The Harper Conservatives, the Ford Conservatives, or perhaps the Alberta Conservatives/UCP (currently under investigation by the ALberta Elections Commissioner and the RCMP). 

Was it ethics when Harper put Bruce Carson (67)on the payroll as a senior advisor and aide? At the time of his hire he was a disbarred lawyer who had been twice convicted of fraud. He was recently convicted of influence pedaling while working for Harper. Trying to funnel money through a company owned by his 22 year old girlfriend, a pole dancer/stripper from Hull. 

Politicians are much the same. They are most concerned about ethics when they are in opposition, and then only about the ethics of the party in power.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Ten pages into this thread and the partisan standoff continues... Lovely! Carry on McDuff with the boxing match.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

ian said:


> Conservatives are more concerned about ethics??? Is this for real??? Not in my experience. Which Conservatives? The Harper Conservatives, the Ford Conservatives, or perhaps the Alberta Conservatives/UCP (currently under investigation by the ALberta Elections Commissioner and the RCMP).
> 
> Was it ethics when Harper put Bruce Carson (67)on the payroll as a senior advisor and aide? At the time of his hire he was a disbarred lawyer who had been twice convicted of fraud. He was recently convicted of influence pedaling while working for Harper. Trying to funnel money through a company owned by his 22 year old girlfriend, a pole dancer/stripper from Hull.
> 
> Politicians are much the same. They are most concerned about ethics when they are in opposition, and then only about the ethics of the party in power.


Very true and all parties are wasting a lot of time on this kind of nonsense when they should be developing policies that improve Canadians lives.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

ian said:


> Conservatives are more concerned about ethics??? Is this for real??? Not in my experience. Which Conservatives? The Harper Conservatives, the Ford Conservatives, or perhaps the Alberta Conservatives/UCP (currently under investigation by the ALberta Elections Commissioner and the RCMP).
> 
> Was it ethics when Harper put Bruce Carson (67)on the payroll as a senior advisor and aide? At the time of his hire he was a disbarred lawyer who had been twice convicted of fraud. He was recently convicted of influence pedaling while working for Harper. Trying to funnel money through a company owned by his 22 year old girlfriend, a pole dancer/stripper from Hull.
> 
> Politicians are much the same. They are most concerned about ethics when they are in opposition, and then only about the ethics of the party in power.


I think that most (except extremely unreasonably, dogmatic types) would be able to question isolated actions of most politicians, including the ones they will be voting for. Inability of admitting any fault with your own political party is IMO something akin to a cult mentality. For example, I can name numerous faults with the Conservatives, whom I will support in the next election. (However, I don't know of the particulars of the instance you mention but it sounds like ancient history and therefore not very relevant to the current situation.) But please remind me, as I must have missed it and we want to be sure we are comparing "apples to apples" and not comparing partisan criticism to official independent findings - How many times has a Conservative been found to have breached ethics by the ethics commissioner, not once but twice?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Spidey said:


> I think that most (except extremely unreasonably, dogmatic types) would be able to question isolated actions of most politicians, including the ones they will be voting for. Inability of admitting any fault with your own political party is IMO something akin to a cult mentality. For example, I can name numerous faults with the Conservatives, whom I will support in the next election. (However, I don't know of the particulars of the instance you mention but it sounds like ancient history and therefore not very relevant to the current situation.) But please remind me, as I must have missed it and we want to be sure we are comparing "apples to apples" and not comparing partisan criticism to official independent findings - How many times has a Conservative been found to have breached ethics by the ethics commissioner, not once but twice?


The part that makes it even worse is that the investigator basically said likely goes beyond his official findings, but he was not given access to the documents.

Don't worry, I'm sure the PM will apply appropriate sanctions for this behaviour. Maybe a few more weekend surfing trips or something.


----------



## Karlhungus (Oct 4, 2013)

Im not sure how anyone can think Trudeau is a good leader with the amount of debt hes racked up while canada is enjoying its lowest unemployment rate in 40 years.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

During some of the best economic times ever. But we have discussed this many times. A fiscal travesty.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Then you must really be disappointed in Trump. US is running a much larger deficit despite better economic conditions than Canada.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

^Why the deflections away from the issues at hand and thread topic. 

For me, yes, Trump is a travesty in countless ways including deficits. But that's not relevant to this thread.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Spidey said:


> I think that most (except extremely unreasonably, dogmatic types) would be able to question isolated actions of most politicians, including the ones they will be voting for. Inability of admitting any fault with your own political party is IMO something akin to a cult mentality. For example, I can name numerous faults with the Conservatives, whom I will support in the next election. (However, I don't know of the particulars of the instance you mention but it sounds like ancient history and therefore not very relevant to the current situation.) But please remind me, as I must have missed it and we want to be sure we are comparing "apples to apples" and not comparing partisan criticism to official independent findings - How many times has a Conservative been found to have breached ethics by the ethics commissioner, not once but twice?


I couldn't say it better. Exactly how I see it. 



MrMatt said:


> The part that makes it even worse is that the investigator basically said likely goes beyond his official findings, but he was not given access to the documents.
> 
> Don't worry, I'm sure the PM will apply appropriate sanctions for this behaviour. Maybe a few more weekend surfing trips or something.


 Yes, documents and witnesses. Open and transparent. Not. 



Karlhungus said:


> Im not sure how anyone can think Trudeau is a good leader with the amount of debt hes racked up while canada is enjoying its lowest unemployment rate in 40 years.


A good question. One that we'll never see a good answer from a Trudeau supporter. The price will be paid after he's long gone, like his father. 



AltaRed said:


> During some of the best economic times ever. But we have discussed this many times. A fiscal travesty.


Yes, amazing. These are indeed strange times when debt is never considered in the scorecard.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

RBull said:


> ^Why the deflections away from the issues at hand and thread topic.
> 
> For me, yes, Trump is a travesty in countless ways including deficits. But that's not relevant to this thread.


One group is accusing others of hypocrisy. Trudeau is not as bad or worse than what has been done in the past. All the righteous indignation that voters have no choice but to show him the door regardless of who they would be ushering in in his place is just insincere bluster.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

RBull said:


> A good question. One that we'll never see a good answer from a Trudeau supporter. The price will be paid after he's long gone, like his father.


Almost as bad as the price we are paying for Harper, who added $200B to the debt.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It could be debated that Canada's "good" economy is due at least in part to the spending of the Liberal government.

Increasing child benefits, GIS benefits, infrastructure spending is money that goes directly into the economy. 

It is well documented that properly targeted government spending has a positive economic effect.

No further proof is needed than the small bumps in GDP that follow a government benefit sent to Canadians. 

This is visible on the 3rd business day before the end of the month when the government benefits are issued. There is noticeable increase in local economic activity in the banks and shops.

The Canadian budget was on the verge of a surplus due to increased revenues, but the Liberals decided to spend the extra money to further spur the economy along.

I have every confidence that Finance Minister Bill Morneau knows what he is doing and has access to the finest economists in the world.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Trudeau Liberals have spent the last 4 years implementing their pledges to Canadians.

They increased child benefits, returned the OAS to age 65, restored funding to areas cut by the Harper government, expanded the CPP, increased the GIS, eliminated 1 week of waiting time to collect EI, restored pensions to military veterans and many other economic measures. They increased revenues by taxing marijuana.

They added some debt implementing their plan, but are now in a position to let the economy grow to create a surplus to begin paying down the debt.

Remember it was the last Liberal government who balanced the budget and paid down debt. They know how to do it and the plan is underway for the next 4 years.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Almost as bad as the price we are paying for Harper, who added $200B to the debt.


That wasn't good but necessary as we both know. Different times. Your favored party lobbied to have it much higher. 

That kind of response that you always trot out is foolish and exposes your bias. The deflection might work with your cronies but not with the rest of us.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

andrewf said:


> One group is accusing others of hypocrisy. Trudeau is not as bad or worse than what has been done in the past. All the righteous indignation that voters have no choice but to show him the door regardless of who they would be ushering in in his place is just insincere bluster.


Never before have we seen such hypocrisy. There are many instances of this. How'd you like his water bottle plastic response? Have we ever before seen a PM display such hypocrisy and awkwardness when he's asked a simple question on his pet project no less. 

The insincere bluster is what you're writing. Refusing to see what's right there in front of you.

I see you managed to avoid answering my question as well.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A Conservative pundit on CBC said they are going to make the election a "referendum on Trudeau" .

That would be in place of a choice between Trudeau and Scheer based on policy.

It isn't a surprising election tactic since all the Conservatives can muster is to complain about Trudeau this and Trudeau that.

Why don't they develop some solid election policies like the Liberals do and let Canadians decide ?

If the Conservatives continue this path the election is already over and Trudeau will have an even bigger majority.

The Conservatives will only have themselves to blame.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Sags, you have already established yourself as someone who emphatically does not care about ethics or moral compass. So any further comments are a waste of time.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

andrewf said:


> All the righteous indignation that voters have no choice but to show him [Trudeau] the door regardless of who they would be ushering in in his place is just insincere bluster.




it certainly is bluster, backed by the usual reservoirs of irrational rage from the usual suspects.

commissioner Dion is following a path used by some, but by no means all canadians. He has arrived to the conclusion that the public prosecutor/attorney general paired combo are supreme dictators whose edicts cannot be questioned.

this bizarre conclusion is partly the result of a harper action more than a decade ago, which severed the duties of the public prosecutor, now a public servant, from the duties of the minister of justice/attorney general, now as always a political member of an elected cabinet.

not that my opinion counts for anything, but where i think things went wrong was the manner in which the DPA legislation was introduced & made its way through parliament into canadian statutes. There was no discussion & IMHO there should have been mucho discussion.

one can excuse trudeau by saying that in 2018 he was overburdened with NAFTA & keeping the balance with the impossible tyrant in the white house. But i for one would not excuse him on those counts. What was happening in the obscurity was nothing less than the creation of a new legal framework for straightening out corporations that do wrong. 

IMHO the prime minister & the cabinet members had an obligation, not only to discuss the creation process in detail in cabinet session, but also to encourage at least a degree of media transparency. Thus canadians who were interested could have had a say.

many if not most other western nations already have these alternative justice systems. Germany, great britain, france, the USA, other european countries all have such justice systems. The OECD in fact encouraged these justice systems more than 20 years ago, because it saw a way in which multinational corporations worldwide could be stopped from unwanted conduct, including foreign bribes.


* * * * *


when the SNC/JWR story broke earlier this year, various legal experts including one dean of criminal law wrote opinion pieces in major media saying that, far from keeping the charges against SNC secret & far from allowing an attorney general to dictate her rigid decision with no backup, the exact opposite should have been the case.

western legal systems are based on full discussion & debate before a carefully listening judiciary, the dean wrote. He pointed out that judges in democracies - contrary to acting like despots - welcome & value the array of often-conflicting arguments which attorneys are invited to voice before them.

some micro-version of proper legal discussion should have happened in the canadian cabinet long before jody wilson-raybould's final temper tantrums. What i do blame trudeau for is letting his minister of justice get away with outrageous tyrannical behaviour for so long (there were several other issues in which JWR tried to "rule" as stubbornly as a pit bull, including the manitoba court of queen's bench situation)

the situation now is that the DPA legislation exists but there has never been any proper discussion as to how it should be implemented. How will an alternative system of corporate punishment work? who will decide? what penalties are to be put in place? most importantly of all, what measures will be called for that will prevent future wrongdoing?

canada did not work through any of these issues with the SNC Lavalin case but instead allowed a Red Queen justice minister ("off with your head") to abort the neonate legislation. Right now the country is no further ahead. Proper discussion still has to take place, discussion in which deans of law schools, former justice ministers, eminent criminal lawyers, sitting cabinet members, certainly the prime minister, even editorial writers for major media, should & undoubtedly will have many important things to say.


* * * * *


here in cmf forum, we saw only the barest hint of the "homework" discussion that has to take place over DPA eligibility when kcowan posted that an erring company should be required to publicly admit its wrongdoing in writing.

but kcowan's call is only the tiniest tip of the iceberg, IMHO. Canada could benefit from an alternative self-correcting form of justice for her big corporations, in the same way that many service sectors such as medicine, finance & law do self-regulate themselves.

successful self-regulation under DPA legislation would save the country millions of $$ in wasted public prosecution cases that drag on through appeal after appeal for decades, all entirely at taxpayer expense (one of the truly unnerving facts that came out of the initial SNC stories was the fact that the public prosecution service is not capable of prosecuting its own cases. It "decides" that there has to be prosecution, but then hires commercial attorneys to carry out the actual litigation) (a bloated loss of taxpayers' $$ imho)

but the new system needs to be properly created, with at least some public transparency. What constructive ideas, for example, would canada's biggest companies be able to offer? many of them already have auto-correcting ethical systems in place; undoubtedly they would have a lot of valuable knowledge to share, if only there were some degree of public & cabinet discussion.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I would also add that a lot of people and critics are assuming the prosecution will prove it's case against SNC Lavalin.

What if it does not ? What if the verdict is not guilty ? Would Canada owe SNC Lavalin an apology and damages because of a decision made solely by Jody Wilson Rayboud ?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Sags, you have already established yourself as someone who emphatically does not care about ethics or moral compass. So any further comments are a waste of time.



you are of course only speaking for yourself, no?

onlyMO you can easily arrange not to "waste" your own personal time by simply not reading sags' posts

it is monotonous & somewhat pitiful how the far rights in the forum keep on trying to shut up points of view that differ from their own


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Sags, you have already established yourself as someone who emphatically does not care about ethics or moral compass. So any further comments are a waste of time.


That's a rather rude thing to say to someone.

Just because someone doesn't share your outrage about the Ethics Commissioner's findings doesn't mean they don't have morality.

By the way, the Ethics Commissioner is a new role that has only existed since 2008. It has only ever existed under two governments: Harper & Trudeau. They are still figuring out their mandate and there is very little (actually just about no precedent) for the kinds of decision they're making.

I know that you conservatives and Trudeau-haters just loved jumping on this, but I think you should spend a little bit more time thinking about the broad situation.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Almost as bad as the price we are paying for Harper, who added $200B to the debt.


And you know full well why that was. The financial crisis. The budget would have been balanced by 2016. Can you imagine what the Liberals would have done? Your statement is so old, so tired, and so blatant at data mining that it destroys your credibility. The Libs have no real plan to balance the budget for about a generation to come. 

As for your drive by on Trump (which has nothing to do with this thread), I also think he and his Republican sheep are a travesty as well.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Conservatives can't have it both ways.

They complain the GM bailout cost Canadian taxpayers and then they claim Harper almost balanced the budget after he sold the GM shares for $3.3 billion and locked in the losses.

Had the GM shares not been sold they would be worth much more today in share price and US/CAD exchange rates.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ge...-sells-remaining-stake-in-automaker-1.3022822


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

ian said:


> Conservatives are more concerned about ethics??? Is this for real??? Not in my experience. Which Conservatives? The Harper Conservatives, the Ford Conservatives, or perhaps the Alberta Conservatives/UCP (currently under investigation by the ALberta Elections Commissioner and the RCMP).
> 
> Was it ethics when Harper put Bruce Carson (67)on the payroll as a senior advisor and aide? At the time of his hire he was a disbarred lawyer who had been twice convicted of fraud. He was recently convicted of influence pedaling while working for Harper. Trying to funnel money through a company owned by his 22 year old girlfriend, a pole dancer/stripper from Hull.
> 
> Politicians are much the same. They are most concerned about ethics when they are in opposition, and then only about the ethics of the party in power.


Making a bad hiring decision is not unethical. If the person you hire turns out to be unethical, it does not make you unethical.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Conservatives also want the corporate lobbyists (oil & gas industry) to determine policy, regulations and taxation!

Talk about immorality and corruption. Do the Conservatives and Scheer have no shame at all?

Guys like Harper and Scheer have tried to normalize this unethical behaviour... but corporations determining national policies is outright corruption, in my view. Yes the Liberals have had ethics violations but in my view the Conservatives go far above and beyond.

Harper was by far one of the most unethical leaders this country has had for a long time. And yes, I realize that the Ethics Commissioner he created in 2008 didn't "catch" him for it. It was a very new office, and Harper ruled with an iron fist.

Of course, in the view of the various Albertans / conservatives on this board, corruption and serving the energy lobby is OK but trying to defend another company like SNC is outrageous... lol


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

RBull said:


> That wasn't good but necessary as we both know. Different times. Your favored party lobbied to have it much higher.
> 
> That kind of response that you always trot out is foolish and exposes your bias. The deflection might work with your cronies but not with the rest of us.


Cutting the GST by 2 points created pretty much the entire accumulated deficit Harper added. It was not necessary or unavoidable. He decided to make Canada live beyond its means and all that. It can't be correct to say that Trudeau has caused an economic catastrophe by adding considerably less debt than Harper, which you claim was necessary. My point with this exercise is to demonstrate that most people have no sense of scale when it comes to debts/deficits. The same people who think that Trudeau's deficits are massive and catastrophic think Harper's deficits were reasonable, manageable and appropriate. Most people probably couldn't tell you the current size of the debt, or how much each PM contributed to it under their tenure. People are generally really bad with numbers.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I agree cutting the GST was really stupid but you also know the deficits in 2008-2012 period as a minimum were necessary to keep money moving in the economy. Recessions devastate revenues and increases costs. Just like Republicans in the USA, it is a travesty to blame both the Democrat and Conservative administrations of the time for the size of the deficits.

Seems neither the Cons nor the Libs have the balls to restore GST back to 7%, or at least 6%. I am a strong fiscal conservative and that is where my allegiances lie. Restore GST and balance the budget. Been consistent on that for decades.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Anyone who actually spends any time studying and comprehending the numbers themselves will see that Canada's fiscal and economic situation is quite good, compared to our closest peers (industrialized nations or G8).

This stuff about "catastrophic" deficits just comes from highly partisan, Conservative media outlets. They blast the message through outlets that reach the common man, which is how you get average Canadians parroting "Trudeau's big deficits" and other Conservative talking points.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> I agree cutting the GST was really stupid but you also know the deficits in 2008-2012 period as a minimum were necessary to keep money moving in the economy. Recessions devastate revenues and increases costs. Just like Republicans in the USA, it is a travesty to blame both the Democrat and Conservative administrations of the time for the size of the deficits.
> 
> Seems neither the Cons nor the Libs have the balls to restore GST back to 7%, or at least 6%. I am a strong fiscal conservative and that is where my allegiances lie. Restore GST and balance the budget. Been consistent on that for decades.


Yeah, I agree on the GST move - dumb. 

And of course the 2008 time-frame was special and Harper had to do what he did - thank goodness. No question about his moves during that crisis, but it adds false ammunition for Liberal supporters to slag him today.

Personally, on the same topic of goofy moves was the Liberals changing the OAS age back to 65. Stupid.

ltr


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

like_to_retire said:


> And of course the 2008 time-frame was special and Harper had to do what he did - thank goodness.


You mean his back room deals with big corporations to protect them from ruin, for the benefit of Canadians and jobs.

Interesting. Was that ethical of him?

Personally I don't like _any_ special treatment of corporations by government officials, but then again, I'm consistent. I don't like it when Harper did it (banks and car makers) or when Trudeau did it (SNC).

Are _you_ consistent?


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> You mean his back room deals with big corporations to protect them from ruin, for the benefit of Canadians and jobs.
> 
> Interesting. Was that ethical of him?


The ethics commissioner didn't find Harper guilty of anything - because he wasn't. 

Trudeau is the only Prime Minster in Canada's history to be found guilty of breaking federal ethics law not once, but twice.

Please James - you're a smart guy. Shake your head - you're backing the wrong horse.

ltr


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> I am a strong fiscal conservative and that is where my allegiances lie. Restore GST and balance the budget. Been consistent on that for decades.



here we go again

a strong fiscal conservative who calls for 100 new warships & coast guard vessels including 33 (count em) brand new icebreakers

the 100 fair ships estimated to cost $10 trillion that will easily be found by removing fluff from existing budgets over the next 10-20 years

also a fiscal conservative who recommends moving canadian cities north as the climate warms up. Cost not mentioned but presumably trillions more $$, also to be vacuumed up from mistakes/excesses in federal budgets


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

I think I can accept if someone admits that ethics were breached or at least wrongdoing occurred and still feel that the Liberals are the best option all things considered. However, the seeming lack of ability to recognize any wrongdoing shows a mentality more concerned with being right at all costs. Not generally a good characteristic in a person and one that can cause problems in many spheres of one's life, including personal and professional. 

I find it a shame when adults still use the excuse "But everyone else is doing it" or "The Conservatives did it first" (whether that be the case or not). As Anderson Cooper remarked to Trump when he made a similar argument, “Sir, with all due respect, that’s the argument of a five-year-old.”


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

From what I have read on this thread nobody is denying that Trudeau breached the rules by lobbying too hard or too long ?

Some are simply pointing out that it is a minor discretion not worthy of all the partisan hoopla the Conservatives are trying to create around it.

RCMP investigations ? Resignations ? Trudeau apologized to Canadians, saying he lobbied to protect Canadian jobs and that be all that is necessary.

People can believe him or not.......that be up to them.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> From what I have read on this thread nobody is denying that Trudeau breached the rules by lobbying too hard or too long ?
> 
> Some are simply pointing out that it is a minor discretion not worthy of all the partisan hoopla the Conservatives are trying to create around it.
> 
> ...


Some are pointing out that interfering with a criminal trial is a serious crime.
Some people think getting your friends off criminal charges is just "the right thing to do"

They're two very different groups.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

like_to_retire said:


> Yeah, I agree on the GST move - dumb.
> 
> And of course the 2008 time-frame was special and Harper had to do what he did - thank goodness. No question about his moves during that crisis, but it adds false ammunition for Liberal supporters to slag him today.
> 
> ...


Cutting GST was dumb, but politically savvy.
There is a significant overlap of people who both understand that it is bad policy, but that getting elected is critically important.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Spidey said:


> I find it a shame when adults still use the excuse "But everyone else is doing it" or "The Conservatives did it first"



i don't see trudeau or any other liberal cabinet member or any other thinking canadian using such an excuse.

upthread i posted a long message about what i believe truly went wrong. 

the mistakes were not the legitimate efforts by the prime minister & his associates - from the cabinet, from the PMO - to pry rationale out of a rigidly silent, self-obsessed tyrant & to coax her into at least the beginnings of a normal political discussion as to why she was making the SNC decision she did.

the real mistakes had already occurred months & years before. The mistakes were not understanding the significance of the new corporate legislation which remediation agreements were suddenly introducing into canadian statutes. The mistakes were assuming that everything would flow like a minor piece of bureaucracy.

most serious of all, the mistakes trudeau & cabinet made were not grasping in advance that a notoriously impatient & ambitious attorney general might seek to derail 100% of the decision on the first canadian company to apply for a DPA, as her own vainglorious personal plaything.

JWR was not subjected to any "barrage" of pressure, although she did pretend so. By her own admission, she received 20 communications from the PM or his representatives across five months, an average of one per week. Such a schedule is far less than ordinary pressure on the Hill. 

the infamous phone conversation with michael wernick, which JWR was treacherous enough not only to record but later to publish, showed the clerk in very gentle mode. Between the lines & sotto voce, he delivered to her the message she was expecting, which meant that her job was over. But one can hear the genuine incredulity in wernick's voice when he asks wilson-raybould Why? what are your (legal) reasons for refusing a DPA in the SNC matter? 

yet once again, wilson-raybould answers with her trademark impetuous arrogance: Do not pressure me, she says loftily. I am above all this, I am the Attorney General, I do not need to give reasons for my decisions.

it is this latter attitude which i strongly believe does not belong anywhere in canada. Not at any level.

it's true that the prime minister & his group argued for SNC employment. The comany is located in the PM's city, although not directly situated in his papineau riding. When did you ever hear of any federal politician who wlll not passionately defend employment in his city?


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Harper was by far one of the most unethical leaders this country has had for a long time. And yes, I realize that the Ethics Commissioner he created in 2008 didn't "catch" him for it. It was a very new office, and Harper ruled with an iron fist.


I agree with you. It is why I voted Liberal in the last election. I was hoping to get away from such disgusting behaviour. Sadly I traded one set of bad behaviour for a much more sinister set apparently. And I have to suffer fools gladly who are ardent supporters.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Some are pointing out that interfering with a criminal trial is a serious crime.
> Some people think getting your friends off criminal charges is just "the right thing to do"
> 
> They're two very different groups.


There was no criminal trial. It is still in the future, and may not even happen.

It isn't like Trudeau bribed the judge or something.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Humble.......JWR has shown the same attitude in interviews with the CBC the last day or so.

She refuses to explain anything and continually paints herself as a heroine who is above the law and accountable to no one for any of her decisions.

I suspect she has reasons, but doesn't want to disclose them to the public.

She also seems to believe the cabinet post of AG is one step above the PM.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> it's true that the prime minister & his group argued for SNC employment. The comany is located in the PM's city, although not directly situated in his papineau riding. When did you ever hear of any federal politician who wlll not passionately defend employment in his city?


So I guess the solution to this behaviour is to avoid people who have such conflicts? But do they have to lie and cover up?

(BTW company and will! Yea I know these devices are unforgiving. Let us all forgive typing mistakes!)


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

So now we learn that Jody Wilson Rayboud didn't tell the truth when she told the CBC show she had not been contacted by the RCMP.

She has retracted her answer and now says she was in fact interviewed by the RCMP about the allegations she made in February.

This is important because an ethics probe cannot be launched when there is an RCMP investigation or must be halted if an RCMP investigation begins.

_According to the Conflict of Interest Act, the ethics commissioner must immediately suspend a probe if a police investigation is launched into the same matter, or if a charge has been laid. The commissioner also cannot restart their investigation until that police investigation has been concluded and the charges disposed of. 
_
JWR knew the RCMP were investigating even as she called for hearings with the Ethics Committee and an investigation by the Ethics Commissioner.

_“The RCMP is examining this matter carefully with all available information and will take appropriate actions as required,” spokesperson Chantal Payette said in a statement to Global News._

Now she tries to deflect by saying.........well they didn't ask me this direct question or that direct question and says she will no longer answer any questions about it.

She always has some excuse and someone else to blame, but this time she has been caught red handed. If Andrew Scheer knew of the RCMP investigation.........shame on him too.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-raybould-rcmp-snc-lavalin-1.5250225


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags said:


> Humble.......JWR has shown the same attitude in interviews with the CBC the last day or so.
> 
> She refuses to explain anything and continually paints herself as a heroine who is above the law and accountable to no one for any of her decisions.
> 
> ...




this ^^ is why those among JWR's cult followers who are angry oil industry partisans or angry westerners or both, are ultimately going to be disappointed by this particular former attorney general.

wilson-raybould is never going to represent them. She has nothing in common with them.

canada's former minister of justice told the media about a month ago how she had been courted heavily by the Green party after she had left the liberals. She'd liked & respected elizabeth may. Of all canadian political parties, the Greens were the party that was dearest to her heart, wilson-raybould said.

but in the end she decided to remain an independent member of parliament. In 5 understated words that could become her motto, wilson-raybould explained why.

"I'm not a party animal," she said.


----------



## Karlhungus (Oct 4, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Almost as bad as the price we are paying for Harper, who added $200B to the debt.


Context is everything. Harper had to endure the worst recession in 100 years and came out of it with a budget surplus. Trudeau is experiencing an economy that is firing on all cylinders with low unemployment yet running up debt.


----------



## Karlhungus (Oct 4, 2013)

sags said:


> It could be debated that Canada's "good" economy is due at least in part to the spending of the Liberal government.
> 
> Increasing child benefits, GIS benefits, infrastructure spending is money that goes directly into the economy.
> 
> ...


Properly targeted government spending means infrastructure, not increasing handouts.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Somebody should have told the liberals that they didn't need to spend  $3B in London trying to buy Sag's vote. He drank the kool-aid and has been passing gas for the liberals without the need for more unethical activity.

Added: Sags, you may want to confirm that those 360 LAV's are goimg to be electric vehicles though. I know doing the right thing for global warming is high on your list.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Karlhungus said:


> Context is everything. Harper had to endure the worst recession in 100 years and came out of it with a budget surplus. Trudeau is experiencing an economy that is firing on all cylinders with low unemployment yet running up debt.


Not to re-litigate, but we were on the path to deficit before the recession started. And while it is fairly fresh in our minds, the evidence is spotty that it was the worst Canadian recession since the depression. I recall the 1990 recession being quite severe in Canada.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/recession


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Some are pointing out that interfering with a criminal trial is a serious crime.




this is where i believe you are quite wrong. There was no criminal trial in progress during 2018 & january/february 2019, the period being considered by the JWR testimony.

what there was was new legislation providing for a remediation agreement, including a heavy fine plus appropriate punishment & rehabilitation measures, in the case of corporations whose foreign conduct had included actions such as bribery. 

jody wilson-raybould herself, as minister of justice, had personally approved & endorsed the new DPA legislation.

understandably, the prime minister expected that the new DPA legislation would be invoked. As a matter of fact, sooner or later it _will_ be invoked. SNC is by no means the only canadian company known to have bribed foreign governments in order to land contracts.

but in september 2018, at the very last minute, the attorney general & the director of public prosecution suddenly threw a monkey wrench. We-have-the-power-to-say-No-so-we're-saying-No, they announced. We're-not-giving-you-any-reasons, they added.

no wonder the prime minister & others in the cabinet were incredulous. Why is this happening, they asked.

i-am-the-attorney-general-of-canada-&-I-am-far-above-such-matters-you-are-not-even-allowed-to-speak-to-me, said the AG.

understandably, the PM & his team thought she could be persuaded. Perhaps-you-could-consult-former-supreme-court-justice-Beverley-McLachlin, they said.

i-don't-need-to-consult-anyone-i-am-the-attorney-general-of-canada-i-am-the-supreme-authority-here-so-stop-harassing-me, replied her ladyship.

it was the same way wilson-raybould wanted to remove judge Glenn Joyal as chief justice on the manitoba court of queen's bench. Never mind waiting until Joyal, who is approaching retirement age, might voluntarily step down from the position he has loved & honourably served for so many years.

no, her imperial highness the Red Queen impulsively decided that Joyal had to be gone, like tomorrow. Off-with-his-head, she shouted.

I-feel-like-i'm-being-manipulated, judge Joyal complained to the media.


if it were not that so many people have been badly damaged by the havoc jody wilson-raybould deliberately caused, one would be laughing at her antics.

many persons have expressed wonderment at wilson-raybould's masochistic career path. At one point in time, she had been ideally positioned to run for the prime minister's position herself. Less than 10 years of cabinet experience starting in 2015 & wilson-raybould could even have aimed for the top slot in 2023.

but no, she chose to shoot herself bigtime, right in her political foot.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

sags said:


> Humble.......JWR has shown the same attitude in interviews with the CBC the last day or so.
> 
> She refuses to explain anything and continually paints herself as a heroine who is above the law and accountable to no one for any of her decisions.
> 
> ...




This is the epitome of unfairness but sadly the type of thinking that occurs when being right is more important than reason. Wilson-raybould would very happily offer a full explanation if Trudeau would release her from cabinet confidentiality. Trudeau even refused to provide all relevant information and cabinet conversations to the independent, Liberal appointed ethics commissioner.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

ian said:


> I believe that the PM should resign. IF he does not *it will leave me in a conundrum in October since I cannot bring myself to vote for Andrew Scheer*.


Once the electioneering starts in earnest, many uncommitted voters will have same issue. Scheer does not look like someone who should become PM.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

agent99 said:


> Scheer does not look like someone who should become PM.


Similarly Trudeau was unproven and has since proved he is unworthy. It is not the lack of ethics that bothers me, after all he is a politician. It is the wasteful use of our money.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

My conundrum will not be very serious. I live in a riding that will always go Conservative. 

The election is still a long way off. Anything can happen. The Scheer Conservatives could keep going with their abysmal performance. Trudeau could decide to stick it out and whether the storm. Who really knows at this point.

Some sleeper of an issue could rise up and grab the voter's attention. The Trudeau Liberals could do something really stupid in the campaign, as could the Scheer Conservatives. It happened last time, could easily happen again.

I believe that one thing is for certain. If Scheer continues with the strategy of doing nothing and making as few empty policy pronouncements as possible his chances of minority or a majority win are greatly reduced. 

IMHO, a minority win for Scheer would be extremely dangerous. The Conservative Party is divided. Those divisions, and the knives, will soon be evident in a minority Gov't situation. If he looses, he will be gone. There will be no holding back the forces in the Conservative Party that never supported him. His win was a fluke. He was the second or third choice of both the red tories and the reformers. Danger for him and I do not think that he has the political smarts, the force of personality or the skilled advice/direction of the pros within the party to overcome that internal dissent.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

That, plus the anti-Ford sentiment in Ontario will hurt Scheer, unjustifiably so of course, but that is how the lumber lands when the house comes down. That is, in my mind, a greater factor than generally weak policy (to date). The Cons in Ontario just didn't know how to elect the right leaders.

I have been vocal in my feedback to the Cons email communications ever since Ford got elected.... that their major problem is going to be the 'bull moose' in Ontario and more recently, to a lesser extent, Kenney in Alberta. At least Kenney has (mostly) shut up for awhile and there is nothing to be gained for him breaking china in the shop. These premiers need to learn to be leaders and govern with some class.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Spidey said:


> This is the epitome of unfairness but sadly the type of thinking that occurs when being right is more important than reason. Wilson-raybould would very happily offer a full explanation if Trudeau would release her from cabinet confidentiality. Trudeau even refused to provide all relevant information and cabinet conversations to the independent, Liberal appointed ethics commissioner.


That's because if he released her, and provided witnesses there is likely evidence of further violations and potentially crimes.
When Trudeau lied to the media, he thought he'd get away with it.

I'm actually impressed how much a weak opposition and media was able to get the issue this far.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Somebody should have told the liberals that they didn't need to spend  $3B in London trying to buy Sag's vote. He drank the kool-aid and has been passing gas for the liberals without the need for more unethical activity.
> 
> Added: Sags, you may want to confirm that those 360 LAV's are goimg to be electric vehicles though. I know doing the right thing for global warming is high on your list.


Good news for London and Canada........1650 jobs in London and 8500 across Canada, and the military gets the equipment it needs............win/win.

You should see the wiring harnesses installed in the units........electrics everywhere.

By the by.....General Dynamics is a different company. It was owned by GM when I worked there and then Warren Buffet bought it and now General Dynamics own it.

The vehicles have been made in that same building since the first orders in the late 1970s. I helped set up the new production area back then.

Sole sourcing was the best decision and the order now will save $$ in the future.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Spidey said:


> This is the epitome of unfairness but sadly the type of thinking that occurs when being right is more important than reason. Wilson-raybould would very happily offer a full explanation if Trudeau would release her from cabinet confidentiality. Trudeau even refused to provide all relevant information and cabinet conversations to the independent, Liberal appointed ethics commissioner.


It would be unfair except JWR and Philpott want classified cabinet discussions to be made public. That would undermine the ability of cabinet ministers to speak freely during meetings.

What the women can do, as pointed out by the CBC host repeatedly, is provide full statements outside of the Parliament in several ways. The women continue to decline to do so.

I am all for the women speaking in public, and there is nothing stopping them from doing so. Parliamentary experts have said they can speak openly.

I am also happy to await an RCMP investigation or lack of one to clear the air, but do question why JWR demanded public meetings with the ethics committee when she knew the RCMP was investigating. That is committing a breach of ethics herself. Andrew Scheer made the same demands in public.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Certainly agree on Ford. You certainly do not see Ford and Scheer holding hands in public, all lovey dovey, like you used to see.

The Conservative Party in Ontario was taken over by a minority of social conservatives. They moved public and media attention away from the economy and exactly what a Ford Gov't would do (not even Ford had the first clue) to a focus on sex education in the school curriculum. That and a buck a beer. Go figure. For their efforts they ended up with an incompetent dud. They missed a golden opportunity elect Christine Elliot as leader. She had the capacity to move the party forward in the manner of the Bill Davis big blue machine. Some similarities with the US Republican party.

Harper was successful because he wielded strong control using strong reward, punishment, and boxes of duct tape. It was only when it was clear he was on his way out, when his power was diminished, that some backbench MLA's had the guts to bring certain social conservative issue to the fore. They certainly did not for the first eight years. Too afraid of being punished. Too afraid of not being rewarded with committee positions. cabinet positions, having central party funds to their constituencies reduced at election time.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yup.........I remember when Ontario was a deeply conservative Province. John Robarts and Bill Davis were well supported and well liked.

It seemed the Conservative Party had a different philosophy back then.

As a union worker I didn't like Pierre Trudeau much either. 

I supported the Conservatives, especially during the era of "wage and price controls" when Trudeau visited an assembly line and told the workers they could "eat s**t".

As a union president I led the factory out the doors for the National Day of Protest (October 14, 1976) against the Trudeau government and got fired for it. 

I did get my job back when people refused to go back to work until I was reinstated.

The Conservatives have to pick some leaders that are middle of the road........socially progressive and fiscally responsible. 

Until then........the Liberals are going to rule.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

ian said:


> ...


Ian, your last few comments on the problems w current federal and provincial cons are bang on.

It will be interesting to see if any commendable leaders arrive on the scene in the next few election/party cycles. Hopefully ruling parties don't screw up things up too badly in the meantime.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

ian said:


> They missed a golden opportunity elect Christine Elliot as leader. She had the capacity to move the party forward in the manner of the Bill Davis big blue machine.


They certainly did. I've told the Cons time and again that until they can isolate, or at least diminish their social conservatives, they have their left hands tied behind their back. Naturally, I don't get any feedback....... The risk of course is another split in the party with nut bars like Bernier in the wings.

I lived in Ontario for 9 years of the Bill Davis years. All was well.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

So did we. The difference between the Conservative party then and now is incredible, even without the coup d'etat that resulted in the leadership change and election of Ford. 

The Conservative Party today, in many provinces and certainly at the federal level is not a big tent party. It is really two parties and the resulting power struggle and conflicts seem to tear them apart at the expense of electoral success.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Yup.........I remember when Ontario was a deeply conservative Province. John Robarts and Bill Davis were well supported and well liked.
> 
> It seemed the Conservative Party had a different philosophy back then.
> 
> ...


I hope the rest of the forum sees this. And like sags, I have supported the Conservatives at times. I don't know why people come to the conclusion that I'm a die-hard or religious Liberal supporter. Nothing can be further from the truth.

As I mentioned, in the last federal election I did not vote for Trudeau.

I evaluate politicians fairly, without a bias towards one party or another. Overall, I like the current Liberal party and I think they're doing a good job. I like their balance of fiscal responsibility, national initiatives, social progressiveness. Overall it's been great leadership, both on Canada's ambitions, good balance on economy, social systems, etc.

The Conservative party of today is nothing like the old Conservative party, before the Alberta-based Reformers took over the movement. What we seem to have today is a socially conservative party which mixes outdated/*regressive* social values, control from the oil & gas industry (pure corruption), and occasionally some bizzarre values I absolutely don't agree with, as demonstrated by Harper _when he started letting loose_ in his last years.

I look at political parties without bias to one specific camp.



ian said:


> So did we. The difference between the Conservative party then and now is incredible


It's because the traditional Progressive Conservative party was taken over by somewhat crazy Reform / Canadian Alliance people from Alberta. They have more a populist slant, resonate well with rural folks and devout Christians, but are a pretty big departure from the old Progressive Conservatives.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> I lived in Ontario for 9 years of the Bill Davis years. All was well.


How about when the golf pro became premier?


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

james4beach said:


> The Conservative party of today is nothing like the old Conservative party, before the Alberta-based Reformers took over the movement. What we seem to have today is a socially conservative party which mixes outdated/*regressive* social values, control from the oil & gas industry (pure corruption), and occasionally some bizzarre values I absolutely don't agree with, as demonstrated by Harper _when he started letting loose_ in his last years.
> 
> I look at political parties without bias to one specific camp.
> 
> It's because the traditional Progressive Conservative party was taken over by somewhat crazy Reform / Canadian Alliance people from Alberta. They have more a populist slant, resonate well with rural folks and devout Christians, but are a pretty big departure from the old Progressive Conservatives.


I am quite confused by this analysis. One of the biggest criticisms of Sheer, is that other than the carbon tax (and having not ethical breaches) he doesn't appear that different than Trudeau. I get the sense that he's not that popular in Alberta and they are only voting for him as they see him as the only viable option. In fact, I don't think we've had a more "progressive" federal Conservative party since Joe Clark. What "outdated/regressive" social values and "occasionally bizarre" values are you referring to?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

James is hyperventilating with hyperbole to try and make a point I think. I've not seen any extreme nor bizarre policies come out of Scheer's policy book yet so James will have to elaborate on some specifics. 

A commitment to balance the budget within his first term is prudent and what fiscally responsible governments do. Doing away with non-productive giveaways is key to helping balance the books. No more pissing away money on useless public inquiries, media fund manipulations, carbon grants to Loblaws and stuff like that.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> I hope the rest of the forum sees this. And like sags, I have supported the Conservatives at times. I don't know why people come to the conclusion that I'm a die-hard or religious Liberal supporter.


Because you offer us so much ammunition!



james4beach said:


> The Conservative party of today is nothing like the old Conservative party........


Yeah, and the Liberal party of today is nothing like the old Liberal party.....

So, consider that before you automatically hitch your wagon to Trudeau's misuse of power. Open your eyes.

ltr


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

ltr yes I will definitely consider the party and its people on their own merits, without allegiance to any party history.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

james4beach said:


> ltr yes I will definitely consider the party and its people on their own merits, without allegiance to any party history.


Don't forget the Green Party. They could be our future.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The only Green people I know have ailments. You know......envy....GI tract and the like. Most likely burn more carbon than common folk in their inefficient stoves, horses and buggies, jetting to conferences, etc. Some even get themselves arrested.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

There is this:


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

But I much prefer Van Morrison's version:







Thank you.
We return you now to regular programing, insults and general political nastiness.:excitement:


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Thank you.
> We return you now to regular programing, insults and general political nastiness.:excitement:


Do we have to?:biggrin::biggrin:


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Disgraced Trudeau advisor Gerald Butts is now working for a US company that just received a $200,000 contract from the Trudeau government. No other bids were accepted. Once again the corrupt Liberals find a way to funnel money to their friends.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Gerald Butts is back in the PMO directing the Liberal election campaign. He has a very informative Twitter feed.

https://twitter.com/gmbutts?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Oh oh..........Andrew Scheer has some explaining to do.

Melanie Joly.....Twitter

_We now know Conservatives have misled Quebecers and all Canadians about Andrew Scheer’s position on abortion rights, just to recruit candidates in QC._

Gerald Butts......Twitter

_So the Conservatives are recruiting candidates in Quebec by telling them MPs won't be allowed to propose Bills restricting women's choice rights. This is the exact opposite of their leader's stated policy. Wowzers. _

Greg MacEachern.....Twitter

_ummmm what??? 
Scheer's top Quebec MP admits to giving the wrong impression on abortion._

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/alain-rayes-scheer-abortion_ca_5d646465e4b0641b2551c23d


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

It's not just Scheer, but the Conservatives showed opposition to abortion rights much earlier as well under Harper. It just continues under Scheer, because that's how the Conservatives are.

It takes a certain kind of blindness to not see these patterns. The Conservatives are social conservatives, it's part of the design of their party as vocalized by Harper some years ago when he talked about theo-cons.

We have some of the "low tax" and pro-energy business people on this board, who know better, trying to pretend this isn't the case. The religious right is a big part of the Conservative party. (see link above)


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Conservatives just can't fathom the idea that perhaps it is them who are on the wrong side of many issues and not everyone else.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> Conservatives just can't fathom the idea that perhaps it is them who are on the wrong side of many issues and not everyone else.


Liberals just can't fathom the idea that perhaps it is them who are on the wrong side of many issues and not everyone else.

ltr


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

How they can buy into the fact that Trudeau is not an egotistical corrupt leader is amazing to me. They always point at the other guy. That is the "look over there" response to criticism. Truly sad because they seem normal and rational in other aspects of their lives (except for one 4-letter protagonist).


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

imho it's time for the old time bible thumpin preachers to find some other issue

sure it was slightly dumb of the PM to go on about loss of jobs for a big company in his region, if not in his immediate riding

but it wasn't any dumbber than a would-be prime ministerial candidate talking about saying No to Mass Migration

both mere questions of semantics. Nothing to get worked up about. Certainly not _now_.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

humble and the left on this site always falls back on insults when the facts are against them.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

kcowan said:


> How they can buy into the fact that Trudeau is not an egotistical corrupt leader is amazing to me.


It's always the same...the left is allowed to be corrupt because they think they are better, and therefore it's justified in their minds. That's why every single crime committed by the left is given a free pass. That's why the left have elected KKK members (Robert Byrd), murderers (Kennedy), sex offenders (Clinton and dozens of others), and people who are corrupt (the list is too long). It's no different in Canada. JT is the most corrupt PM we've ever had and it doesn't matter to those who vote liberal.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Scheer is tap dancing like Fred Astaire right now. 

He has so many self inflicted wounds covered up with gauze that he will look like the mummy soon.

Meanwhile, back on the unofficial campaign trail, Liberal insiders are ecstatic the election campaign will launch a fireworks display of landmark achievements.

CPP enhancements.....oooh, child benefit increase........ahhh, eliminate 1 week of waiting period for EI.....oooh, restore pensions to military veterans......ahhh

And that is just a sneak preview.......

Yup...it is going to be quite a show. Grab the popcorn and get a good seat. The curtain is about to rise.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Sags, maybe you should start your own thread thumping for Mr Trudeau and the Liberals since your only purpose here and on some other threads is to deflect away from the thread topic and dump your opinions of the opposition. 

I doubt there will ever be another PM or PM candiate in history that will be able to match the tap dancing of Mr. Trudeau on SNC or on his pet project the environment like the video below. Enjoy.

A classic for the historical records, when the actor forgets his lines and the truth gets exposed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sBxAvxr9fo


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A thread headline of "Damning report says Trudeau violated ethics act during SNC-Lavalin affair' has nothing to do with Trudeau ?........LOL.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

sags said:


> A thread headline of "Damning report says Trudeau violated ethics act during SNC-Lavalin affair' has nothing to do with Trudeau ?........LOL.


Have another read of my post and your own. You're dumping opinions of the opposition in a Trudeau SNC thread. That's a deflection away from the topic. Common for you. 

LOL

How'd you like the video tap dance? LOL


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I must say that Rona Ambrose gained a lot of respect in my view, when she challenged the PC leader on his statements about the US/Canada/Mexico free trade deal.

It takes a lot of courage to stand up to the establishment of which she is a part. 

If she ever decided to run for the PC party leadership, I would have no hesitation to trust what she says.

Given the lead the PC once enjoyed, Rona Ambrose may have led the PC party to a rousing victory. Alas...maybe she can be convinced to run next time.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

like_to_retire said:


> Liberals just can't fathom the idea that perhaps it is them who are on the wrong side of many issues and not everyone else.
> 
> ltr


To be fair the Liberals aren't on the wrong side of many issues.
They're only consistently off on 2 issues.
Just Ethics and what's in Canadas best interest.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The latest polls show the Liberals and Conservatives virtually tied at 34% or so. The NDP still polls around 15%.

The polls may be deceiving though, as on a seat by seat analysis the Liberals have a 30% chance of winning a majority and the Conservatives a 15% chance.

It doesn't appear the so called SNC Lavalin disgrace, Indian clothing debacle, and other"ethics issues" are having much of an impact on the voters.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The latest polls show the Liberals and Conservatives virtually tied at 34% or so. The NDP still polls around 15%.
> 
> The polls may be deceiving though, as on a seat by seat analysis the Liberals have a 30% chance of winning a majority and the Conservatives a 15% chance.
> 
> It doesn't appear the so called SNC Lavalin disgrace, Indian clothing debacle, and other"ethics issues" are having much of an impact on the voters.


You're right, it seems that Liberal supporters don't care about the law, international relations or ethics.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Scheer has had a terrible few weeks. I feel sorry for him. It is clear that divisions inside the Conservative Party are as much a challenge for him as the Gov't is. Rona Ambrose's direct public contradiction of Scheer's criticism of the tentative Nafta agreement was acutely embarrassing enough. Former Conservative Cabinet Minister James Moore refusal to comment was the same. This was a rookie move.

The Liberals appear to have a strategy to highlight and to put flame to the divisions within the Conservative Party and it seems to me that Scheer is taking the bait hook line and sinker. I suspect that he will have more challenges within his own party over this issue than he will have with the general public. This will only get worse if he does not come up with a reasonable response to the gay marriage and abortion issues....and a response that is consistent from one location to another, from one pronouncement to another, from one part of the country to another. When Harper ran as a Reform leader he suffered from the same and was his party was rejected by Canadians. It took a while but he got it together and did move forward.

Scheer seems to be doing the Liberal's work for them on this issue. It is not pretty to watch.

You can be certain that pros like Harper or Mulroney would not let themselves fall into either of these situations. I have actually begun to wonder if the political advisors close to Scheer are actually working against him instead of for him.

Here is the other strange thing.....we are not hearing from any senior members of the Conservative caucus. This is very odd. No public statements of support for Scheer from any of the movers and shakers. This to me speaks volumes.

If the past week to ten days is any example of what we can expect from Scheer it certainly does not bode well for the Party's chances in October. They have a huge problem with the former NDP voters. Those votes will not be going Tory. Scheer needs to smarten up and light some fires under Trudeau. If I was a Conservative back room person my biggest fear would be a Conservative minority Government. Why? It would be a la Joe Clark....lasting twenty minutes because of scheer ineptitude. 

Where are the steady Party hands? Have they abandoned ship?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Haven't yet decided on my vote but have noticed that many of my associates here in Central Okanagan & Boundary country are not voting strategically and will back Bernier. I must be hanging with deplorables.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eder said:


> Haven't yet decided on my vote but have noticed that many of my associates here in Central Okanagan & Boundary country are not voting strategically and will back Bernier. I must be hanging with deplorables.


It's unfortunate the government is banning Bernier from the debates.
Say what you want about him, but I think he's the only one with the Charisma to really push back on Trudeau.

I live in Ontario, but I always thought Duceppe brought a lot of interest to the debates.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Trudeau is giving Scheer lots and lots of ammunition. 

So far Scheer only seems to be able to shoot blanks. Or shoot himself in the foot.

IMHO it is a big plus for Scheer and the Conservatives not to have Bernier in the debate. There is danger there for Scheer in terms of his current base of support.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eder said:


> many of my associates here in Central Okanagan & Boundary country are not voting strategically and will back Bernier. *I must be hanging with deplorables*.


It was always pretty obvious what your values are.

Lots of immigrants causin ya trouble there in rural BC, eh?

Let me take a wild guess... your associates are old white men.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> You're right, it seems that Liberal supporters don't care about the law, international relations or ethics.


Those are poll numbers among all Canadians. If the "anti-Trudeau" strategy isn't working, why do the Conservatives still cling to it ?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Polls at this stage are meaningless. You only have to think back to the polls prior to the last election. Harper had it in the bag. Or so they thought.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Those are poll numbers among all Canadians. If the "anti-Trudeau" strategy isn't working, why do the Conservatives still cling to it ?


Because he's so bad, it's distracting.

PM Trudeau has just been an ongoing trainwreck of disasters, anyone who's been paying a bit of attention would be appalled, and Conservatives wonder why the average Canadian isn't up in arms over this garbage.
They really need to step out of their bubble, and realize that some people don't care that Trudeau is a drug using, out of touch, trust fund, drop-out pothead, unethical POS.
It's shocking, but that's the reality, and people are still not-unhappy to vote for him.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

One might call it 'Trudeau Derangement Syndrome'. 

I mean, it might be instructive to think back at how strongly some felt about Harper, and how some people still supported him until the end.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> One might call it 'Trudeau Derangement Syndrome'.
> 
> I mean, it might be instructive to think back at how strongly some felt about Harper, and how some people still supported him until the end.


Not a bad comparison.
The anger towards Trump is so blinding that the Democrats can't think of anything else.

Similarly the anger towards Trudeau is so strong that Conservatives can't think of much else.
It's easy to say "while yeah, Trudeau has actually been found guilty, while Trump hasn't", but that's a moot point. It doesn't matter how founded or not the anger is, you have to speak to those who aren't quite as angry.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think the Conservatives are forced to attack Trudeau personally (ethics, style of dress) because they rightly conclude they can't attack the Liberal policies.

The Liberals have been very careful to implement policies and programs that support Canadians and are very popular with voters.

That leaves the Conservatives with precious little to pledge to change. Imagine if they ran on a policy of reducing child benefits for example...........good luck.

The broader Conservative message of cutting spending and lowering taxes (usually for corporations and the wealthy) isn't accepted by voters anymore.

For being incapable as some Conservatives say, Trudeau built an impenetrable wall of popular support around Liberal policies and voters simply ignore other "noise".


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I think the Conservatives are forced to attack Trudeau personally (ethics, style of dress) because they rightly conclude they can't attack the Liberal policies.
> 
> The Liberals have been very careful to implement policies and programs that support Canadians and are very popular with voters.
> 
> ...


The problem is that "Committing crimes and being unethical" shouldn't be "noise". 
Acting with integrity should be of paramount importance, unfortunately people like you don't care.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Don't fool yourself sags. 

This is anyone's ball game. People may be upset with Trudeau however Scheer's performance is sub par-even worse that Stephan Dion's in prior elections. The NDP are not even in the game. Their support will split between the LIberals and the Green.

Whoever wins will get the typical plurality, but not a majority. Distribution of votes within each riding may be the deciding factor. Those ridings that always poll 60,70,80 percent in favour of one party can really skew the outcome (and the preceeding polls).

And either Party could have their own 'barbaric practices hotline' type fiasco mid campaign that would completely change the outcome. Just think back to years ago when the Kim Campbell Conservatives ran that disaster advert mocking Jean Cretien's facial impediment. Some pundits claimed running that ten day advert cost the Conservatives 40 seats. Not a difficult conclusion given they lost every seat but two in that election. Or John Turner's lame excuse about why he made masses of appointments after becoming PM and just prior to the election. Slip ups like this alter election outcomes mid campaign.

This may be one where people vote for their local MP vs voting for the Party or PM.

Trudeau will get some benefit from Scheer's abysmal performance, infighting in the Conservative Party, and the NDP's demise.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Not a bad comparison.
> The anger towards Trump is so blinding that the Democrats can't think of anything else.
> 
> Similarly the anger towards Trudeau is so strong that Conservatives can't think of much else.
> It's easy to say "while yeah, Trudeau has actually been found guilty, while Trump hasn't", but that's a moot point. It doesn't matter how founded or not the anger is, you have to speak to those who aren't quite as angry.


Trudeau has been 'found guilty' (not in a court of law) of a non-crime. Trump has done things that warrant charges, but has immunity while he is President. As I said, it is a matter of perspective.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> The problem is that "Committing crimes and being unethical" shouldn't be "noise".
> Acting with integrity should be of paramount importance, unfortunately people like you don't care.


And yet you turned a blind eye to ethics violations while you were voting Conservative. It is human nature. It is not strictly speaking rational to vote for the other guys on the expectation that they will be paragons of virtue. Because they won't. Because humans are fallible. There are levels of misbehaviour that can't be tolerated, but if you threshold is set at 'pulling strings for powerful friends that employ a lot of your constituents', maybe you need to recalibrate. I also question the sincerity, because you don't seem to care about Trump violating the elomuments clause with respect to personal enrichment of himself and his family. Never mind any of his other ethics violations. I mean, how can you be so animated about Trudeau but wave away all the issues with Trump? That would seem to me something that should be causing some cognitive dissonance.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Trudeau has been 'found guilty' (not in a court of law) of a non-crime. Trump has done things that warrant charges, but has immunity while he is President. As I said, it is a matter of perspective.


Trudeau openly admits to committing crimes.
He's also found to have broken the law, he's also found to have broken ethics guidelines. However the punishments are basically at the discretion of the PM, so I'm sure he had a stern talking to.
He also used Cabinet privilege to hide evidence of further crimes.

Trump doesn't have immunity as president.

andrewf, 

I'm not sure what crimes or ethics violations you are alluding to.
In defence of their interference on SNC, Liberals raise the Milgaard case.
Sure it may not have been completely legal for Mulroney to interfering on the Milgaard case, however I'd like to hear the case that the PMO should have just let an innocent man rot in jail.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

We need a party that will stick to the record of the Liberals and promote a rational program as an alternative. If it becomes a beauty contest, Trudeau will be a shoe-in.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> PM Trudeau has just been an ongoing trainwreck of disasters, anyone who's been paying a bit of attention would be appalled, and Conservatives wonder why the average Canadian isn't up in arms over this garbage.
> 
> They really need to step out of their bubble, and realize that some people don't care that Trudeau is a drug using, out of touch, trust fund, drop-out pothead, unethical POS.




you're joking, right?

because no one could hallucinate false accusations like the above

trudeau is not any kind of drug user 

trudeau did not commit any "crimes"


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> you're joking, right?
> 
> because no one could hallucinate false accusations like the above
> 
> ...


https://globalnews.ca/news/795772/justin-trudeau-says-he-smoked-marijuana/

Unlike certain trolls, I'll back up my statements.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Most of our PMs have been drug users, who consume alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, etc.

Next argument will be that it was prohibited at the time. Would you apply the same stigma to anyone who drank during prohibition?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> https://globalnews.ca/news/795772/justin-trudeau-says-he-smoked-marijuana/


At least he has taken pot out of the hands of the black market as an important part of his plan. Oops, scratch that.

Ok then, at least the Arctic has had the attention that everyone seems to agree it should.  Oops, scratch that too.

"Oh well, good to have you back on board Gerry (Butts), pass that joint along will you".


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> https://globalnews.ca/news/795772/justin-trudeau-says-he-smoked-marijuana/
> 
> Unlike certain trolls, I'll back up my statements.



won't you please read your own link. It backs up what a fraud you are.

a 47-year-old canadian who's smoked pot 5 or 6 times in his entire life & whose last encounter with the weed was at a backyard get-together _way back in 2010_, is emphatically neither a drug addict nor a pothead.

yet you wrongfully used the present tense & you wrongfully tried to claim that the PM "is" an addict & a pothead. What a piece of libel.


.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

These guys like MrMatt and Prairie Guy make such outlandish claims that I've learned to ignore them... they come here posting ridiculous things about these officials being criminals and addicts, it's kind of funny. Or this repeated whining about Trudeau being wildly "unethical".

Let's take the "unethical" claim for a moment. The position of this Ethics Commissioner was only created in 2007, and then there was a time period where the position ramped up (trying to interpret new rules and regulations which never existed before), got staffed, started creating totally new procedures. The position has only existed under two PMs in all of history: Harper & Trudeau.

There is no historical reference for how an Ethics Commissioner would have seen other politicians, because _the position didn't exist back then_. There is no calibration. Even with the current ruling, some are (correctly) challenging the office's interpretation of the rules and saying it wasn't the proper interpretation.

Personally I think Harper was much more corrupt and unethical, including by following the energy lobby's policy instructions -- something he was caught doing. He did whatever the energy industry commanded him to do, a far greater ethical breach and undemocratic action by a leader.

In any case, the current ethics breach ruling has to be taken with a big grain of salt. However, in usual Conservative style, Scheer is trying to reduce this to a black-and-white matter. That either makes Scheer look pretty stupid, or hypocritical.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The problem for Conservatives is that Canadians "know" Justin Trudeau but can't get a handle on Andrew Scheer because he tends to talk in riddles.

If he chose to do so, Scheer could quickly end all the speculation on abortion and gay rights, but continues to skate around the issue by talking about obeying the "current law", which everyone knows could change with a government vote.

He could stand up and say unequivocally, I will not allow any government or private member bill to affect changes to abortion or gay rights.

But he would have a big problem. He has already pledged to his supporters that he "would" allow private members bills on abortion and gay rights.

He has to clear this up before the debate or he is going to get roasted by the other party leaders.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> won't you please read your own link. It backs up what a fraud you are.
> 
> a 47-year-old canadian who's smoked pot 5 or 6 times in his entire life & whose last encounter with the weed was at a backyard get-together _way back in 2010_, is emphatically neither a drug addict nor a pothead.
> 
> ...


Actually I read the link.
Calling me a fraud is not appropriate.

Nothing I have said is incorrect. I never said he was a drug addict.
He admits to smoking pot more recently than 2010, in that very article.

As far as criminal and unethical behaviour, he ADMITS TO IT!

In other interviews he has commented how it isn't fair people like his family can get away with it due to their connections.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/tru...her-help-in-dealing-with-pot-charge-1.3383450

Calling me a fraud is libel, and I believe against forum rules.

I have not libeled Trudeau, I'm very careful to be specific about my claims and backed them up.

I do have an opinion that he is a horrible person, with bad ideas who simply doesn't understand or care about law and ethics.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

I have the good fortune of voting for my incumbent MP who (prediction) will either be part of the government or part of the opposition and will be valued in either role.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Good point....It is very important to have an MP who is dedicated to their responsibilities. It isn't likely to call the PM and say, I need some help getting my OAS started.

I have yet to see a poll that asks if people are happy with their MP. It might shed light on who is likely to be the next PM.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Good point....It is very important to have an MP who is dedicated to their responsibilities. It isn't likely to call the PM and say, I need some help getting my OAS started.
> 
> I have yet to see a poll that asks if people are happy with their MP. It might shed light on who is likely to be the next PM.


Well my MP has been lobbying to shut down one of her ridings largest employers, I honestly don't know how she keeps getting re-elected.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

andrewf said:


> Trudeau has been 'found guilty' (not in a court of law) of a non-crime. Trump has done things that warrant charges, but has immunity while he is President. As I said, it is a matter of perspective.


Trump has done nothing that warrants charges...he has undergone the most intensive highly biased investigation in US history and they found absolutely nothing. If there was something they could have charged him with, they would have.

Trudeau has at least 5 ethics violations and has broken the law, even he has admitted it.

If you had to stick to facts, you'd never post here. Stop with the false accusations...it only makes you look desperate and foolish.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trump may deserve charges and maybe he doesn't, but I say give him 2 years in prison just to be on the safe side.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Nothing I have said is incorrect. I never said he was a drug addict.


absolutely you named the prime minister as a current drug user. You used the present tense of the verb "to be," meaning now, at this very moment in time. Yesterday you posted that justin trudeau "is" a "drug user" & a "pothead." Please find your quote below.

you also called the prime minister a "POS," "a disaster," & "garbage." Those i believe are ordinary terms of opprobrium which unpleasant persons frequently hurl at politicians. But to falsely accuse any prominent person - politician, business or community leader - of illegal drug use across many years & into the present moment could indeed be a libellous action imho.



MrMatt said:


> Trudeau has just been an ongoing trainwreck of disasters, anyone who's been paying a bit of attention would be appalled, and Conservatives wonder why the average Canadian isn't up in arms over this garbage.
> 
> They really need to step out of their bubble, and realize that some people don't care that _Trudeau is a drug using, out of touch, trust fund, drop-out pothead, unethical POS_.








MrMatt said:


> He admits to smoking pot more recently than 2010, in that very article.


trudeau did not admit or state anything of the kind. Please read the article one more time. It is datelined august 2013, six long years ago.

in the article, trudeau twice describes the last time he had tried pot. The incident had occurred in 2010. The references are precise. All that happened is that trudeau took a puff from somebody else's roach that was being passed around during a backyard get-together. If you know how to read, you will find the references.

do you have any information that is more contemporary than this solitary puff from 2010? if not, why do you continue to hype the false accusation that the prime minister is currently a drug user?






MrMatt said:


> As far as criminal and unethical behaviour, he ADMITS TO IT!


no, trudeau doesn't admit to any crime. On the contrary, he has explained his actions in the SNC lavalin matter & he has said he will not apologize.

there are no criminal proceedings against trudeau. Commissioner Mario Dion may have decided that trudeau "broke the law" but future legal historians have yet to weigh in on the SNC matter. There are already experts in constitutional jurisprudence who believe that dion is wrong.






MrMatt said:


> I have not libeled Trudeau, I'm very careful to be specific about my claims and backed them up.


this is the problem with all of your hundreds of agitated hate-trudeau posts in cmf forum. You twist your claims into falsehoods, as above, & then you cannot back them up.






MrMatt said:


> I do have an opinion that he is a horrible person


here we totally agree, you do have a certain opinion. But it is only an opinion.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

He admits to using pot as an MP, he wasn't an MP until 2013. 
But you falsely claim he hasn't smoked pot since 2010. He also admits to more than a single puff as you claim. 

Using pot at the time was a crime.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> Trump may deserve charges and maybe he doesn't, but I say give him 2 years in prison just to be on the safe side.


You approve of jailing people who have not committed any crimes. You approve of censorship. You defend a corrupt Trudeau, the most corrupt PM in history.

And those are just your good points.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Prairie Guy said:


> You defend a corrupt Trudeau, the most corrupt PM in history.


Ridiculous! Back up your claim, Prairie Guy.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Ridiculous! Back up your claim, Prairie Guy.


That's pretty rich coming from you.

You never provided any evidence of Trump being racist, not a single tweet.


As far as most corrupt, hard to prove. 
But it it telling that he's doesn't care about ethics, or else he wouldn't vote down an investigation into himself. He SHOULD have conflicted out of that vote.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> Ridiculous! Back up your claim, Prairie Guy.


Trudeau's 5 (or more?) ethics violations and his corruption are not in dispute and have been verified. 

But we're still waiting for your proof of Trump's racist tweets. Back up YOUR claim.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

All in good time. Law enforcement is patiently waiting until Trump has no Presidential immunity. 

They already have the goods on him in the Mueller report. He is a goner unless he is re-elected and runs out the clock.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> All in good time. Law enforcement is patiently waiting until Trump has no Presidential immunity.
> 
> They already have the goods on him in the Mueller report. He is a goner unless he is re-elected and runs out the clock.


Trump doesn't have Presidential immunity from Criminal charges.
I can't believe how often you guys make false statements, then refuse to support them.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> All in good time. Law enforcement is patiently waiting until Trump has no Presidential immunity.
> 
> They already have the goods on him in the Mueller report. He is a goner unless he is re-elected and runs out the clock.


What "goods" are in the publicly available Mueller report that all the Democrats and media completely ignored? They've been eagerly waiting for it for 2 years promising the end of Trump and as soon as it came out they went silent.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> He admits to using pot as an MP, he wasn't an MP until 2013.
> But you falsely claim he hasn't smoked pot since 2010. He also admits to more than a single puff as you claim.
> 
> Using pot at the time was a crime.


I must admit that I am willing to give him a free pass on that one.

Trying to turn him into a criminal now is in the same category as trying to use Scheers words on abortion and same sex marriage against him 14 years later. I don't support either move. I don't want a muck-raker as my PM!

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/pol...in-trudeau-and-andrew-scheer-wont-make-for-a/
https://globalnews.ca/video/5832452...ough-to-reluctantly-support-same-sex-marriage


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> What "goods" are in the publicly available Mueller report that all the Democrats and media completely ignored? They've been eagerly waiting for it for 2 years promising the end of Trump and as soon as it came out they went silent.


Nothing was ignored. The evidence of obstruction of justice is clearly laid out. Since a sitting President cannot be indicted......they quietly wait.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> Trump has done nothing that warrants charges...he has undergone the most intensive highly biased investigation in US history and they found absolutely nothing. If there was something they could have charged him with, they would have.
> 
> Trudeau has at least 5 ethics violations and has broken the law, even he has admitted it.
> 
> If you had to stick to facts, you'd never post here. Stop with the false accusations...it only makes you look desperate and foolish.


Mueller stated in his testimony that Trump would be charged if he were not president. 

It is also undeniable that he is violating the emoluments clause by continuing to be involved in the operation of his businesses while holding office. Its a bigger ethics violation than anything Trudeau has been accused of.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

kcowan said:


> I must admit that I am willing to give him a free pass on that one.
> 
> Trying to turn him into a criminal now is in the same category as trying to use Scheers words on abortion and same sex marriage against him 14 years later. I don't support either move. I don't want a muck-raker as my PM!
> 
> ...


His publicly admitted crime is just the most convenient example of his disdain for the laws.
You have to accept that he committed a crime, or you're simply not having a good faith discussion.
His SNC related crimes are much harder to argue, because he's hidden all the evidence from investigators.

I think there is a major difference between committing a criminal act, and having an opinion which is in compliance with the law at the time.

I think expressing that you don't think gay marriage is appropriate is somewhere along admiring Chinas basic dictatorship.
Both are unpleasant, but completely valid and legal opinions to have. However Canadians shouldn't really be supporting a PM that is working towards those objectives.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Trump doesn't have Presidential immunity from Criminal charges.
> I can't believe how often you guys make false statements, then refuse to support them.


Only Congress can charge a sitting president, per Justice department policy. It is literally the first result of a google search. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1QF1D3


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Our leader.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Mueller stated in his testimony that Trump would be charged if he were not president.
> 
> It is also undeniable that he is violating the emoluments clause by continuing to be involved in the operation of his businesses while holding office. Its a bigger ethics violation than anything Trudeau has been accused of.


Mueller said he "could" be charged when he left office.

However that's irrelevant, just because Mueller does not have the ability to charge Trump does not mean that there is Presidential Immunity from criminal charges. 
The President does not have Criminal immunity from prosecution.
That's why there are so many trying to push impeachment, that's the process from Criminal charges on a sitting president.

As far as the ethics problem of Trump, that's irrelevant to the lack of ethics on the part of Trudeau and his suitability to be PM.
I (and I'd guess most Canadians) don't think Trump would be a suitable PM, for many of the same reasons I don't think Trudeau is a suitable PM.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Only Congress can charge a sitting president, per Justice department policy. It is literally the first result of a google search.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1QF1D3


That's literally my point.
Mueller can't charge him, but Congress can.
He doesn't have immunity, it's just different people who bring the charges.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trump should step down and turn himself in to the authorities.

Trudeau should be re-elected and be nominated for the Parliamentary Hall of Fame.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. The Congress does not have the power to lay criminal charges. 

The FBI on the other hand, has no love for Trump and binders full of evidence of criminal activity of the highest magnitude. He is a goner for sure.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. The Congress does not have the power to lay criminal charges.
> 
> The FBI on the other hand, has no love for Trump and binders full of evidence of criminal activity of the highest magnitude. He is a goner for sure.


The point is that there is still a process to get a sitting president for crimes. It isn't like they have to wait until his term is up.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> He admits to using pot as an MP, he wasn't an MP until 2013.
> But you falsely claim he hasn't smoked pot since 2010. He also admits to more than a single puff as you claim.
> 
> Using pot at the time was a crime.




oh dear, you are so confused!

justin trudeau was first elected member of parliament for Papineau riding in 2008. He was re-elected in the federal elections of 2011 & 2015. No election was held in 2013, what you are attempting to post is wrong.

i am not "falsely claiming that he hasn't smoked pot since 2010." I am simply pointing out that your own linked evidence states that a single puff on a shared roach during a 2010 backyard get-together was the last known incident. Trudeau was MP for Papineau at that time.

your same linked article - published in 2013 - states that trudeau told the journalist that he had tried marijuana "five or six times" in his lifetime but did not like it. 

repeatedly i have asked you for evidence that trudeau has used any kind of street drug at any time since 2010, which is the last known incident you have linked. Repeatedly, you have failed.

i still object to your accusation that the prime minister *is* presently a drug user & a pothead, when you cannot produce a shred of evidence. This accusation is ugly & i believe it smacks of libel.

.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> oh dear, you are so confused!
> 
> justin trudeau was first elected member of parliament for Papineau riding in 2008. He was re-elected in the federal elections of 2011 & 2015. No election was held in 2013, what you are attempting to post is wrong.
> 
> ...


My mistake, I saw "first elected 2013", but that was under the heading of Party leader, but the formatting looked like MP. << See I was wrong, I admit it.

I have never said he is presently consuming illegal drugs. In fact the only illegal drug I accused him of using is now legal.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> I have never said he is presently consuming illegal drugs.



of course you did. You said - using the present tense - that the prime minister *IS* a drug user & a pothead.

we have gone over this 3 times already. I've presented your exact quote at least twice already. But here we go again, for the umpteenth time:




MrMatt said:


> *Trudeau is a drug using, out of touch, trust fund, drop-out pothead, unethical POS*.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

He is a drug user (weed is still a drug right?) & pot head,not that big a secret. I doubt it affects his ability to lead our country poorly though.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> of course you did. You said - using the present tense - that the prime minister *IS* a drug user & a pothead.
> 
> we have gone over this 3 times already. I've presented your exact quote at least twice already. But here we go again, for the umpteenth time:


You keep going over that.

I do believe he is a person who uses drugs. He has admitted to drugs in the past.
He is out of touch, he is a drop out, he admits to using pot in the past, I believe he still does, and he is an unethical POS.

Part of the reason I believe he continues behaviour he previously admitted to is that it somewhat explains his logic and apparent thought processes.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Eder said:


> He is a drug user (weed is still a drug right?) & pot head,not that big a secret. I doubt it affects his ability to lead our country poorly though.



oh dear. Another nut bar w no evidence. The alt-right deranged conspiracy party appears to be out in full force this labour day weekend.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> You keep going over that.
> 
> I do believe he is a person who uses drugs. He has admitted to drugs in the past.
> He is out of touch, he is a drop out, he admits to using pot in the past, I believe he still does, and he is an unethical POS.
> ...



quite so. And the earth is flat & in the beginning god created adam & eve to walk together upon it.

only a few generations later, trouble started when the DNA went wrong & deplorables started to appear.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> quite so. And the earth is flat & in the beginning god created adam & eve to walk together upon it.
> 
> only a few generations later, trouble started when the DNA went wrong & deplorables started to appear.


I honestly didn't think you were a flat earther, religious literalist, but that explains a lot.

You have faith in your Adam & Eve & Trudeau and no science or evidence is going to convince you otherwise.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> oh dear. Another nut bar w no evidence. The alt-right deranged conspiracy party appears to be out in full force this labour day weekend.


You seem to have become that which you profess to detest.


----------

