Sign in to follow this  
Ryan Strome

Liberals win minority government

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Me_ said:

As per social contract; we pay our taxes for exactly that; a return of security in times of trauma.

100% agreed.

 

This is what we pay our taxes for.  To support the people and small local business

 

But I will put my foot down the moment we start handing out tax dollars to corporations listed on stock exchanges.

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

100% agreed.

 

This is what we pay our taxes for.  To support the people and small local business

 

But I will put my foot down the moment we start handing out tax dollars to corporations listed on stock exchanges.

Well, if it is a publicly traded company of necessary service like air and rail, power or mining, perhaps the corporation that asks for Federal money should become Federal property.

 

Edited by Me_
  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Me_ said:

Well, if it is a publicly traded company of necessary service like air and rail, power or mining, perhaps the corporation that asks for Federal money should become Federal property.

 

I've actually been very loud about companies requesting money.  Then depending on the amount requested signing over percentages of their companies based on current market values.

 

Imagine The government agreeing to give you billions, contingent upon you signing over say 34% of your company to them.

 

That would change attitudes very quickly.

  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I've actually been very loud about companies requesting money.  Then depending on the amount requested signing over percentages of their companies based on current market values.

 

Imagine The government agreeing to give you billions, contingent upon you signing over say 34% of your company to them.

 

That would change attitudes very quickly.

Makes sense to me.

 

The idea of the Federal or a Provincial government taking a stake in a publicly traded company in exchange for bailout funds is much more ethical than just handing taxpayers’ money without any measurable accountability.

 

Edited by Me_
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am getting real sick of these social conservatives. It is a stretch to even call these people conservatives, they're more like social fascist. 

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 24K PureCool said:

I am getting real sick of these social conservatives. It is a stretch to even call these people conservatives, they're more like social fascist. 

Elaborate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Me_ said:

Elaborate?

To he clear, I'm not actually calling out actual social conservatives like anti-abortion or those wanting to protect religious freedom, but rather those who are blatantly racist and xenophobic but hide behind the slogan of social conservatism like this fascist MP attacking our federal doctor in charge if Covid.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I've actually been very loud about companies requesting money.  Then depending on the amount requested signing over percentages of their companies based on current market values.

 

Imagine The government agreeing to give you billions, contingent upon you signing over say 34% of your company to them.

 

That would change attitudes very quickly.

I don't disagree but then it would only be a matter of time until the "right" party comes to power and sells back a crown corporation for pennies on the dollar to private investors, *ahem* BC Rail Gordon Campbell *ahem*. Took CN less than 20 years to cut operations to nearly half the original BC Rail line, GG. Canadian Pacific would have never been so callous.

  • Hydration 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Me_ said:

Makes sense to me.

 

The idea of the Federal or a Provincial government taking a stake in a publicly traded company in exchange for bailout funds is much more ethical than just handing taxpayers’ money without any measurable accountability.

 

not sure I really want to see an increase in crown corporations... I guess that is preferable to seeing our tax money end up as someone's dividend tho. 

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Sloan is running to be the leader of the party. Mix this with his staunch views opposing a woman's right to choose and opposing gay marriage I'm sure he will do really well lol

Edited by Ryan Strome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, canuckster19 said:

I don't disagree but then it would only be a matter of time until the "right" party comes to power and sells back a crown corporation for pennies on the dollar to private investors, *ahem* BC Rail Gordon Campbell *ahem*. Took CN less than 20 years to cut operations to nearly half the original BC Rail line, GG. Canadian Pacific would have never been so callous.

I agree, but we saw that with the GM bailout, those shares were sold at a huge loss to cook the books.  Not sure any government after this will have the stomach to do that.

 

The idea of a majority is all well and good but there needs to be some serious checks and balances regarding crown corps.

 

5 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

not sure I really want to see an increase in crown corporations... I guess that is preferable to seeing our tax money end up as someone's dividend tho. 

I am ok with it.  Let's say a major corp takes bailout money, ransoms number...$2.2 billion.  Canada takes say a 17% ownership of said company.  Said company is known to dodge and avoid paying taxes.  Well guess what, they can't do that anymore.  It would lead to more oversight and a shade more honesty.  So long as the government is 100% out of the day to day running and management of said company and instead only involved with ensuring taxes and workers are paid and insured and laws are followed I don't think it's a terrible idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Sloan is a seven day Adventist :picard:

of course he is. Interesting how the more they profess their christianity the more things like outright racism is just fine to say, or ignore in Scheers case. 

 

I've noticed the other CPC leadership candidates haven't exactly stepped up either. Its pretty sad that the CPC has to pander to racism and intolerance. Thats why they'll lose again next election, they have to clean this crap up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Warhippy said:

I agree, but we saw that with the GM bailout, those shares were sold at a huge loss to cook the books.  Not sure any government after this will have the stomach to do that.

 

The idea of a majority is all well and good but there needs to be some serious checks and balances regarding crown corps.

 

I am ok with it.  Let's say a major corp takes bailout money, ransoms number...$2.2 billion.  Canada takes say a 17% ownership of said company.  Said company is known to dodge and avoid paying taxes.  Well guess what, they can't do that anymore.  It would lead to more oversight and a shade more honesty.  So long as the government is 100% out of the day to day running and management of said company and instead only involved with ensuring taxes and workers are paid and insured and laws are followed I don't think it's a terrible idea

an ownership stake is one thing, I don't really want to see majority ownership. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

of course he is. Interesting how the more they profess their christianity the more things like outright racism is just fine to say, or ignore in Scheers case. 

 

I've noticed the other CPC leadership candidates haven't exactly stepped up either. Its pretty sad that the CPC has to pander to racism and intolerance. Thats why they'll lose again next election, they have to clean this crap up. 

You would think that his opponents would use this to absolutely bury him.  Thing is, there is a wink wink, nudge nudge amongst them. 

I don't mind if my bias is showing regarding this aspect of the conservatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

of course he is. Interesting how the more they profess their christianity the more things like outright racism is just fine to say, or ignore in Scheers case. 

 

I've noticed the other CPC leadership candidates haven't exactly stepped up either. Its pretty sad that the CPC has to pander to racism and intolerance. Thats why they'll lose again next election, they have to clean this crap up. 

Please don't refer to seven dayers as anything except a cult.

25 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

You would think that his opponents would use this to absolutely bury him.  Thing is, there is a wink wink, nudge nudge amongst them. 

I don't mind if my bias is showing regarding this aspect of the conservatives.

I read an interesting piece yesterday, not sure if you and Jim seen it but sadly they're saying it might be a political ploy he and others might want to play. Before you laugh, just remember playing on this stuff has worked throughout history.

 

It bothers me because as much as I dislike JT what could the CPC, PPC or NDP do differently? It's a pandemic..I mean I guess the liberals didn't have to spend like drunken sailors however who foreseen a pandemic happening? 

 

Hopefully I have a libertarian candidate in my riding in the next election...the big two are joke, the ndp and greens are a nightmare and the ppc might fade away. I would like to see wexit do well across the west to open up the eyes of politicians and easterners but that will only give JT a majority. 

 

Really is sad.

Edited by Ryan Strome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scheer finally responds to Sloan versus Tam;

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/matt-gurney-the-conservatives-need-a-new-leader-now/ar-BB13kmRD?ocid=spartandhp

This time, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer didn’t miss an empty net. He put the puck in. Sadly, the period was already over, and it had been for a week.

That hockey analogy is riffing off one made by Peter MacKay, not long after last year’s election. The Conservatives were gifted just about every imaginable gift by the Liberals — remember the brownface pictures? — and still flopped. A popular vote win was wasted on a campaign that completely fizzled in Quebec and Ontario, particularly in the crucial Greater Toronto Area ridings. It was a pathetic performance against a self-destructing opponent. MacKay’s comment was bang on — the net was empty and all the Tories had to do was glide the puck in. But they couldn’t do it.

Much of the blame was assigned to Scheer — he of regrettably limited charisma, minimal gift for campaigning, a tin ear for communications and a few mid-campaign surprises of his own. He tried to hang on for a couple awkward months before finally agreeing in December to quit, saying he simply didn’t have the heart to continue any longer with the kind of commitment a leader required. He and the party agreed he’d stay on until a new leader was selected. But then the pandemic hit and the Conservative leadership race was put on hold. This has left the official Opposition with a leader who’s already agreed to quit because his heart isn’t in it anymore — and it shows.

Last week, Derek Sloan, a Conservative MP, fired a few broadsides at Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s chief public health officer. On Twitter, he called for her to be fired, and among his many valid (or at least defensible) criticisms of Tam, the World Health Organization and the Chinese government, he said that Tam “needs to work for Canada. Not for the WHO or any other foreign entity.” In a video, he was more explicit, asking, “Does she work for Canada or for China?”

It’s one thing to question a public official’s competence, another their loyalty to the country, and given that Tam is of Chinese heritage, Sloan’s comments could easily have been perceived (and they sure were!) as bigoted. His refusal to walk back or clarify that part of his remarks locked in the worst-possible interpretation of them as the only one a reasonable observer could reach.

And Scheer … did nothing. Asked repeatedly last week for comment, he simply refused to address the matter. Finally, this week, Scheer got around to agreeing that Sloan shouldn’t have questioned Tam’s loyalty to Canada.

No kidding. Criticism is legitimate, and necessary. Implying someone is disloyal is not. That took a week? If Scheer is going to state the blindingly obvious, why not state it early on? The problem isn’t even his mild (at best) rebuke of Sloan. It’s that he had to think long and hard before bothering to issue it.

There’s two key issues here. The first is that Tam (and the federal response more generally) should be open to robust examination and, when warranted, criticism. The WHO and China are likewise entirely proper targets for scrutiny and, when warranted, condemnation. This is essential, in fact. But it is a lot harder to do those necessary things responsibly when the Conservatives are letting one MP set the tone. Other Tory MPs did indeed criticize Sloan’s comments, but Scheer is the leader until he isn’t — and a leader, even an outgoing one, needs to lead. Scheer’s silence is not only a disservice to his party, but to the cause of accountability.

The second problem is that Scheer is reminding us all that he wasn’t an effective party leader even when he was committed to the job and seeking a promotion. Sloan’s comments were what they were. If Scheer thought they were just an inelegant phasing of legitimate criticism, he could have said so last week, and steered the conversation back to scrutinizing the federal response, the WHO and China. If he felt they were bigoted, he should have kicked Sloan out, and then returned the focus to the federal response, the WHO and China. Instead, he spent a week mulling it over and then did neither of those things, which accomplishes absolutely nothing beyond irritating absolutely everyone.

Scheer said it himself months ago: he was tired and didn’t have the heart to go on. That’s fair. But his lack of effectiveness in what remains an important job during trying times — even an apparent lack of interest in the job — is a problem that needs solving. The Conservatives need a better leader than Scheer is willing or able to be, and the Canadian people deserve an effectively led Opposition — indeed, given the scale of the emergency, they need one. Both of these problems have the same solution: Scheer should step down, for real, as soon as a new leader — an interim one if necessary — can be arranged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, gurn said:

Scheer finally responds to Sloan versus Tam;

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/matt-gurney-the-conservatives-need-a-new-leader-now/ar-BB13kmRD?ocid=spartandhp

This time, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer didn’t miss an empty net. He put the puck in. Sadly, the period was already over, and it had been for a week.

That hockey analogy is riffing off one made by Peter MacKay, not long after last year’s election. The Conservatives were gifted just about every imaginable gift by the Liberals — remember the brownface pictures? — and still flopped. A popular vote win was wasted on a campaign that completely fizzled in Quebec and Ontario, particularly in the crucial Greater Toronto Area ridings. It was a pathetic performance against a self-destructing opponent. MacKay’s comment was bang on — the net was empty and all the Tories had to do was glide the puck in. But they couldn’t do it.

Much of the blame was assigned to Scheer — he of regrettably limited charisma, minimal gift for campaigning, a tin ear for communications and a few mid-campaign surprises of his own. He tried to hang on for a couple awkward months before finally agreeing in December to quit, saying he simply didn’t have the heart to continue any longer with the kind of commitment a leader required. He and the party agreed he’d stay on until a new leader was selected. But then the pandemic hit and the Conservative leadership race was put on hold. This has left the official Opposition with a leader who’s already agreed to quit because his heart isn’t in it anymore — and it shows.

Last week, Derek Sloan, a Conservative MP, fired a few broadsides at Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s chief public health officer. On Twitter, he called for her to be fired, and among his many valid (or at least defensible) criticisms of Tam, the World Health Organization and the Chinese government, he said that Tam “needs to work for Canada. Not for the WHO or any other foreign entity.” In a video, he was more explicit, asking, “Does she work for Canada or for China?”

It’s one thing to question a public official’s competence, another their loyalty to the country, and given that Tam is of Chinese heritage, Sloan’s comments could easily have been perceived (and they sure were!) as bigoted. His refusal to walk back or clarify that part of his remarks locked in the worst-possible interpretation of them as the only one a reasonable observer could reach.

And Scheer … did nothing. Asked repeatedly last week for comment, he simply refused to address the matter. Finally, this week, Scheer got around to agreeing that Sloan shouldn’t have questioned Tam’s loyalty to Canada.

No kidding. Criticism is legitimate, and necessary. Implying someone is disloyal is not. That took a week? If Scheer is going to state the blindingly obvious, why not state it early on? The problem isn’t even his mild (at best) rebuke of Sloan. It’s that he had to think long and hard before bothering to issue it.

There’s two key issues here. The first is that Tam (and the federal response more generally) should be open to robust examination and, when warranted, criticism. The WHO and China are likewise entirely proper targets for scrutiny and, when warranted, condemnation. This is essential, in fact. But it is a lot harder to do those necessary things responsibly when the Conservatives are letting one MP set the tone. Other Tory MPs did indeed criticize Sloan’s comments, but Scheer is the leader until he isn’t — and a leader, even an outgoing one, needs to lead. Scheer’s silence is not only a disservice to his party, but to the cause of accountability.

The second problem is that Scheer is reminding us all that he wasn’t an effective party leader even when he was committed to the job and seeking a promotion. Sloan’s comments were what they were. If Scheer thought they were just an inelegant phasing of legitimate criticism, he could have said so last week, and steered the conversation back to scrutinizing the federal response, the WHO and China. If he felt they were bigoted, he should have kicked Sloan out, and then returned the focus to the federal response, the WHO and China. Instead, he spent a week mulling it over and then did neither of those things, which accomplishes absolutely nothing beyond irritating absolutely everyone.

Scheer said it himself months ago: he was tired and didn’t have the heart to go on. That’s fair. But his lack of effectiveness in what remains an important job during trying times — even an apparent lack of interest in the job — is a problem that needs solving. The Conservatives need a better leader than Scheer is willing or able to be, and the Canadian people deserve an effectively led Opposition — indeed, given the scale of the emergency, they need one. Both of these problems have the same solution: Scheer should step down, for real, as soon as a new leader — an interim one if necessary — can be arranged. 

The irony is how he wants Trudeau and the Liberals to be accountable but cannot even muster up the gonads to speak out against a visible racist in his own party leadership race

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, gurn said:

Scheer finally responds to Sloan versus Tam;

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/matt-gurney-the-conservatives-need-a-new-leader-now/ar-BB13kmRD?ocid=spartandhp

This time, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer didn’t miss an empty net. He put the puck in. Sadly, the period was already over, and it had been for a week.

That hockey analogy is riffing off one made by Peter MacKay, not long after last year’s election. The Conservatives were gifted just about every imaginable gift by the Liberals — remember the brownface pictures? — and still flopped. A popular vote win was wasted on a campaign that completely fizzled in Quebec and Ontario, particularly in the crucial Greater Toronto Area ridings. It was a pathetic performance against a self-destructing opponent. MacKay’s comment was bang on — the net was empty and all the Tories had to do was glide the puck in. But they couldn’t do it.

Much of the blame was assigned to Scheer — he of regrettably limited charisma, minimal gift for campaigning, a tin ear for communications and a few mid-campaign surprises of his own. He tried to hang on for a couple awkward months before finally agreeing in December to quit, saying he simply didn’t have the heart to continue any longer with the kind of commitment a leader required. He and the party agreed he’d stay on until a new leader was selected. But then the pandemic hit and the Conservative leadership race was put on hold. This has left the official Opposition with a leader who’s already agreed to quit because his heart isn’t in it anymore — and it shows.

Last week, Derek Sloan, a Conservative MP, fired a few broadsides at Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s chief public health officer. On Twitter, he called for her to be fired, and among his many valid (or at least defensible) criticisms of Tam, the World Health Organization and the Chinese government, he said that Tam “needs to work for Canada. Not for the WHO or any other foreign entity.” In a video, he was more explicit, asking, “Does she work for Canada or for China?”

It’s one thing to question a public official’s competence, another their loyalty to the country, and given that Tam is of Chinese heritage, Sloan’s comments could easily have been perceived (and they sure were!) as bigoted. His refusal to walk back or clarify that part of his remarks locked in the worst-possible interpretation of them as the only one a reasonable observer could reach.

And Scheer … did nothing. Asked repeatedly last week for comment, he simply refused to address the matter. Finally, this week, Scheer got around to agreeing that Sloan shouldn’t have questioned Tam’s loyalty to Canada.

No kidding. Criticism is legitimate, and necessary. Implying someone is disloyal is not. That took a week? If Scheer is going to state the blindingly obvious, why not state it early on? The problem isn’t even his mild (at best) rebuke of Sloan. It’s that he had to think long and hard before bothering to issue it.

There’s two key issues here. The first is that Tam (and the federal response more generally) should be open to robust examination and, when warranted, criticism. The WHO and China are likewise entirely proper targets for scrutiny and, when warranted, condemnation. This is essential, in fact. But it is a lot harder to do those necessary things responsibly when the Conservatives are letting one MP set the tone. Other Tory MPs did indeed criticize Sloan’s comments, but Scheer is the leader until he isn’t — and a leader, even an outgoing one, needs to lead. Scheer’s silence is not only a disservice to his party, but to the cause of accountability.

The second problem is that Scheer is reminding us all that he wasn’t an effective party leader even when he was committed to the job and seeking a promotion. Sloan’s comments were what they were. If Scheer thought they were just an inelegant phasing of legitimate criticism, he could have said so last week, and steered the conversation back to scrutinizing the federal response, the WHO and China. If he felt they were bigoted, he should have kicked Sloan out, and then returned the focus to the federal response, the WHO and China. Instead, he spent a week mulling it over and then did neither of those things, which accomplishes absolutely nothing beyond irritating absolutely everyone.

Scheer said it himself months ago: he was tired and didn’t have the heart to go on. That’s fair. But his lack of effectiveness in what remains an important job during trying times — even an apparent lack of interest in the job — is a problem that needs solving. The Conservatives need a better leader than Scheer is willing or able to be, and the Canadian people deserve an effectively led Opposition — indeed, given the scale of the emergency, they need one. Both of these problems have the same solution: Scheer should step down, for real, as soon as a new leader — an interim one if necessary — can be arranged. 

Patrik Stefan Misses Empty Net - 2007 - Full Incident (Dual-Feed ...

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ladies and gentlemen.  Michelle Rempel, one of the loudest voices about re-opening parliament, against virtual sittings and demanding 4+ members per party always be in the House of Commons.

 

Michelle Rempel...doing it all from Oklahoma but also sending out choice tweets in the mean time

 

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2020/04/28/conservative-mp-michelle-rempel-working-in-oklahoma-during-pandemic.html

 

image.png.f4425f43e486eca68463964401d340a8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.