Sign in to follow this  
Ryan Strome

Liberals win minority government

Recommended Posts

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

I don't want to pick on religion but he is a 7 dayer..

Hippy called him visible which isn't the case imo but this is making him visible so he likely is doing it for political gain. However imo it will backfire and he will likely lose his own riding. 

That's my take as well.....even bad publicity is better than no publicity.

 

Besides, maybe he thinks that the lunatic fringe is enough of a base to build a campaign on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RUPERTKBD said:

That's my take as well.....even bad publicity is better than no publicity.

 

Besides, maybe he thinks that the lunatic fringe is enough of a base to build a campaign on...

Remember Kelly Leach tried to be the female version of Trump?

They try any stunt possible these days.

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


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

Remember Kelly Leach tried to be the female version of Trump?

They try any stunt possible these days.

Between her and Kevin O'Leary, I don't know who was more delusional. :picard:

Share this post


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

Between her and Kevin O'Leary, I don't know who was more delusional. :picard:

Actually O'Leary (who I didn't support) didn't yell and act like a moron. He just really had no plan or idea. Kelly had her own colleagues asking who are you when did you become Kelly Donald Leach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it true that the liberal government is planning a buy back program with this new gun legislation they are (rumoured to be) on the cusp of introducing?

 

Saw some speculation on this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

Is it true that the liberal government is planning a buy back program with this new gun legislation they are (rumoured to be) on the cusp of introducing?

 

Saw some speculation on this. 

certainly sounds like thats part of it: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-to-soon-ban-ar-15-several-other-firearms-used-in-mass-shootings-sources-1.4918623

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it appears that Quebec doesn't want Alberta's money @Ryan Strome

 

Man is this not going to go over well in AB:

 

'Oil is dead': Elizabeth May, Yves-François Blanchet warn Ottawa against supporting Alberta's oilpatch

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/oil-is-dead-green-bloc-parties-1.5557725

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

it appears that Quebec doesn't want Alberta's money @Ryan Strome

 

Man is this not going to go over well in AB:

 

'Oil is dead': Elizabeth May, Yves-François Blanchet warn Ottawa against supporting Alberta's oilpatch

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/oil-is-dead-green-bloc-parties-1.5557725

They're not entirely wrong in one aspect.  Supporting business with just cash without oversight or return is stupid.  None of that money will go to the workers or albertans that need it.

 

There are companies demanding or asking for government money from us taxpayers, crying about the downturn; yet STILL developing and producing in US markets or over seas.  

 

If these companies want tax money they need to be prepared to sign over full percentages of their companies.  10% per every $500 million.  Sign over those percentages to the CPP portfolio and allow someone from that portfolio to sit on the board as the government liaison and overseer.  See how quickly these companies would be lining top for funded taxpayer socialism then

 

The money would be FAR better spent on Albertans.  investing in people,retraining, ensuring they can pay their bills.  Create new industry, diversification of the economic and energy portfolio.

 

In one aspect they're not wrong.  In another, no real comment because meh; the fight is never ending

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

 

The money would be FAR better spent on Albertans.  investing in people,retraining, ensuring they can pay their bills.  Create new industry, diversification of the economic and energy portfolio.

 

In one aspect they're not wrong.  In another, no real comment because meh; the fight is never ending

Oil and gas are dying industries. Use the money to retrain oil workers to transition out of the industry and into long term viable careers.

No point propping up an industry that is on his last legs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Oil and gas are dying industries. Use the money to retrain oil workers to transition out of the industry and into long term viable careers.

No point propping up an industry that is on his last legs.  

They are waning but not dying.  Bitumen will have massive places in plastics, petro-chem refinement, asphalt roofing and literally 10,000 other uses.  There is and always will be a strong economic benefit from oil development.

 

But I do not want to see tax dollars thrown in to a sunset industry without massive oversight and generous return to the taxpayer.

 

We call it throwing good money after bad

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Blunt and missing the nuance @Warhippy added... But not wrong.

I just don't want to see a situation like Bombardier.  Or the GM fiasco.  Giving billions away, seeing no full ROI and then seeing those same businesses close because it is more lucrative in other areas of the world to pick up production 

 

Investing in people is far more preferable and would make far more sense long term 

 

But....

  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1

Share this post


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

They are waning but not dying.  Bitumen will have massive places in plastics, petro-chem refinement, asphalt roofing and literally 10,000 other uses.  There is and always will be a strong economic benefit from oil development.

 

But I do not want to see tax dollars thrown in to a sunset industry without massive oversight and generous return to the taxpayer.

 

We call it throwing good money after bad

Nope

 

Too expensive to access....   too far from tidewater...  chemically too much copper, sulphur , vanadium... so too expensive to process... too dangerous if spilled...

Too much chemicals left over to dispose when processing dirty bitumen.       Albertas tar sands / bitumen has no future. 

 

I don't want my tax dollars wasted propping up a dead industry.  

Share this post


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

I just don't want to see a situation like Bombardier.  Or the GM fiasco.  Giving billions away, seeing no full ROI and then seeing those same businesses close because it is more lucrative in other areas of the world to pick up production 

 

Investing in people is far more preferable and would make far more sense long term 

 

But....

thats the part I'm concerned about too. I don't see how we ever see the payback, and frankly I don't think the companies themselves need it. 

 

I'd much rather see it go to individual Albertans, where it at least gets back into the GDP. 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


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

I just don't want to see a situation like Bombardier.  Or the GM fiasco.  Giving billions away, seeing no full ROI and then seeing those same businesses close because it is more lucrative in other areas of the world to pick up production 

 

Investing in people is far more preferable and would make far more sense long term 

 

But....

Yup, I think/hope there's very little appetite for that politically right now. 

 

I think people would rightly string up politicians suggesting it.

Share this post


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

thats the part I'm concerned about too. I don't see how we ever see the payback, and frankly I don't think the companies themselves need it. 

 

I'd much rather see it go to individual Albertans, where it at least gets back into the GDP. 

So, if this was a situation like say 2008/2009 that's one thing.  But this is literally due to pure market forces.  Funding companies that didn't change their business plan or whose entire success is predicated on high price per volume is insanity.  We'd be giving corporations money because quite simply, people aren't using their product.

 

I mean, the equivalent would be like say, throwing money at horse and buggy makers in 1910.  Come on guys, they just need a hand; things will pick back up.

 

I just don't want to see money wasted as I cannot see any return from it in the long run.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2020 at 9:57 AM, Ryan Strome said:

Actually O'Leary (who I didn't support) didn't yell and act like a moron. He just really had no plan or idea. Kelly had her own colleagues asking who are you when did you become Kelly Donald Leach.

I doubt it would have mattered if he had...

 

Virtually every Canadian of voting age has had a chance to see what a condescending jerk  he is, by watching Dragon's Den. I don't think he was ever going to be able to overcome that level of dislike....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

it appears that Quebec doesn't want Alberta's money @Ryan Strome

 

Man is this not going to go over well in AB:

 

'Oil is dead': Elizabeth May, Yves-François Blanchet warn Ottawa against supporting Alberta's oilpatch

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/oil-is-dead-green-bloc-parties-1.5557725

I've already emailed May.

3 hours ago, Warhippy said:

They're not entirely wrong in one aspect.  Supporting business with just cash without oversight or return is stupid.  None of that money will go to the workers or albertans that need it.

 

There are companies demanding or asking for government money from us taxpayers, crying about the downturn; yet STILL developing and producing in US markets or over seas.  

 

If these companies want tax money they need to be prepared to sign over full percentages of their companies.  10% per every $500 million.  Sign over those percentages to the CPP portfolio and allow someone from that portfolio to sit on the board as the government liaison and overseer.  See how quickly these companies would be lining top for funded taxpayer socialism then

 

The money would be FAR better spent on Albertans.  investing in people,retraining, ensuring they can pay their bills.  Create new industry, diversification of the economic and energy portfolio.

 

In one aspect they're not wrong.  In another, no real comment because meh; the fight is never ending

Guaranteed loan backstops.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I doubt it would have mattered if he had...

 

Virtually every Canadian of voting age has had a chance to see what a condescending jerk  he is, by watching Dragon's Den. I don't think he was ever going to be able to overcome that level of dislike....

Right but he wasn't by any means similar to Trump as far as yelling and screaming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taki it FWIW..I know if we were in the Trump thread and it was Republicans it would be treated as the gospel. 

 

According to Liberal MPs and insiders, Mr. Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) verbally “attacked” rookie Liberal MP T.J. Harvey (Tobique-Mactaquac, N.B.), chair of the Liberal rural caucus, during the Feb. 28 national caucus meeting on Parliament Hill. Mr. Harvey stood up to say that there was a “lack” of meaningful consultation with the caucus over the government’s upcoming gun control legislation.

“Justin was much too vitriolic and attacked him,” one Liberal MP, referring to Mr. Harvey, told The Hill Times, who spoke on condition of anonymity since the closed-door caucus meetings are confidential. “We’re also supposed to have the right to voice our opinion.”

This MP said the soon to be tabled gun legislation is “scaring the h*** out of the Liberal caucus,” especially the ones representing rural ridings.

Although the MP himself wouldn’t disclose details, apparently Trudeau lost it—that those rural rubes questioning him again, and this time in his very own caucus meeting was apparently just a bit too much for him to handle:

According to sources, Mr. Trudeau, “went after” Mr. Harvey and “asserted” that there has already been a “robust, more than sufficient consultation,” and no more consultation was needed. Sources said that the whole caucus was taken aback by the prime minister’s unusually angry tone, which they said would have an “intimidating effect” on MPs’ willingness to raise issues in future caucus meetings.

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   1 member