Warhippy Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 6 minutes ago, naslund.is.king said: Boom and bust industry...didnt realize construction and skilled workers were not a necessity...hey anyone can build a building sheltering human lives Tradesmen must be like Gold miners I guess Construction workers in the prairies are hurting right now because it was predicated on record growth over 8 years. That ended the same time the oil cycle closed. That has nothing to do with Trudeau. You claim half your workforce moved to BC for work...in the NDP held BC.... I'm a former tradesman and nothing you say is jiving, like at all 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: No, not at all. No she stood up for the option she preferred as AG - that is to not get involved with the decisions of her justice department. Even though she did have that legal option to do so, its not something she personally viewed as appropriate. I think she was a fantastic AG who made real changes for the better. But its clear from today that she wasn't necessarily good political team mate. You mean, it's possible that someone was removed from their position for not towing the line? Why does that sound so familiar... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAce Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said: or he's trying to keep jobs in Quebec. FFS if this was Calgary and Harper, no one in the CPC would be complaining, at all. So she was pressured. Welcome to politics. I only care if it moved into something unethical and illegal. When Alberta had enough of what the Conservatives were doing ( provincially ) they voted them out so I disagree there would be no complaining. So its ok to do whatever possible to save 9000 jobs ( which in reality would probably be alot less because the contracts SNC lose out on can be picked up by other Canadian companies ) but Trudeau barely blinks an eye when over 120,000 jobs were lost in Alberta . After hearing her testimony do you consider what they did to her unethical ? Do you agree she should have lost her position because she didnt give in to there pressure ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violator Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 16 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: The cpc is coming on strong in Quebec. Mulroney was a Quebec mp and he won the biggest majority in Canadian history. Your gonna be dissapointed few more years of liberal rule incoming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 Just now, TheAce said: When Alberta had enough of what the Conservatives were doing ( provincially ) they voted them out so I disagree there would be no complaining. So its ok to do whatever possible to save 9000 jobs ( which in reality would probably be alot less because the contracts SNC lose out on can be picked up by other Canadian companies ) but Trudeau barely blinks an eye when over 120,000 jobs were lost in Alberta . After hearing her testimony do you consider what they did to her unethical ? Do you agree she should have lost her position because she didnt give in to there pressure ? So buying the trans mountain project to ensure it goes through is "barely" something? lets get back to reality please. it wasn't doing "whatever possible" it was asking her to consider a legal option that would help preserve jobs. There's nothing wrong with that. No I don't consider it unethical unless more comes to light, just reminding a minister of the consequences of a choice isn't unethical. I'd need to hear more about what exactly was said before pronouncing it unethical, but 2-3 phone calls or meeting per month isn't on its own unethical. She herself said Trudeau didn't want it to be seen as interference. I think she serves at the pleasure of the PM like every single minister in our history ever has. He doesn't need a reason to make a cabinet shuffle. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAce Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: So buying the trans mountain project to ensure it goes through is "barely" something? lets get back to reality please. it wasn't doing "whatever possible" it was asking her to consider a legal option that would help preserve jobs. There's nothing wrong with that. No I don't consider it unethical unless more comes to light, just reminding a minister of the consequences of a choice isn't unethical. I'd need to hear more about what exactly was said before pronouncing it unethical, but 2-3 phone calls or meeting per month isn't on its own unethical. She herself said Trudeau didn't want it to be seen as interference. I think she serves at the pleasure of the PM like every single minister in our history ever has. He doesn't need a reason to make a cabinet shuffle. and where has that got them ? Trudeau himself admitted he wants to phase out Alberta's energy sector which means a loss of jobs. He cared about these 'jobs' because its in Quebec and he knows thats where he needs his votes. He pretty much admitted this when trying to change her mind on the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otherwise Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 28 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: you mean a legal option? its all great to be about social justice, when its not your job being lost. The legal options for SNC aren't the issue here, its whether or not the pressure put on JWR was illegal, unethical, inappropriate, or just big pants politics. no, at the heart of this it was a decision made by the director of public prosecutions. There would clearly be legal reasons why it was deemed not appropriate. Why should the AG be pressured by several people including the PM over a decision made by DPP, it undermines the whole idea of justice in this country if there are different outcomes based on what the PM thinks. To me that would veer down the dictator route. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 Just now, TheAce said: and where has that got them ? Trudeau himself admitted he wants to phase out Alberta's energy sector which means a loss of jobs. He cared about these 'jobs' because its in Quebec and he knows thats where he needs his votes. He pretty much admitted this when trying to change her mind on the decision. and even knowing buying the KM project wouldn't get him a single vote in AB, he did that too. Maybe he actually does care about Canadian jobs? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 1 minute ago, TheAce said: and where has that got them ? Trudeau himself admitted he wants to phase out Alberta's energy sector which means a loss of jobs. He cared about these 'jobs' because its in Quebec and he knows thats where he needs his votes. He pretty much admitted this when trying to change her mind on the decision. Yes phase out...over the next 20 years. Which is intelligent as it ensures jobs and new industry growing at the time others are waning. As for the only cared about...we just had a PM that flat out said he didn't need Quebec, and also said we should build a firewall around Alberta. There's no prize for being a PM favouring a specific sector or area of the country. They all do it 2 minutes ago, otherwise said: no, at the heart of this it was a decision made by the director of public prosecutions. There would clearly be legal reasons why it was deemed not appropriate. Why should the AG be pressured by several people including the PM over a decision made by DPP, it undermines the whole idea of justice in this country if there are different outcomes based on what the PM thinks. To me that would veer down the dictator route. Is this like a government meeting with a major corporation during an investigation in order to save jobs but also protect wealthy donors? *cough* KPMG *cough* Wish people knew that this literally just happened like 5 years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAce Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 Just now, Jimmy McGill said: and even knowing buying the KM project wouldn't get him a single vote in AB, he did that too. Maybe he actually does care about Canadian jobs? so when the saudi's basically wanted nothing to do with us, except still sell us there oil, why didnt he tell them we dont need there oil and just get the oil from Alberta which would have saved 10 times the amount of jobs that he is claiming to do with SNC ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 1 minute ago, otherwise said: no, at the heart of this it was a decision made by the director of public prosecutions. There would clearly be legal reasons why it was deemed not appropriate. Why should the AG be pressured by several people including the PM over a decision made by DPP, it undermines the whole idea of justice in this country if there are different outcomes based on what the PM thinks. To me that would veer down the dictator route. the justice minister has the power to change that decision. So yes it is a legal option. Why should an AG be pressured? thats a good question. Right now they can be because they wear two hats, a political and legal one, thats why the discussion came up today about whether or not Canada should spilt up those two roles. Its not dictatorship, Trudeau can't make up laws as he goes along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 Just now, TheAce said: so when the saudi's basically wanted nothing to do with us, except still sell us there oil, why didnt he tell them we dont need there oil and just get the oil from Alberta which would have saved 10 times the amount of jobs that he is claiming to do with SNC ? by what means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAce Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 3 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Yes phase out...over the next 20 years. Which is intelligent as it ensures jobs and new industry growing at the time others are waning. As for the only cared about...we just had a PM that flat out said he didn't need Quebec, and also said we should build a firewall around Alberta. There's no prize for being a PM favouring a specific sector or area of the country. They all do it Is this like a government meeting with a major corporation during an investigation in order to save jobs but also protect wealthy donors? *cough* KPMG *cough* Wish people knew that this literally just happened like 5 years ago Can oil ever be phased out ? It will always be needed...... And there is no denying that you can find dirt on every political party and every politician, but JT campaigned on being different and transparent. id say he has failed on that promise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBH1926 Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 This is the first time in a long time that this thread is getting more traction than Trump one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 Just now, CBH1926 said: This is the first time in a long time that this thread is getting more traction than Trump one. No kidding....I bet Strome is hosting a kegger tonight.... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violator Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 13 minutes ago, TheAce said: Can oil ever be phased out ? It will always be needed...... And there is no denying that you can find dirt on every political party and every politician, but JT campaigned on being different and transparent. id say he has failed on that promise Oil does more than go into vehicles.So you can never really phase out oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otherwise Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 17 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: the justice minister has the power to change that decision. So yes it is a legal option. Why should an AG be pressured? thats a good question. Right now they can be because they wear two hats, a political and legal one, thats why the discussion came up today about whether or not Canada should spilt up those two roles. Its not dictatorship, Trudeau can't make up laws as he goes along. but why would she undermine that decision? it would basically be saying that there had been an error in judgement. which it doesn't appear to have happened so, no it was not a legal option. SNC have a history of corruption so I don't think that they should get a slap on the wrist this time. I think AGs can feel pressure even if they are separate. It takes integrity to not cave to that pressure. dictators can also bend the justice system to suit their needs or wants. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otherwise Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 24 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Yes phase out...over the next 20 years. Which is intelligent as it ensures jobs and new industry growing at the time others are waning. As for the only cared about...we just had a PM that flat out said he didn't need Quebec, and also said we should build a firewall around Alberta. There's no prize for being a PM favouring a specific sector or area of the country. They all do it Is this like a government meeting with a major corporation during an investigation in order to save jobs but also protect wealthy donors? *cough* KPMG *cough* Wish people knew that this literally just happened like 5 years ago you mean the tax avoidance? that was like 2 years ago and yes also super problematic. It's partly why I think a full public inquiry is needed this time around. That one I believe also involved the finance minister, or his office and he has again popped up in this mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 13 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: No kidding....I bet Strome is hosting a kegger tonight.... I would invite you but you're so obsessed with the US I don't think yo could find the time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 21 minutes ago, TheAce said: Can oil ever be phased out ? It will always be needed...... And there is no denying that you can find dirt on every political party and every politician, but JT campaigned on being different and transparent. id say he has failed on that promise Oil cannot be phased out soon no. It is vital in too many industries and in to many day to day items. BUT, this does not mean we cannot start investing in cleaner greener modes of energy creating far more actual jobs in the interim than Oil controlled by foreign interests will. As for him being different. Ha. We only voted Harper out because we couldn't stand him anymore. His scandals were approaching a dangerous level as well. Up to and including the KPMG tax evasion issue and his hand picked staffers hiding fraudulent spending within the senate. I've said a number of times he's just continuing the same things harper started which is why I find it so laughable so many are angry and up in arms that were formerly looking the other way or making excuses for it. Every time a new leader takes the PMO people find ways to excuse their follies while still complaining about those exact same issues from the old guard. I Know Strome will pop in soon to point his finger and say "you do it, what about, you, you you do it too jt fan boy" or something. When I have been pretty much neutral on the JT issue because this is so easily seen but still totally ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now