PMO paid for Duffy's fraud

[Wilber]

It's usually old white people who vote for the Cons. Many old people have a terrible memory and they are especially moved by propaganda made to play with their heart strings.

In that case it would seem old white people are the only ones who vote.

[Bryan]

That also describes most of the conservative supporters that I have met. But go ahead - villify people you disagree with. I am sure it makes you feel better about yourself.

Same here. Very few "old white people" working on the CPC campaigns I've been involved in.

[Zaetheo]

@ Hudson Jones: "It's usually old white people who vote for the Cons."? Are you kidding? Where I live in Calgary, I would say there is a large demographic of 20s through early 40s who vote PC. Perhaps it's different where you live.

[eyeball]

I worked on a Progressive Conservative campaign when I was 16 years old. A buddy of mine's father was running for office. They gave us beer now and then - old white people seemed a lot less uptight back in the day.

[Hudson Jones]

Here is a Prime Minister I could vote for:

[Bryan]

Here is a Prime Minister I could vote for:

And he did exactly what he promised in that ad:

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/faa-lfi/index-eng.asp

[Hudson Jones]

And he did exactly what he promised in that ad:

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/faa-lfi/index-eng.asp

Yes. That's exactly what he did Bryan.

[silver72]

I say, someone better clean this up, open it up, let the public in, and have the police involved, if the senate, especially the Tories, try to stop an open investigation or a senate committee , and question under oath all that involved, including the PM. IF not, election Oct 9, 2013, on the bases the people have no confidence in this government.

[Boges]

@ Hudson Jones: "It's usually old white people who vote for the Cons."? Are you kidding? Where I live in Calgary, I would say there is a large demographic of 20s through early 40s who vote PC. Perhaps it's different where you live.

The breakthrough in the 905 area of the Greater Toronto Area the CPC saw in 2011 was due to them trying to appeal to immigrant voters and younger voters.

Saying Conservatives are old white people is just plainly ad hominem.

[BubberMiley]

Saying Conservatives are old white people is just plainly ad hominem.

Only if you consider being called an old white person an insult. Edited May 23, 2013 by BubberMiley

[Boges]

Only if you consider being called an old white person an insult.

Well it says the party only appeals to one type of person.

It's like saying Pro-Lifers are just old white men that want want to tell women what to do. So you're saying only men are Pro-Life?

[BubberMiley]

So you're saying only men are Pro-Life?

I don't think so, but are you saying the Conservative Party does not find a very disproportionate amount of its support from old white men?

[g_bambino]

I don't think so, but are you saying the Conservative Party does not find a very disproportionate amount of its support from old white men?

A number of cultural groups that are predominanty not "white" hold some socially conservative traditions that may draw some number of them, men and women, towards the Conseravative Party. People of varied age, ethnic, and gender groups may also have been attracted by the fiscal conservatism promised by the party. I sense that the only-old-white-men-support-the-Conservatives schtick is mostly a pejorative stereotype upheld and disseminated by those who support left leaning parties who, after all, want to uphold their own positive stereotype of being fresh and anxious for change.

[Boges]

I don't think so, but are you saying the Conservative Party does not find a very disproportionate amount of its support from old white men?

Canada is disproportionally represented by older white people so it would stand to reason the party that may appeal to a larger percentage of the population that the others would appeal to a good number of older white men.

Doesn't mean the party only speaks to them and rejects other groups. So saying the CPC is an Old white person party is dismissive and trying to equate them the GOP of the US.

Would you find someone saying the NDP only appeals to "under-employed hipsters that are supported by their parents" pejorative?

Edited May 23, 2013 by Boges

[Hudson Jones]

Stop denying the obvious. The Conservatives have a similar base as the Republicans: Old white people.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Hudson Jones

[GostHacked]

And he did exactly what he promised in that ad:

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/faa-lfi/index-eng.asp

So where is the accountability?

[TimG]

Stop denying the obvious. The Conservatives have a similar base as the Republicans: Old white people.

And the NDP base consists of young white people living with their parents.

[Hudson Jones]

What are you talking about? Young white people living with their parents don't vote.

I like this meme made to explain reality to the old white people who vote conservative.

[silver72]

it's not so much who you vote for, its the why, when a governing party has a lot of funny business going on and the same voters keeping voting for that same party. If the liberals supporters kept voting for the liberal party, Harper wouldn't be seating where he is. It doesn't seems that the Conservative voters are more concern over having their guy in, rather than what's been happening within that government or the country. I really question voters who support corruption, no matter which party it is.

[August1991]

Harper's base is quite a bit broader than that. I have a strong belief in order, in fiscal prudence, in sound management, which would, I suggest, make me part of that base. But while I could see myself voting for Ignatieff, were he running next time around, I don't see myself voting for Trudeau.

Argus, I have a similar opinion.

And he has run the most accountable government we've had in my lifetime by a huge margin. It's precisely because of his open accountability that people are able to see all this info, warts and all. They're the ones who brought us the federal accountability act, they're the ones who created the PBO. These things are a pain in the ass, and they knew that going in, but they went forward with them anyway because it's the right thing to do.

Going to Peru shows leadership. Statesmanship. He's going about the business of continuously strengthening our economy, instead of getting involved in this childish bullshit media stunt.

Bryan, I agree that Harper has never taken a cent for himself. But that's a "Nixon defence". Nixon never took any money for himself either.

The question is whether a politician abused the public trust for personal power. And I suspect that the best person to answer that question would be Nigel Wright, or John Dean.

----

As to going to Peru, I recall Nixon going to Egypt in 1974. The trip was more grandiose, but Nixon's staff also used the term "statesmanlike".

Edited May 24, 2013 by August1991

[Keepitsimple]

I'll be curious to see how this turns out. It's possible that Duffy went to the Bank to get a loan but it was taking time to get it approved - so Wright gave him the money and Duffy would pay him back afterr getting it approved. Far-fetched perhaps - but that scenario would confirm that they were BOTH being truthful. Doesn't make it right - just makes a bit more sense.

[Moonbox]

Hudson Jones, on 23 May 2013 - 9:04 PM, said:

What are you talking about? Young white people living with their parents don't vote.

I like this meme made to explain reality to the old white people who vote conservative.

That was pretty funny actually, and true.

[Wilber]

it's not so much who you vote for, its the why, when a governing party has a lot of funny business going on and the same voters keeping voting for that same party. If the liberals supporters kept voting for the liberal party, Harper wouldn't be seating where he is. It doesn't seems that the Conservative voters are more concern over having their guy in, rather than what's been happening within that government or the country. I really question voters who support corruption, no matter which party it is.

That's an interesting comment considering how long the Liberals held power during the last century and came to see themselves as the "natural governing party".

It's easy to say, don't vote for these guys because they aren't honest but people have to see an alternative they can turn to which they see as credible. That's what happened in BC. I think it's fair to say a majority of people here didn't think the Liberals deserved to win the last election but they didn't see the NDP presenting a case they felt they could turn to instead.

Whether Harper stays in power after the next election will not depend on Harper so much as whether his opposition can present themselves as a better alternative.

It's very much who you vote for, that's what determines who wins.

[Wilber]

That was pretty funny actually, and true.

Some of it is.

[AlienB]

The PMO is not only paid for Duffy's false expense claims, they told him not to cooperate with the audit!

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mike-duffy-made-secret-deal-with-harper-s-chief-of-staff-during-audit-1.1282015

Duffy showed "great leadership"? Voluntarily paid back? Bold faced lies. And the PMO telling Duffy not to cooperate with an internal audit is very troubling... The PMO is condoning fraud!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/15/pol-duffy-senate-deal.html

This shows a serious lack of leadership and/or moral compass from Harper. Condoning and paying for the fraud of his senate appointees shows the culture of entitlement. The RCMP should investigate both the senate expenses, this payment and the lack of cooperation from Duffy, on the say so of the PMO, with the audit.

That is defamation, there was no fraud. The RCMP themselves said the rules were unclear. Its not like people making a tax claim they arn't entitled is fraud if they honestly think they are entitled to it. Proving mens rea here is the trick, that is a guilty mind that intentional tried to defraud the public purse into paying for his house in Ottawa.

Now just think how much hosting his wife and himself for 250 days a year would cost if it were a hotel, or the 100 or so or 50 or so or 30 or however any meeting the senate and senate committees that he is part of meet would cost. If you figure $200 a day that is $50,000 right there and that is before the Wallin expenses like car, $14 orange juices and tips come into play.