Justin Trudeau & Red China

[Smallc]

Obviously, having the drug be illegal helped his mother then....

[Icebound]

Exactly, taxpayer’s dollars shouldn’t go to political parties to “level” the playing field…….If a party preaches a populous dogma, members and donations will follow.

Though I disagree with them, look at the results the Liberals have achieved within the last year…..clearly a reaction to their selection of (popular) Trudeau and an apparent policy reboot.

If parties like the NDP, Greens, Christian Heritage, Canadian Action etc are not receiving the same level of donations from party members, this is clearly a reflection on their platforms.

Ok, then make sure that you eliminate the tax credit for political donations and the subsidy for election expenses..

Right now, for every $1000 that a political party gets from "contributions", about $550 come from the taxpayers... and the so-called "contributor" only pays about $450.

Elimating the per-vote subsidy does NOTHING to eliminate tax-payer subsidization of political parties. BUT WHAT IT DOES DO... is make sure that the big "money-raisers" get to suck an even GREATER percentage of the total public political subsidy.

The "reflection on party's policies" is supposed to be in the voting booth, not in the bank account........ and right now, when you look at the total number of votes that, say, the Green Party got, and the total number of votes that the federal Conservatives got.... you would find that the Federal Conservatives gets almost TWICE the amount of PUBLIC money per vote that the Greens do.

That's PUBLIC taxpayer money....

Edited November 18, 2013 by Icebound

[cybercoma]

Obviously, having the drug be illegal helped his mother then....

Drove a truck through that hole.

[Guest Derek L]

Ok, then make sure that you eliminate the tax credit for political donations and the subsidy for election expenses..

Right now, for every $1000 that a political party gets from "contributions", about $550 come from the taxpayers... and the so-called "contributor" only pays about $450.

Elimating the per-vote subsidy does NOTHING to eliminate tax-payer subsidization of political parties. BUT WHAT IT DOES DO... is make sure that the big "money-raisers" get to suck an even GREATER percentage of the total public political subsidy.

The "reflection on party's policies" is supposed to be in the voting booth, not in the bank account........ and right now, when you look at the total number of votes that, say, the Green Party got, and the total number of votes that the federal Conservatives got.... you would find that the Federal Conservatives gets almost TWICE the amount of PUBLIC money per vote that the Greens do.

That's PUBLIC taxpayer money....

I’ve no issue with the vote subsidy being phased out as planned by 2015.…….With that said, I think you’re confusing the per vote subsidy with the tax credit.

[PIK]

They talked about his on "Power and Politics" and one reporter said it was a joke about Harper, China and dictatorship but one had to be there when he said as to the tone he said in. This won't be the last topic on Justin as long as he is in the lead in the polls, both, the NDP and Tories will go after him and anything and everything he says or does but that's politics but let see who gets really nasty.

Nice try lol Once trudeau realised how stupid he was he tried to deflect it on harper and it made him look even worse. So he has pissed off the chinese canadians , the moderate muslims and women, keep up the good work.

[PIK]

Is that what Trudeau said? Drugs aren't that bad? Because the news articles that I read were saying that Trudeau said that pot can be dangerous for developing minds.

I would bet this was a set up also, just like in BC they had someone start the ball rolling with a questiion about it. Justin is proving he is not a leader.

[Keepitsimple]

From Andrew Coyne today:

Rather, the Trudeauvian gaffe generally involves a quite deliberate statement, presented not flippantly or off-hand but in a determined effort to sound provocative or profound. If they instead strike the listener as ill-judged, it is because he seems to have invested so little actual thought in them. It is in the gulf between his intellectual reach and grasp that his reputation as a ninny has been earned.

Link: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/11/11/andrew-coyne-justin-trudeaus-gaffes-reveal-the-gulf-between-his-intellectual-reach-and-grasp/

[Wilber]

On the pot thing. Wasn't Trudeau responding to a question from one of the students? I don't believe he brought the subject up. Dissagree with his opinion but god forbid a politician should lie when asked a question.

On the China thing. I bet every western politician in power secretly wishes they could get things done like the Chinese government. Dumb to say it out loud in public though..

Edited November 18, 2013 by Wilber

[Icebound]

.

I’ve no issue with the vote subsidy being phased out as planned by 2015.…….With that said, I think you’re confusing the per vote subsidy with the tax credit.

You (and the Conservative Party) are the ones that are confused.

Let me try this again:

The supposed reason for phasing out the per-vote subsidy is that "the taxpayer should not be subsidizing political parties". But the biggest subsidy is, in fact, the tax credit. If you are seriously trying to get rid of "subsidising political parties", they you must ALSO get rid of the tax credit.... and you must also get rid of the provision to rebate election expenses. (both of those are subsidies by the taxpayer)

NOW... if you are continuing to ALLOW the taxpayers to subsidize political parties, then it should be fair.... and what is more fair than subsidizing according to the votes thaty a party gets??... the true measure of the acceptability of its policies by the public.

Thus the per-vote subsidy makes a lot more sense than tax credits or election expense rebates. Getting rid of the per-vote subsidy actually SKEWS the political funding by taxpayers, instead of making it more fair.

[Guest Derek L]

.

You (and the Conservative Party) are the ones that are confused.

No, you are.

Let me try this again:

The supposed reason for phasing out the per-vote subsidy is that "the taxpayer should not be subsidizing political parties". But the biggest subsidy is, in fact, the tax credit. If you are seriously trying to get rid of "subsidising political parties", they you must ALSO get rid of the tax credit.... and you must also get rid of the provision to rebate election expenses. (both of those are subsidies by the taxpayer)

NOW... if you are continuing to ALLOW the taxpayers to subsidize political parties, then it should be fair.... and what is more fair than subsidizing according to the votes thaty a party gets??... the true measure of the acceptability of its policies by the public.

Thus the per-vote subsidy makes a lot more sense than tax credits or election expense rebates. Getting rid of the per-vote subsidy actually SKEWS the political funding by taxpayers, instead of making it more fair.

The tax credit for donors, like those that donate to charity, is a benefit for the donors of all political parties, not the parties themselves.

As to your suggestion that it skews party funding (for some unnamed nefarious purpose no doubt) in favour of those with large bank accounts is purely laughable……..Do you really think those donors that that contribute the max allowable amount (per elections Canada) jump up and down over receiving a “tax break” measured in the hundreds of dollars?

[Topaz]

Don't hear any Tory talking about the drug use of Ford, either.

[Guest Derek L]

Don't hear any Tory talking about the drug use of Ford, either.

http://globalnews.ca/news/972153/trudeau-ford-set-bad-example-for-country-justice-minister/

“Both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Ford, who have admitted to using drugs while in office … do not set a very high standard or example for the country,” MacKay said in an interview on The West Block with Tom Clark.

[On Guard for Thee]

It would take an extreme case of glaucoma to not be able to see the differences between Ford and Trudeau with regard to the transgression each have made. Mackay is trying to draw this far fetched parallel as he knows he won't have to face Ford in the next election. And if you've ever studied the F35 file you may find a few reasons to doubt Mackay.

[Guest Derek L]

Hmmm.....So Trudeau won't commit to mandatory minimums against pedophiles:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/2849155857001

This guy just writes the attack adds

[PIK]

Hmmm.....So Trudeau won't commit to mandatory minimums against pedophiles:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/2849155857001

This guy just writes the attack adds

What liberal does. It seems the lib judges in this country do not seem to understand how evil that is. So now he has angered the chinese canadians, the moderate muslim, women that were totally insulted with his meet justin day, and now parents. Keep it coming justin. Edited November 19, 2013 by PIK

[On Guard for Thee]

That Sun news link is quite fun although putting Sun and news together Is the same as putting Fox and news together. The best part of the piece Is that the only sensible statements made in it are those by Trudeau, unless bubble headed blonds are your thing. Mandatory minimums don't work and a number of retired American judge have said so. Although I must concede, if applied properly, the city of Toronto might be able to get out of the much they are currently in.

[Keepitsimple]

That Sun news link is quite fun although putting Sun and news together Is the same as putting Fox and news together. The best part of the piece Is that the only sensible statements made in it are those by Trudeau, unless bubble headed blonds are your thing. Mandatory minimums don't work and a number of retired American judge have said so. Although I must concede, if applied properly, the city of Toronto might be able to get out of the much they are currently in.

That's the beauty of a comprimising society. People on the Left - apparently like yourself - say minimum sentences don't work at all. Those on the Right want minimum sentences for many crimes. As with so much that is Canadian, the comprimise will be somewhere in the middle where elected officials and public opinion team up to provide guidance to the courts on those crimes that are deemed to be particularly revulsive to society. The pendulum has always served us well and it's now swinging back to the Center. How Canadian.

[waldo]

Hmmm.....So Trudeau won't commit to mandatory minimums against pedophiles:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/2849155857001

This guy just writes the attack adds

What liberal does. It seems the lib judges in this country do not seem to understand how evil that is.

not surprising a card-carrying supporter as yourself would simply echo the SunNews crap... as was already pointed out to MLW member PIK (who, of course, doubles down with his (above) reply to you):

Go to sun news and watch the reporter ask him if he would repeal the minimum for child molesters, and he said yes.

standard PIK/SunNews crapola... I indulged your BS and watched that video. The video shifts from the 2 in-studio SunNews talking heads to commentary from Trudeau... the video does not include any direct questioning from a SunNews reporter/journalist... it does not include, "whatever the hell question proceeded the Trudeau commentary, how it was phrased and in what context"... his commentary is generalized and does not include any specific reference to... any specific crime/offense. Talk about the "Media SunNews Party"! Well done PIK!

now... I can recall a couple of past (relatively recent) MLW threads that speak directly to the Harper Conservative blood-lust desire for mandatory minimums. Perhaps you should resurrect one of those threads, hey? Uhhh, that is if your real intent is to actually discuss mandatory minimums... instead of fueling your hack partisanship!

.

[Wilber]

I am opposed to mandatory minimums, I think they are the wrong way to go. Unfortunately our legal system has no one but itself to blame for the push toward mandatory sentencing. Our maximum sentences are a lie and a bad joke. They are never imposed even under the most heinous circumstances and with double credit for time served and mandatory release after two thirds, even the reduced sentences are never served. People see it as theatre and the desire for mandatory sentencing is just pushback.

[bleeding heart]

I am opposed to mandatory minimums, I think they are the wrong way to go. Unfortunately our legal system has no one but itself to blame for the push toward mandatory sentencing. Our maximum sentences are a lie and a bad joke. They are never imposed even under the most heinous circumstances and with double credit for time served and mandatory release after two thirds, even the reduced sentences are never served. People see it as theatre and the desire for mandatory sentencing is just pushback.

You might be right. I think with a harsher and firmer stance on maximum sentencing, for the most heinous crimes (and especially for recidivist heinous crimes), the push for mandatory minimums would have duller teeth, for sure.

[Guest Derek L]

not surprising a card-carrying supporter as yourself would simply echo the SunNews crap

The OP was a link to the NP.......don't worry though, we'll echo all the crap Trudeau let's loose.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Derek L

[waldo]

The OP was a link to the NP.......don't worry though, we'll echo all the crap Trudeau let's loose.

as you clearly realize, as I pointedly quoted, my response/challenge to you had nothing whatsoever to do with the OP (National Post) link. Obviously, you were called on your quote/SunNews link reference. Why are you so disingenuous, hey?

[Guest Derek L]

as you clearly realize, as I pointedly quoted, my response/challenge to you had nothing whatsoever to do with the OP (National Post) link. Obviously, you were called on your quote/SunNews link reference. Why are you so disingenuous, hey?

Disingenuous? Has Trudeau refuted the Sun News report?

[waldo]

Disingenuous? Has Trudeau refuted the Sun News report?

you put up a link to the video - within that video, what was the question asked... state the specific/absolute point in the video where we can find the question asked. Waiting...

[Guest Derek L]

you put up a link to the video - within that video, what was the question asked... state the specific/absolute point in the video where we can find the question asked. Waiting...

Has Trudeau refuted the Sun News report?