Trudeau selling access for cash

[Rue]

On 10/21/2016 at 4:07 PM, betsy said:

 

Cash for access - it's like Hillary and Bill! 

Yep and just like Mulroney, Chretiens, and fair is fair Harper and before them the other Trudeau, Pearson, Diefenbaker, on and on.

Its nothing new. The only new thing is Trudeau made a point of saying he wouldn't do it, then does it blatantly.

He poses  for photo ops spewing how righteous he is, then spreads his legs no different then the rest.

[The_Squid]

This doesn't look good for the PM, given his mandate letters to his Cabinet.

Just because it isn't illegal doesn't make it a good thing to do.  (See Duffy for more details)

And "they did it too" is not a legitimate reason for you to do shady things.

Quote

LeBlanc pointed out that the Conservatives had also held expensive fundraisers when they were in office — naming former MPs Joe Oliver, Jason Kenney and Chris Alexander mong those who hosted pricey dinners.

“What we are doing is no different from what they did,” said Kevin Lamoureux, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

This is the language the Liberals have normalized in just a year. From “It’s time for change, my friends, real change,” to “What we are doing is no different from what they did.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-how-quickly-the-federal-liberals-have-slipped-from-real-change-to-they-did-it-too

 

[The_Squid]

The Ethics Commissioner calls this whole thing "unsavoury".

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/political-fundraising-liberals-ethics-money-1.3824260

 

[poochy]

It gets a little harder to give him the benefit of the doubt when he eulogizes a murderous communist dictator, maybe he really is stupid enough to do this.

[eyeball]

Did you doubt him when he was shipping weapon systems to Muslim dictators? 

[Bob Macadoo]

What is the resolution then?  Cancel all charitable foundations that had or will have some association at some time with some politician in power?  Cancel all fundraising practices in all forms?

I welcome Maple glazed Donald Trump Elect when he arrives.

[eyeball]

What is it about keeping wealth separate from governance that people just don't want to get?

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Bob Macadoo said:

What is the resolution then?  Cancel all charitable foundations that had or will have some association at some time with some politician in power?  Cancel all fundraising practices in all forms?

I welcome Maple glazed Donald Trump Elect when he arrives.

Cancel all funds for access schemes whereby businessmen and other lobbyists and activists get to chat with ministers about what they want done.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Argus

[?Impact]

37 minutes ago, Argus said:

Cancel all funds for access schemes whereby businessmen and other lobbyists and activists get to chat with ministers about what they want done.

I have been saying that since 2009 when Harper changed the rules to ensure that fair political party funding went away and which increased the focus on these other type events. You should take your beef with with Mr. bar-b-qua circuit himself. 

[Bob Macadoo]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Cancel all edfunds for access schemes whereby businessmen and other lobbyists and activists get to chat with ministers about what they want done.

Where do we register these "funds for access" schemes so they can be cancelled?  So no lobbyists?   There are pros & cons associated with this.  Lobbyists provide a needed service; educating dumb politicians about complicated issues. I don't blame lobbyists that politicians are so easily bought and sold.  

[The_Squid]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

I have been saying that since 2009 when Harper changed the rules to ensure that fair political party funding went away and which increased the focus on these other type events. You should take your beef with with Mr. bar-b-qua circuit himself. 

That's the hypocrisy of people like many of the right wingers on this forum...  they absolutely cheered when Harper got rid of the public funding of political parties...  and this is the result of that Harper decision.   Now they set their hair on fire over the same things that the Conservatives did when Trudeau does it.

I hope the Liberals use this to bring back the best thing Chrétien  ever did and get money out of politics.  Of course, these same hypocrites will light their hair on fire over that as well....

[TTM]

2 hours ago, The_Squid said:

I hope the Liberals use this to bring back the best thing Chrétien  ever did and get money out of politics.

+1

[Argus]

Now we have a better idea of both why the Trudeau Liberals are so eager to bring over more Chinese immigrants and temporary workers, and why they basically do anything China wants done. Trudeau is basically taking campaign donations from China's Communist Party through its intermediaries in Canada.

The Liberal Party is employing an under-the-radar strategy that taps into the power of Justin Trudeau to generate tens of thousands of dollars from cash-for-access events at the homes of wealthy Chinese-Canadians that provide intimate face-time with the Prime Minister that can be used as business currency at home and in China.

Attendance figures suggest the party collects a minimum of $50,000 per event from donors – and up to $120,000 – in a system that revolves around rich entrepreneurs in Vancouver and Toronto, home to large Chinese-Canadian business communities with people willing to shell out $1,500 per ticket to meet Mr. Trudeau in a private setting.

Some of the guests and hosts at the intimate fundraisers are well-connected to China’s ruling Communist Party.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/influential-chinese-canadians-paying-to-attend-private-fundraisers-with-trudeau/article33131597/

Edited December 2, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

On 11/27/2016 at 4:28 PM, The_Squid said:

That's the hypocrisy of people like many of the right wingers on this forum...  they absolutely cheered when Harper got rid of the public funding of political parties...  and this is the result of that Harper decision.

That's crap.  And by the way, I keep hearing that refrain about how the Conservatives did it too. Somehow, despite the fact he was highly unpopular among the national press corps, we didn't hear much about it back then. I wonder why that was? Could it be that if they did it they rarely did it, as opposed to the enthusiastic whoring for money the Liberals are engaged in?

The history of the conservative vs liberal party in terms of campaign funding before the Chretien curbs was that the Tories got their funds through large numbers of small donations, but the Liberals got theirs through a small number of very large donations. Naturally the Conservatives prospered when the rich and corporations were no longer able to buy political parties, and naturally they wanted to hammer the Liberals even more. But this wholesale access for cash scheme is something the Ontario Liberals - the most corrupt political organization in Canada - brought to Ottawa when Trudeau drafted in so many advisers from Toronto. 

[Argus]

On 11/27/2016 at 1:49 PM, ?Impact said:

I have been saying that since 2009 when Harper changed the rules to ensure that fair political party funding went away and which increased the focus on these other type events. You should take your beef with with Mr. bar-b-qua circuit himself. 

By 'fair political party funding' you mean 'welfare for lazy, stupid politicians', right? I understand your enthusiasm for public funding for everything in existence, but those of us who pay taxes disagree.

[?Impact]

12 minutes ago, Argus said:

By 'fair political party funding' you mean 'welfare for lazy, stupid politicians', right? I understand your enthusiasm for public funding for everything in existence, but those of us who pay taxes disagree.

No, I mean exactly what you said but in a non-partisan manner. The rich should not have special access, where you are saying only rich Conservatives should have special access. What exactly do you want to fund the political process in this country?

[eyeball]

47 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

No, I mean exactly what you said but in a non-partisan manner. The rich should not have special access, where you are saying only rich Conservatives should have special access. What exactly do you want to fund the political process in this country?

What Argus wants is a system of voting wherein the value and clout of his vote is directly related to the size of his income.  He's every bit as greedy for power as any politician and every bit as willing to use his money to influence them.

Edited December 2, 2016 by eyeball

[Argus]

43 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

No, I mean exactly what you said but in a non-partisan manner. The rich should not have special access, where you are saying only rich Conservatives should have special access. What exactly do you want to fund the political process in this country?

I have been completely consistent in my desire that government not fund anything not needed, including both corporate welfare and political welfare. If political parties want funding they can appeal for it from their membership. If the membership isn't interested in funding their party then so what? Why should I care about that?

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

But this wholesale access for cash scheme is something the Ontario Liberals - the most corrupt political organization in Canada - brought to Ottawa when Trudeau drafted in so many advisers from Toronto. 

You mean the Alberta Conservatives with their back yard bar-b-ques. Access for cash is a Conservative strategy, yet you don't seem to recognize that. When the Liberals copied that strategy you stuck the label on it and only applied it to Liberals. That is your partisan thinking. 

I ask again how do expect to fund the political system in this country? You say you are against any government funds, although the Conservatives are the latest beneficiaries to the tune of tens of millions a year. You say you are against fund raisers, unless they happen to be in Conservative back yards. What exactly do you want. Make clear rules that are non-partisan.

[Argus]

9 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

You mean the Alberta Conservatives with their back yard bar-b-ques. Access for cash is a Conservative strategy, yet you don't seem to recognize that. When the Liberals copied that strategy you stuck the label on it and only applied it to Liberals. That is your partisan thinking. 

I ask again how do expect to fund the political system in this country? You say you are against any government funds, although the Conservatives are the latest beneficiaries to the tune of tens of millions a year. You say you are against fund raisers, unless they happen to be in Conservative back yards. What exactly do you want. Make clear rules that are non-partisan.

I already told you. You simply don't like the answers because your solution to every problem and issue is for the government to step in and fund everything. I see a lot of publicity about the cash for access scheme in BC, Ontario and Ottawa, yet, oddly, none about the conservatives I guess it's because of how friendly the national media is and was with conservative parties, eh?

Or maybe, just maybe, it's because a few back yard bar-b-ques, largely for party members, isn't the same thing as setting up a cash register outside the prime minster's office and putting a price list on the door.

I assume the cashier has to be trilingual: english, french and chinese.

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Argus

[eyeball]

50 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I ask again how do expect to fund the political system in this country?

I'd draft legislators from the general public, put them together with technocrats, put their product to the public in the form of referenda and put the public's deliberation to another jury-like council-of-elders for a final sober-second-look.

We need a governing system not a political system.

Edited December 2, 2016 by eyeball

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I'd draft legislators from the general public

So seat warmers, no qualifications needed.

[eyeball]

No, they'd be qualified in the manner that we qualify jurists.

Citizen's assemblies and regional co-management boards should also be a feature of our governing system.

Politics belongs in the coffee shop and peanut gallery.

Edited December 2, 2016 by eyeball

[?Impact]

21 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, they'd be qualified in the manner that we qualify jurists.

So who are the two lawyers who get to pick from the random sample? They get to look at you, and perhaps ask you a question or two. They can either then say "content", or "challenge". They are only given a limited number of challenges they can offer, so say we have 325 legislators (or whatever, I used the current number of elected ones) then the pool would probably be a thousand or so.

• Who decides?
• Who decides who decides?
• What questions do they ask?

Edited December 2, 2016 by ?Impact

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

 

• Who decides?
• Who decides who decides?
• What questions do they ask?

I'd put these questions to the panel of international constitutional experts being sidestepped in the thread; 

How Trudeau will work very hard on dumping FPTP

Edited December 2, 2016 by eyeball