Army Guy Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 On 1/1/2017 at 11:08 PM, ?Impact said: Sorry but the books were finalized in October, not April; that the way is always has been (at least in the past 50+ years). The deficit from the Oliver budget ended up being $987 million. Additionally there was a comprehensive loss of $2.669 billion, due mainly to the reclassification in the current year from the sale of General Motors common shares in April 2015. That is a net debt increase of $3.656 billion. We will know the final results from Morneau's first budget next October. And here i thought the federal government ran on a fiscal budget running from APR 1 st until 31 March every year...perhaps you can show me a source that says other wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Argus said: No Conservative ever gets many seats in Quebec. Brian Mulroney got 58 (77%) of the seats in Quebec with 50.2% of the popular vote in '84 and 63 (84%) of the seats in Quebec with 52.7% of the popular vote in '88. Edited January 4, 2017 by ?Impact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 10 minutes ago, betsy said: Depends on one's perspective. I don't see any problem with it. My perspective is that it's at odds for someone who is supposed to support the status of women also supports a man who admits to sexually assaulting them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 2 hours ago, betsy said: There's good fire in Leitch. I don't think she's easily cowed. When the time comes....I'll take a real close look at her. The only fire I see in Leitch is one associated with an electoral dumpster fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 2 minutes ago, Army Guy said: And here i thought the federal government ran on a fiscal budget running from APR 1 st until 31 March every year...perhaps you can show me a source that says other wise. ...and the rain in Spain stays mainly on the plain - but what does that have to do with what I said? The books are finalized in October; yes the fiscal year is April-March but it takes the bean counters time to do their job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 8 minutes ago, ?Impact said: ...and the rain in Spain stays mainly on the plain - but what does that have to do with what I said? The books are finalized in October; yes the fiscal year is April-March but it takes the bean counters time to do their job. I was asking a question, with a comment you made, sorry did not know we could not ask questions...Thanks for the answer i think ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 8 minutes ago, Army Guy said: did not know we could not ask questions... My apologies for my gruff response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 34 minutes ago, ?Impact said: My apologies for my gruff response. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 2 hours ago, ?Impact said: Brian Mulroney got 58 (77%) of the seats in Quebec with 50.2% of the popular vote in '84 and 63 (84%) of the seats in Quebec with 52.7% of the popular vote in '88. Yeah, yeah, exceptional circumstances. There was no BQ, the Tories had a Quebec leader who spoke French better than the French, and the Liberals were led by a maudit Anglais. It ain't going to happen again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said: The only fire I see in Leitch is one associated with an electoral dumpster fire. I don't see Leitch as being electable, notwithstanding her values question. There's just nothing particularly attractive about her as a candidate, other than actually being willing to talk about immigration - which the rest are terrified to get near. That being said, I find it disturbing how many Conservative candidates, including Lisa Raitt today, are falling all over themselves to attack the very idea of values testing. Just over eighty percent of people who voted Conservative liked the idea in that Toronto Star poll. Almost sixty percent of Liberal and NDP voters did too. Who was opposed? The progressives and SJWs, especially the CBC and parliamentary press gallery. If Raitt thinks acting like Justin Trudeau will get her conservative votes she's mistaken. Some of us will just not bother to vote. If the bulk of the candidates want to embrace policies the CBC will admire them for they might well find somebody like Leitch or O'Leary grabbing the bulk of tory party voters who are tired of politicians like her. Or they just might find a lot of conservative voters yawning and not voting come next election because of the unappetizing choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Argus said: I don't see Leitch as being electable, I agree 100%....... 1 hour ago, Argus said: That being said, I find it disturbing how many Conservative candidates, including Lisa Raitt today, are falling all over themselves to attack the very idea of values testing. Values testing would be a greater part of the conversation if it was determined to be an electable cross worth bearing.........absent a domestic terror attack from an immigrant, it holds zero political water and would ensure the Tories wouldn't form government in 2019. 1 hour ago, Argus said: Some of us will just not bother to vote. Maybe, but realistically immigrant voters in Greater Vancouver and Toronto hold more political clout then you and people that wouldn't vote based on values testing. 1 hour ago, Argus said: If the bulk of the candidates want to embrace policies the CBC will admire them for they might well find somebody like Leitch or O'Leary grabbing the bulk of tory party voters who are tired of politicians like her. Or they just might find a lot of conservative voters yawning and not voting come next election because of the unappetizing choices. Leitch would result in a Trudeau Government........O'Leary I'm not so sure, though I've been supportive of him for nearly a year, recent statements have put me off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 I to thought O' leary was our man for the job, and now having second thoughts. Again it has to do with recent statements. Not sure if the military would get any support from him, as deficit reduction would be a key stone block for them, which would mean no additional spending..no frills for anyone.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 21 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said: I agree 100%....... Values testing would be a greater part of the conversation if it was determined to be an electable cross worth bearing.........absent a domestic terror attack from an immigrant, it holds zero political water and would ensure the Tories wouldn't form government in 2019. Maybe, but realistically immigrant voters in Greater Vancouver and Toronto hold more political clout then you and people that wouldn't vote based on values testing. Leitch would result in a Trudeau Government........O'Leary I'm not so sure, though I've been supportive of him for nearly a year, recent statements have put me off. O'Leary has the name recognition, presence, and policy idea to hammer Trudeau with. Trudeaus fate is tied to the economy if O'Leary gets in. O'Leary does tend to get ahead of himself when discussing areas he's not as familiar with as finance. And would O'Leary repeal the carbon tax? andrew scheer is good but he needs to take lessons from o'Leary about stage presence which will be needed to topple Trudeau. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 1 minute ago, blueblood said: O'Leary has the name recognition, presence, and policy idea to hammer Trudeau with. Trudeaus fate is tied to the economy if O'Leary gets in. O'Leary does tend to get ahead of himself when discussing areas he's not as familiar with as finance. And would O'Leary repeal the carbon tax? andrew scheer is good but he needs to take lessons from o'Leary about stage presence which will be needed to topple Trudeau. The thing with O'Leary is that based on past views and statements, despite being maybe electable against a Trudeau, he might not win the Tory leadership race as the base gets to know him.........crapping on the military, gun owners and Tory leaning trade-union voters is a good way to piss off the base and not get elected to the leadership....... I have nothing against Scheer or O'Toole, but I think both are too nice and would get murdered by the media/Liberals...........as it stands now, I'm with Mad Max. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 6 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said: The thing with O'Leary is that based on past views and statements, despite being maybe electable against a Trudeau, he might not win the Tory leadership race as the base gets to know him.........crapping on the military, gun owners and Tory leaning trade-union voters is a good way to piss off the base and not get elected to the leadership....... I have nothing against Scheer or O'Toole, but I think both are too nice and would get murdered by the media/Liberals...........as it stands now, I'm with Mad Max. It's also interesting that O'Leary had said he was open to supporting scheer and bernier. A culling of the herd is needed so a proper debate can take place. Kellie lietch is no trump and will get destroyed in an election. if there's anyone who can get himself out of hot water it's O'Leary. Bernier still has the ghost of biker chick past to deal with too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 8 hours ago, blueblood said: A culling of the herd is needed so a proper debate can take place. I agree. 8 hours ago, blueblood said: Kellie lietch is no trump and will get destroyed in an election. Again I agree, but if O'Leary could manage to win the leadership, I would think him to be very competitive against the Trudeau Liberals....further compounded by this Government's own dire economic forecast...... 8 hours ago, blueblood said: Bernier still has the ghost of biker chick past to deal with too. I don't think it would mater.............his ex dated a biker a decade before he met her, likewise leaving the NATO briefing notes at her place. The follow on investigation proved there was nothing critical within them, regardless, he did the right thing in resigning his cabinet post and owning his mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 16 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said: Values testing would be a greater part of the conversation if it was determined to be an electable cross worth bearing.........absent a domestic terror attack from an immigrant, it holds zero political water and would ensure the Tories wouldn't form government in 2019. People forget that when that big media circus about the niquab banning during citizenship swearing in exercises was going on not only did the Tory decision have massive public support, but that support came from all sectors, including immigrants. I would suggest that if told that potential immigrants should be interviewed first by an immigration officer, and that that officer should determine their ability to adapt and integrate into Canada as a part of their consideration the only people who would strongly object would be the people who would set themselves on fire before voting Tory anyway. Remember that even just the values question enjoyed 80% support among Tory voters, and 59% among Liberal and NDP voters. The opposition to it is not coming from real Canadians but from the social justice warriors of the media. Then too we have to wonder what is the point of a conservative party which refuses to advocate for or support conservative policies? Edited January 5, 2017 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 16 hours ago, Army Guy said: I to thought O' leary was our man for the job, and now having second thoughts. Again it has to do with recent statements. Not sure if the military would get any support from him, as deficit reduction would be a key stone block for them, which would mean no additional spending..no frills for anyone.... Yeah, I didn't like his dumb comments about the military myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 16 minutes ago, Argus said: People forget that when that big media circus about the niquab banning during citizenship swearing in exercises was going on not only did the Tory decision have massive public support, but that support came from all sectors, including immigrants. I would suggest that if told that potential immigrants should be interviewed first by an immigration officer, and that that officer should determine their ability to adapt and integrate into Canada as a part of their consideration the only people who would strongly object would be the people who would set themselves on fire before voting Tory anyway. Remember that even just the values question enjoyed 80% support among Tory voters, and 59% among Liberal and NDP voters. The opposition to it is not coming from real Canadians but from the social justice warriors of the media. Then too we have to wonder what is the point of a conservative party which refuses to advocate for or support conservative policies? I have no problem with vetting and background checks for people entering this country, that only makes sense, but its not an issue that the next election will be won on, and could cost support in key ridings the Tories need to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Derek 2.0 said: I have no problem with vetting and background checks for people entering this country, that only makes sense, but its not an issue that the next election will be won on, and could cost support in key ridings the Tories need to win. Maybe, but the Tories are not going to win the next election pretending to be Liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 13 minutes ago, Argus said: Maybe, but the Tories are not going to win the next election pretending to be Liberals. It weems to have worked well for the Liberals. But yes Leitch would be a mistake. Her values test along would be her demise, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 22 minutes ago, Argus said: Maybe, but the Tories are not going to win the next election pretending to be Liberals. Right, the next election will be won or lost on the economy.......not being the Liberals on this file is the easy part, being able to deliver an articulate message on how to repair the economy will be the important part....getting bogged down in what will be portrayed as racist proposals will cost them the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benz Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 On 2017-01-04 at 5:01 PM, ?Impact said: Brian Mulroney got 58 (77%) of the seats in Quebec with 50.2% of the popular vote in '84 and 63 (84%) of the seats in Quebec with 52.7% of the popular vote in '88. The Progressive-Conservative party was not exactly the same as the current Conservative party. They were less differences with the liberals as there are today. Without the "progressives", they would have not as much success in Québec. Also, Mulroney was proposing Meech to solve the constitution dead-end. Those two factors were interesting the Québécois alot. The current conservatives are not proposing any solution to bring back Québec into the constitutional giron and they are not flirting with anything progressive. Two essential conditions to make serious gains in Québec. So Argus is right. It's not going to happen anytime soon. Beside the Beauce, the suburd of Quebec city and few country side regions, the conservatives are very unpopular. Not because we hate the conservatives people, because it's very far from our values. There are alot of topics that the conservatives fight for that are not even open for discussion in Québec, such as removing the women's right for abortion. When we listen to conservatives, we have the feeling to hear a re-run of an old serie from the 50's, remastered for UHD. It's just weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 3 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said: Right, the next election will be won or lost on the economy.......not being the Liberals on this file is the easy part, being able to deliver an articulate message on how to repair the economy will be the important part....getting bogged down in what will be portrayed as racist proposals will cost them the election. I kind of get how this can be used by the opposition. What I would like is to see a candidate who speaks softly about it, about the need to ensure the best people come to Canada, about the desirability of a face to face interview, as a signal that they understand improvement needs to be made. What I don't want is to see someone like Raitt, who goes all out in attacking the very idea, and thus commits herself in future to following along where the progressive and SJWs have led. I will not vote for Lisa Raitt under any circumstances because of her campaign targeting this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Benz said: Beside the Beauce, the suburd of Quebec city and few country side regions, the conservatives are very unpopular. Not because we hate the conservatives people, because it's very far from our values. You mean like, paying the bills and individual responsibility? Yes, I can see how that would be true from a province which refuses to have fracking but happily spends the money they get in transfer payments from the provinces which do it. 1 hour ago, Benz said: There are alot of topics that the conservatives fight for that are not even open for discussion in Québec, such as removing the women's right for abortion. And when was the last time the Conservatives campaigned against removing the right to an abortion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.