Will Raybould cross the floor?

[August1991]

What is her future?

Donald Trump famously said that negotiating in politics is like negotiating, he pointed, with "a table". 

If I were Scheer, I would promise her (Harper-style), a position.

Then, she'll be free to tell the truth.  Or, Mulroney-style: She'll make a difference.

=====

I prefer the Harper style: Conservatives in Canada slowly, politically make changes. 

Edited February 9, 2019 by August1991

[August1991]

The federal Liberal Party under Justin Trudeau is like the Austrian-Hungarian Empire with a Crown Prince.

Fortunately, Canada is greater/more than the federal Liberal Party. 

[cannuck]

I voted no, since it is very unlikely a Liberal of any kind would stoop to telling the truth.  Let's face it: you couldn't BE part of the party, never mind minister of anything if you hadn't bought into the Big Lie in the first place.  On the other hand: she IS a lawyer, so by very definition her ethics and allegiance is for sale to the highest bidder.  When one chooses to make their living by causing the misery of others and lying for them, it is not a big leap to go either way.  So the question:  is she really a Liberal or a lawyer??  Time will tell.

[Centerpiece]

38 minutes ago, cannuck said:

  Time will tell.

We'll just have to wait. If Trudeau doesn't allow her to speak publicly, she should leave the party and sit as an independent and tell her story. If there is merit to the story, she would be viewed as a hero (except at The Star and CBC) - Truth to Power......and from an indiginous perspective, the bloom is quickly coming off the Liberal Rose anyway. If there is nothing to the allegations, she'll certainly have some explaining to do as to why she left everyone hanging.

[Queenmandy85]

It is Prime Minister Trudeau she is hanging. I speculate, based on no facts or evidence what so ever, she is holding out to pressure the PM to return her from the wilderness. Rumour has it, she was the source of the story in the first place. If that is true, why has nobody questioned if she lied to the Globe. As for crossing the floor, Mr. Sheer would have to be nuts to accept her. She has not displayed any tendency to b a good soldier. She should have kept her disappointment to herself and worked to make Veterans Affairs the highlight of the government. 

[Dougie93]

Not that I wouldn't love to see her out the PM for being a constitutional criminal, the media narrative however seems like the one in America, wherein the wishful thinking of the media is ginned up into some sort "collusion" and then "collusion" itself is ginned up into a supposed "crime".

I would be very entertained if Trudeau had actually been stupid enough to step over the line, but more likely the PMO walked right up to it without actually crossing over, after being briefed by their own lawyers where the line was to watch out you don't step all the way over.

[Dougie93]

Bear in mind, nothing was so enriching and empowering for the liberal media, as the twin pillars of Vietnam and Watergate.

It's entirely within the core interests and proclivities of the media, to try to gin every military action into a Vietnam and every political intrigue into a Watergate. 

"Gulf of Tonkin!" and "What did the President know and when did he know it?!", is the liberal media in a nutshell.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Dougie93

[Queenmandy85]

As for how much impact this will have on the election, remember the Pearson government with 5 scandals going on at once. The Spencer affair, the furniture bribes, and the Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister Pearson offering a bribe to the lawyer representing the U.S. DOJ to not oppose bail for mafia hitman (and liberal contributor) Lucien Rivard while he was awaiting extradition to the US. Mr. Rivard got tired of waiting and escaped under suspicious circumstances. After all this, the Liberals were re-elected.

[scribblet]

If the allegations are true and she has some integrity she should leave the party, but not cross the floor as IMO she would be a problem for the party.as she is far left.  However, maybe there is some hope for an inquiry as Liberal MP Wayne Long says he's "deeply unsettled" by allegations so is calling for a “full and transparent investigation” by a parliamentary committee that’s been suggested by opposition parties.

  https://www.telegraphjournal.com/telegraph-journal/story/100846978/?nopromo=1

Mind you most liberal MPs will keep quiet until they think their seats are in jeapardy.

Edited February 11, 2019 by scribblet

[August1991]

13 hours ago, scribblet said:

If the allegations are true and she has some integrity she should leave the party, but not cross the floor as IMO she would be a problem for the party.as she is far left....

"far left"?

=====

I suspect that as in the past, in the future, reputation will matter: with the Internet, everything is recorded.

 

[Dougie93]

If Raybould actually had the smoking gun on Trudeau, she could take him down within an hour and would have a very good chance of being the next leader of the Liberal Party and so Prime Minister in the process, thus I think if she had it she would have used it by now.

This allegation is not even as serious as the one the defence is making at the trial of Vice-Admiral Norman, there it is alleged that the Privy Council Office is running the prosecution of Admiral Norman and the Public Prosecution Service is letting them get away with it.

 

[August1991]

On 2/10/2019 at 7:35 PM, Dougie93 said:

Bear in mind, nothing was so enriching and empowering for the liberal media, as the twin pillars of Vietnam and Watergate.

It's entirely within the core interests and proclivities of the media, to try to gin every military action into a Vietnam and every political intrigue into a Watergate. 

"Gulf of Tonkin!" and "What did the President know and when did he know it?!", is the liberal media in a nutshell.

Imho, Vietnam was a battle in a larger Cold War that America ultimately won, for the good of us all.

As to Watergate, Nixon was correct when he said that he gave them a sword. But I reckon that Reagan/Churchill were better than Nixon;  Nixon was a peacemaker who wanted to do a deal with the Soviets. Reagan wanted nothing to do with the Soviet Union, like Churchill wanted nothing to do with Hitler.

Well, Reagan - like Churchill- was ultimately correct: the Soviet Union is no more.

========

Sorry for thread drift.

From what I can gather, she's a smart woman. I met/knew Michael Wilson years ago. I can only imagine the kind of pressure she is under now  

 

Edited February 12, 2019 by August1991

[Dougie93]

51 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Imho, Vietnam was a battle in a larger Cold War that America ultimately won, for the good of us all.

As to Watergate, Nixon was correct when he said that he gave them a sword. But I reckon that Reagan/Churchill were better than Nixon;  Nixon was a peacemaker who wanted to do a deal with the Soviets. Reagan wanted nothing to do with the Soviet Union, like Churchill wanted nothing to do with Hitler.

Well, Reagan - like Churchill- was ultimately correct: the Soviet Union is no more. 

On Vietnam I would disagree. 

The Vietnamese were actually nationalists first communists second, the Vietnamese were in fact the sworn enemy of the Chinese not a domino about to fall to them, it was the Americans who forced the Vietnamese to work with the Soviets and Chinese in the 1954 Peace Settlement, the Viet Minh were actually inspired by America not against America.

So the Americans mistakenly imposed their Cold War unto Vietnam, while the Viet Minh just wanted to be rid of the French colonial administration and associated proxies. The Americans had no real interest in backing France, and France actually burned them by dropping out of NATO anyways and then siding against America as the aggressor in Vietnam as public opinion in France shifted left.

Churchill was an Imperialist warmonger who incited the First World War, and in the Second World War was just defending the route to India from the Germans after they flipped to the Italian side and so were astride the route to Suez. Canada wasn't fighting for Democracy and Freedom in either war, in both wars; to save the British Empire. Which Churchill himself had brought down, by charging into Belgian Neutrality dragging the British Empire with him, wherein it smashed itself against the Somme.

Reagan was a New Deal Democrat who flipped to the Republicans because the Democrats were soft on communism, founding the Neoconservative movement, otherwise known as the Reagan Democrats

Nixon wanted a deal with the Soviets but ended up winning the Cold War by making a deal with the Chinese instead.  Nixon's main problem was that he was an alcoholic, said and did stupid things when he was drunk, including ordering the Watergate break in.

He did however figure out that the Domino Theory was bullshit, the Communists were not a monolith, they could be split, and that could win the Cold War by divide and conquer by flipping the Chinese and isolating the Soviets.

Reagan was simply the beneficiary of Nixon's strategy, when the isolated Soviet economy collapsed as a result of it.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

The commonality there being that in all three wars, First World War, Second World War, and Vietnam, Empire's hoisted themselves on their own petards, by charging into other peoples wars for no good reason. 

First the British hurling themselves into Franco-Prussian War II, turning that into World War One, then charging into Russo-German War II, turning that into World War Two. 

End result Britain falls to America as the Global Hegemony.

Then  America charging into the quagmire of Vietnam, trying to re-impose imperialist French colonial rule of Indochina, in the name of Democracy somehow.

End result, America split into two camps which have been at war with each other domestically ever since.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Dougie93

[scribblet]

10 hours ago, August1991 said:

"far left"?

=====I suspect that as in the past, in the future, reputation will matter: with the Internet, everything is recorded.

Well, she is hard left as is Trudeau.   Still, if she wants to become leader she can't leave the party so has to hang in there and hope that it blows over.    All Trudeau has to do is categorically deny he did it and it would blow over, but he hasn't done that.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, scribblet said:

Well, she is hard left as is Trudeau. 

Isn't where they are on the governed/government axis more relevant than their ideology?  AFAIC this chronic focus on the ideology of our governments instead of their capacity and proclivity for abusing their power is almost entirely why nothing ever changes.  Instead of being unified in real common cause that would benefit all ordinary Canadians of all stripes, people immediately cast about for reasons to remain divided.

This is why we get the governments we so deserve. Stupid is as stupid does time and time again.

Whether Wilson-Rabould crosses the floor utterly misses the point.

Edited February 12, 2019 by eyeball

[Zeitgeist]

I think Raybould was simply an incompetent minister who is playing it silent because her former office allows her to do that.  Trudeau is many things, but influence peddling for a corporation seems unlikely.  She didn’t like being demoted and is trying to reek as much havoc for the PM as she can while she has an audience.  I would expect someone like Scheer to do more to protect SNC as PM than Trudeau.  Moreover, I think he should.  The criminal charges against SNC are crippling and ridiculous over the top political correctness.  A fine suffices. 

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think Raybould was simply an incompetent minister who is playing it silent because her former office allows her to do that.  Trudeau is many things, but influence peddling for a corporation seems unlikely.  She didn’t like being demoted and is trying to reek as much havoc for the PM as she can while she has an audience.  I would expect someone like Scheer to do more to protect SNC as PM than Trudeau.  Moreover, I think he should.  The criminal charges against SNC are crippling and ridiculous over the top political correctness.  A fine suffices. 

A fine in this case is far more like a licence - economic correctness.  

You must be one of these people who believe taking real action against corruption will harm the economy. So how do you feel about taking action on climate change?   

[Zeitgeist]

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

A fine in this case is far more like a licence - economic correctness.  

You must be one of these people who believe taking real action against corruption will harm the economy. So how do you feel about taking action on climate change?   

I believe very strongly in fighting climate change and corruption.  It’s how we do it.  In a country where it’s nearly impossible to get anything done without bribery, Libya, let’s at least make sure our laws take that into account in sentencing, and yes, SNC deserves to be punished for corruption.  

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

SNC deserves to be punished for corruption.  

We all do. And that's exactly what's happening.

[Dougie93]

SNC corruption is all inclusive to bribing Quebec to not formally declare independence. Baked into the cake of failed state Confederation, the source of almost all corruption in Canada.

[Zeitgeist]

21 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

SNC corruption is all inclusive to bribing Quebec to not formally declare independence. Baked into the cake of failed state Confederation, the source of almost all corruption in Canada.

Confederation is no more failed than Manifest Destiny or the Civil War.  Confederation happened relatively peacefully.  If you want to foment a revolution to undo Confederation, I think that movement would be much more of a failure than Confederation. 

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Confederation is no more failed than Manifest Destiny or the Civil War.  Confederation happened relatively peacefully.  If you want to foment a revolution to undo Confederation, I think that movement would be much more of a failure than Confederation. 

None the less, by the British North America Act affirmed by rendered judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada, I am entirely within my constitutional rights to advocate for peaceful transfer of power democratic self determination under the Clarity Act.

It is literally the most Canadian thing one could do, as only in Canada is such a thing possible.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

Canada First.   And as we know, the first Canadians were of course  les Canadiens.  Vive le Quebec, vive les Canadiens libre!

Edited February 13, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

So Raybould has resigned from cabinet and hired Thomas Cromwell as her lawyer, to advise her as to what she can tell the public about what Trudeau said to her?

This is heating up now, that's about as heavy a hitting lawyer as you can hire in Canada, and Trudeau no longer has any leverage over her once she has quit cabinet, that's just a free as crossing the floor.