Jump to content

Liberal rumours.


Army Guy

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Once in a while, it is good to come up for air and take a deep breath of reality. Unless there is a dramatic shift to the centre by the CPC with a credible centrist leader, Prime Minister Trudeau will win another minority term in the next election. The CPC has become too idealogical to expand the tent to appeal to pragmatic voters.

Here is one thing we do know, todays liberal government is kicking down the road most of the important topics we face in this country right now.  The question should be, can they be left another 4 years before someone tackles them. We know how this government operates with lies and deceit, why give them 4 more years to do what exactly, i mean 8 years is not enough to complete a vision, or lack of vision. 

CPC is to ideological to get elected. What is it your afraid of, they are going to cancel what exactly....  And yet Justin and his crowd of lairs deserve another 4 years sorry i don't follow the logic here, why would anyone support a government that can not get anything done , and what they do try they have to lie and deceive voters to get there. and does it not bother your moral values to keep this party in power. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes the reason we can't see is we don't have the legislation in place that allows us too.

No kidding. It's just about the most Orwellian name ever given an institution. It means you get to see little if anything.  

Nonsense, the attempt to establish transparency as a principle in our governance is why we have a Lobbying Act and a Transparency and Accountability Act.  I'm just arguing they're nowhere near effective enough. 

It's really not much more than what I said though. You'd have taken the King's side I assume and perhaps argued for even greater impunity.

In any case I merely point to the MC as an example of how changing the relationship between those who govern and those who are governed should be on par with the change that occurred between the rulers and the ruled way back in the day.   I'm simply suggesting another step down the same path. 

And on and on and on....     

 

facepalm.jpg

Edited by ExFlyer
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

CPC is to ideological to get elected. What is it your afraid of, they are going to cancel what exactly....  And yet Justin and his crowd of lairs deserve another 4 years sorry i don't follow the logic here, why would anyone support a government that can not get anything done , and what they do try they have to lie and deceive voters to get there. and does it not bother your moral values to keep this party in power. 

The point is not what we would like to happen, but what will happen. If I were to get my way, the position of Prime Minister would be eliminated. It is only one position in the ministry. I want to eliminate the middle man. 

But that is as remote a possibility as tens of thousands of voters who have been Liberal, Bloc and NDP supporters in the past few years suddenly switching to support the CPC led by Mr. Poilievre. The secret to political success is to listen to what voters want, not telling them what they should want. If you want to stay in power, then you have to find a way to give them what they want.

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Yes the reason we can't see is we don't have the legislation in place that allows us too.

No kidding. It's just about the most Orwellian name ever given an institution. It means you get to see little if anything.  

Nonsense, the attempt to establish transparency as a principle in our governance is why we have a Lobbying Act and a Transparency and Accountability Act.  I'm just arguing they're nowhere near effective enough. 

It's really not much more than what I said though. You'd have taken the King's side I assume and perhaps argued for even greater impunity.

In any case I merely point to the MC as an example of how changing the relationship between those who govern and those who are governed should be on par with the change that occurred between the rulers and the ruled way back in the day.   I'm simply suggesting another step down the same path. 

The Magna Carta was written to transfer more rights to the aristocracy from the King. As a human being, King john was an unpleasent man, but as a King, he was progressive. He was the best educated English monarch up until that time. He was unusual in that he proudly called himself King of England rather than his brother Richard and his ancestors who preferred to be Dukes of Normandy. John loved England and the people of England, unlike his brother who hardly ever set foot in the place. He was the first King of England to know how to speak English and actually spoke it as his first language. If you were a serf in dispute with your Lord and you managed to get your case heard by King John, he was more than likely going to side with the peasant if his case was reasonable. King John despised the Barons as arrogant uneducated bullies. There was very little in the charter to benifit the lower classes. In that sense, it was the Magna Carta that gave licence to the excesses of people like the Hugh Le Despensers.

Edited by Queenmandy85
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

While still resulting in a sea change in the relationship between the upper classes and their betters.

Now it's our turn.

The upper classes only had the King as their better. Relations with the lower classes deteriorated after the death of John. The Magna Carta gave the aristocracy carte blanche to ride roughshod over the lower class. It was the pandemic of 1348 - 1358 that made life some what better for the lower classes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, eyeball said:

Seems it still does.

Does transparency give you the willie's too?

Government paralysis does and that would be the likely outcome if there was no confidence. We vote for people whom we trust to make appropriate decisions. If we try to micromanage them, nobody will be willing to serve. If a candidate is running to be your MP and you don't trust their judgement, don't vote for them. Nominate someone you do trust. As I said before, politics is a participation sport. If you don't participate, don't complain if you don't like the outcome. Anybody can run for Parliament but they can't win unless we go out an knock on doors, identify their support and get out their support to vote. If the candidate you trust the most does not win, it is your fault, for not working hard enough or backing the wrong candidate. 

Remember rule #1 in politics. The voter is always right.

Rule #2. If the voters are wrong, refer to Rule #1.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

We are governed by a liberal borg centred in the triangle of Montreal, Toronto, & Ottawa.  It is a family dictatorship type of thing.  Most of the voters are gullible liberal puppets.  Western Canada has practically no say in anything.

We can tinker with many things in life, even re-write history. But the one factor in life that is fixed is geography. Geography dictates where people live and what they can do there. Geography dictates that the New York-chicago-Toronto - Montreal region is where most of the power lies. It has the population because it is the centre of economic power.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Government paralysis does and that would be the likely outcome if there was no confidence.

As opposed to the paralysis and lack of confidence we currently enjoy?  

In any case, what's micro-management got to do with public-interest monitors being present during meetings between lobbyists and public officials and why would it lead to any more paralysis than we already have?  You just need to bring a few more chairs into the room or set up a camera or two and that's about it really.

I mean I get it, it's hard to stab someone in the back when everyone's all sitting facing one another in the same room - so come up with better spokespeople who are better at influencing and pitching ideas that everyone can get behind. 

Quote

Remember rule #1 in politics. The voter is always right.

Rule #2. If the voters are wrong, refer to Rule #1.

For what it's worth I do think voters will one day be led in the direction of greater transparency, by candidates and parties who basically weaponize transparency and use it to compete against one another.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

As opposed to the paralysis and lack of confidence we currently enjoy?  

In any case, what's micro-management got to do with public-interest monitors being present during meetings between lobbyists and public officials and why would it lead to any more paralysis than we already have?  You just need to bring a few more chairs into the room or set up a camera or two and that's about it really.

I mean I get it, it's hard to stab someone in the back when everyone's all sitting facing one another in the same room - so come up with better spokespeople who are better at influencing and pitching ideas that everyone can get behind. 

For what it's worth I do think voters will one day be led in the direction of greater transparency, by candidates and parties who basically weaponize transparency and use it to compete against one another.

What paralysis is ocurring now?

Having public interest monitors sitting in on these meeting is the very definition of micro-managing. You voted for your MP because you trusted them. They have access to excellent advisors, professional civil servants. You hired them to do the job of governing. They are there to make decisions on your behalf, to provide you with good government. Why would you need to second guess them? During the hiring process, you had the opportunity to vet them, to judge their integrity. You had the opportunity to select the best people through the nominating process. If you were in their shoes, would you not find it insulting to have a boss who automatically views you as corrupt and dishonest. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

In any case, what's micro-management got to do with public-interest monitors being present during meetings between lobbyists and public officials and why would it lead to any more paralysis than we already have?  You just need to bring a few more chairs into the room or set up a camera or two and that's about it really.

If you think the person you hired to be your MP is a crook, how are you going to select a team of monitors? How will you ensure they are not corrupt and in the employ of the Pharmsutical industry, or China? You will need at least 5 monitors for each MP (3 shifts per day and time off) and more to watch over the senior civil service. They will need a high level of security clearance. So, you are going to have to pay them accordingly, say $200K a year. That is about $438,000,000.00 just for MP's and Senators. That is 2190 monitors for the politicians, but then there are the senior civil servants. There are likely 50 of them for each ministry. There are also the political staff. 

Perhaps, you should think this through a bit more. Better yet, hire the best MP's you can trust and let them do their job.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/21/2022 at 4:15 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

There is a word for that. Ingratitude.

Ah yes, and how else? Them peasants should be grateful and never ask inconvenient questions. Remember though, it always goes both ways. You can pretend being smart and wise but in the final count, usurpation of authority also means the ultimate responsibility. Nobody to point fingers to. You've got it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/21/2022 at 1:14 AM, blackbird said:

In eight years, BC has doubled its protected areas to 13.8 percent of the province – one of the highest percentages in North America.

Less than one-third of one percent of BC’s forest land is harvested annually.

Only 42% (25 million hectares or 62 million acres) of BC’s provincially owned forests are available for logging.

58% percent of BC’s forests (35 million hectares or 86 million acres) will remain as original forests. How large is that? Almost as large as California (which is 100 million acres) and considerably larger than Nevada (70.3 million acres).

 

And this info you have came from your MP, Trudeau, a government publication, or most likely God told you so last Sunday in the church?

I believe my eyes and nothing else.  You may tell me the rivers flow upstream, I really do not care what you would say.

The reality is that in BC or anywhere else in Canada or outside of Canada, nothing is really protected. 

Forests around disappear at an ever increasing rate with new roads being constantly built.

Rivers in the States got destroyed by logging and dams and this same thing now just continues further north into the last remaining healthy places.

 

 

00-Forests-Gone-01.jpg

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What paralysis is ocurring now?

Climate change and health care come to mind.  I'm sure fossil fuel advocates would certainly agree things are paralysed.

Quote

Having public interest monitors sitting in on these meeting is the very definition of micro-managing.

They're simply there to listen and watch...what are you talking about micro-managing?

Quote

You voted for your MP because you trusted them. They have access to excellent advisors, professional civil servants. You hired them to do the job of governing. They are there to make decisions on your behalf, to provide you with good government. Why would you need to second guess them?

Because I think it's irresponsible to trust without verification.  There's to much at stake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Perhaps, you should think this through a bit more. Better yet, hire the best MP's you can trust and let them do their job.

Actually you need to stop overthinking this, you're inventing bogymen for no good reason.

Lobbying is simply open to the public and meetings are recorded so whatever is acted on can be traced directly back to whatever was discussed. Why does it need to be any more complicated than that?

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, cougar said:

And this info you have came from your MP, Trudeau, a government publication, or most likely God told you so last Sunday in the church?

I believe my eyes and nothing else.  You may tell me the rivers flow upstream, I really do not care what you would say.

The reality is that in BC or anywhere else in Canada or outside of Canada, nothing is really protected. 

Forests around disappear at an ever increasing rate with new roads being constantly built.

Rivers in the States got destroyed by logging and dams and this same thing now just continues further north into the last remaining healthy places.

 

 

00-Forests-Gone-01.jpg

Once again with an anonymous unknown location photo.

The thing with your choice of photos is that that is a logged forest and after re-planting, it looks completely different. It takes less than a year to see the difference and to see the new growth.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

Actually you need to stop overthinking this, you're inventing bogymen for no good reason.

Lobbying is simply open to the public and meetings are recorded so whatever is acted on can be traced directly back to whatever was discussed. Why does it need to be any more complicated than that?

To be honest and looking at your posts regarding this topic, the one overthinking and inventing boogeymen lobbyists is you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

To be honest and looking at your posts regarding this topic, the one overthinking and inventing boogeymen lobbyists is you.

So you figure it's all as pure as the driven snow?  I mean on a scale of 1 - 10 I really have no idea myself and I doubt you do either because it's all secret.

I do think there are more good people involved with government out there than bad but things like the Angus Reid articles on mistrust and people giving up on democracy are troubling indicators and I have little reason to disbelieve a lack of transparency is the root cause. I certainly don't see things getting better on their own so just drive it till it breaks I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So you figure it's all as pure as the driven snow?  I mean on a scale of 1 - 10 I really have no idea myself and I doubt you do either because it's all secret.

I do think there are more good people involved with government out there than bad but things like the Angus Reid articles on mistrust and people giving up on democracy are troubling indicators and I have little reason to disbelieve a lack of transparency is the root cause. I certainly don't see things getting better on their own so just drive it till it breaks I guess. 

Never said that.

Just said "looking at your posts regarding this topic, the one overthinking and inventing boogeymen lobbyists is you. "

Everyone finds fault and dislikes things they disagree with or do not understand (mostly the case).

Look at the other threads by anti vaxxers LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Never said that.

Ok so just how impure is it do you think?  And at what point do the impurities become toxic?

Quote

Just said "looking at your posts regarding this topic, the one overthinking and inventing boogeymen lobbyists is you."

Your posts indicate you don't like having to think about this at all.  Perhaps you believe some amount of corruption is a necessary unavoidable part of government?  If so how much?

Quote

Everyone finds fault and dislikes things they disagree with or do not understand (mostly the case).

Look at the other threads by anti vaxxers LOL

I have looked at them and it's not just anti-vaxxers feeling the deceit.  I think the link between mistrust in government, the attraction of populism and the disdain for democracy is pretty solid one. Do you think it's tenuous or non-existent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The point is not what we would like to happen, but what will happen. If I were to get my way, the position of Prime Minister would be eliminated. It is only one position in the ministry. I want to eliminate the middle man. 

But that is as remote a possibility as tens of thousands of voters who have been Liberal, Bloc and NDP supporters in the past few years suddenly switching to support the CPC led by Mr. Poilievre. The secret to political success is to listen to what voters want, not telling them what they should want. If you want to stay in power, then you have to find a way to give them what they want.

Justin is not smart enough to run this goat rodeo anyway, someone has been pulling the strings and I'm pretty sure it is not Justin. besides it's not going to happen, to much work for Canadians, 

That is what is happening as we speak, when, all one has to do is go back to the posts when we were talking about PP being selected as leader. He was not fit to run a gangbang in the local red light district. todays polls have him at 36 % when it was said nobody is going to throw him their support, it is happening slowly, and we have not even begin the election cycle. 

But hey it is your vote do what ever you want with it. And if that is supporting this government well, we already know what your getting, more lies, and deceit and not much getting done. It seems a lot of Canadians are into that. That and whining and pointing fingers. I'm just hoping Canada can survive 4 more years of liberal leadership.  

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Ok so just how impure is it do you think?  And at what point do the impurities become toxic?

Your posts indicate you don't like having to think about this at all.  Perhaps you believe some amount of corruption is a necessary unavoidable part of government?  If so how much?

I have looked at them and it's not just anti-vaxxers feeling the deceit.  I think the link between mistrust in government, the attraction of populism and the disdain for democracy is pretty solid one. Do you think it's tenuous or non-existent?

You think and dream impurity. Not me.

You are incorrect, I thought about it and your take on it and determined you are paranoid and think there is a crook around every corner and no one is trustworthy and no one takes this country seriously and does what is best for it.

No you have not looked at this, you have only imagined perils and deceit and corruption.

Amazing how the business of government has lasted so long and done so well without your insight LOL

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...