Leftist Hero Justin Trudeau investigated for obstructing justice

[myata]

On 6/23/2023 at 1:09 AM, CdnFox said:

If we do that - what can we expect?

Who are "we"? Laziness and apathy, working in decades and generations have their effect. Active citizens in a vibrant democracy isn't the same "we" as pueblo in an oligarchy that buys infallibly into every promise of another handout even if the word is the same. And active citizens wouldn't have allowed an entrenched and entitled system that makes so little sense in the modern world and can do nothing but consuming huge amounts of public resources to continue indefinitely. We are not the "we" that we like to think of ourselves. And that explains everything, no?

[OftenWrong]

21 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm all ears.

Except where ears are needed most - in-camera.

Ok, look. Let's say we elect a sort of Executive Officer of the week... but all the decisions of that officer... You get the picture.  

Ok how about this. The whole left/right thing is a false dichotomy, in that most "ordinary" human beings are a blend of these views, based on their personality, upbringing and local/ regional values. Anyone who's completely one-sided on issues is a partisan. In reality when you meet such a person you might consider them as "nutbar". Excluding those who work directly in politics of course, since it's their job to BE partisan. And they, are the ones who are pushing their brand of bullshit on us. All these divisive issues? Government. Bad health care? Government. Bad economy, prices, wages, infrastructure? Government, government, government... you get the picture.

Therefore absolve the party system. Parties are the problem, because they are... partisan. All candidates become independent. The present themselves and their "team" as in cabinet, as a model for the public to vote on.

Most of all, they MUST present a platform, at the bare minimum. That way no more Doug Fords can come in at the last minute and mesmerize the public due to a false political "emergency".

 

[Dougie93]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Therefore absolve the party system. Parties are the problem, because they are... partisan. All candidates become independent. The present themselves and their "team" as in cabinet, as a model for the public to vote on.

unconstitutional

by Section 2 of the Canada Act : Freedom of Association

furthermore, partisanship is not the problem

rather, MP's simply do not hold to their oaths to bear true & faithful allegiance in right of HM The King

bear in mind, the Westminster Parliament was founded in 1690

when men held to their oaths in fear of God Himself

the modern British liberal state is a constitutional monarchy

entirely based upon honour, fealty : Loyalism

thus if Canadians forsake

Regiment, Colours, Commander-in-Chief

God, King, Country

Peace, Order & Good Governance

then it is simply not Canada anymore

Canada having been British North America by definition\

Queenston Heights to Ridgeway

lest we forget

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

unconstitutional

by Section 2 of the Canada Act : Freedom of Association

furthermore, partisanship is not the problem

rather, MP's simply do not hold to their oaths to bear true & faithful allegiance in right of HM The King

bear in mind, the Westminster Parliament was founded in 1690

when men held to their oaths in fear of God Himself

the modern British liberal state is a constitutional monarchy

entirely based upon honour, fealty : Loyalism

thus if Canadians forsake

Regiment, Colours, Commander-in-Chief

God, King, Country

Peace, Order & Good Governance

then it is simply not Canada anymore

Canada having been British North America by definition\

Queenston Heights to Ridgeway

lest we forget

Ok so it's unconstitutional. They were the grits and the torys if I recall. Those who sat to the left and those who sat to the right of crown or monarch.

Was just an idea. Just sayin, is all.  

The idea was to remove the influence of inheritance, whether it be by the king or by party back-benchers. The shadowy people who actually run things. Trudeau himself is just a brand name.

Edited June 24, 2023 by OftenWrong

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Ok so it's unconstitutional. They were the grits and the torys if I recall. Those who sat to the left and those who sat to the right of crown or monarch.

Was just an idea. Just sayin, is all.  

The idea was to remove the influence of inheritance, whether it be by the king or by party back-benchers. The shadowy people who actually run things. Trudeau himself is just a brand name.

there is no way to legislate honour

either you believe in the supremacy of God & the rule of law

or you don't

there is no middle ground

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Was just an idea. Just sayin, is all.

I would submit to you

that no legislation is required to cast the money changers from the temple

quite the opposite in fact

chaos is a ladder

[eyeball]

13 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Ok, look. Let's say we elect a sort of Executive Officer of the week... but all the decisions of that officer... You get the picture.  

Ok how about this. The whole left/right thing is a false dichotomy, in that most "ordinary" human beings are a blend of these views, based on their personality, upbringing and local/ regional values. Anyone who's completely one-sided on issues is a partisan. In reality when you meet such a person you might consider them as "nutbar". Excluding those who work directly in politics of course, since it's their job to BE partisan. And they, are the ones who are pushing their brand of bullshit on us. All these divisive issues? Government. Bad health care? Government. Bad economy, prices, wages, infrastructure? Government, government, government... you get the picture.

Therefore absolve the party system. Parties are the problem, because they are... partisan. All candidates become independent. The present themselves and their "team" as in cabinet, as a model for the public to vote on.

Most of all, they MUST present a platform, at the bare minimum. That way no more Doug Fords can come in at the last minute and mesmerize the public due to a false political "emergency".

 

Like the right to lobby I don't see any need to get rid of anyone's right to join or form a party.  I agree there's much that's false about the dichotomy you mention - I think it's far more true however when we're talking about the governed vs the government. You're either with one or you're with the other.  The problem as I see it is power and parties like corporations can't help but become sociopathic as everything is dictated and directed by the need to acquire and hold onto all the power or money they can.  They can't help themselves.  Only we can, I think.

I honestly think a few tweaks to the lobbying act would be a lot easier.  Just about anything else on tap involves changing the constitution, seperating, having a civil war etc.  In my opinion partisans embrace the horror and are the likeliest to argue 'corruption, what corruption', 'so what' or 'there's bugger all you can do about it'.

Edited June 25, 2023 by eyeball

[herbie]

Oh FFS there were like 7 choices on the ballot in this riding and you're free to vote for any of them. Quit whining if your beliefs are more inline with the Christian Heritage Party and you voted Tory and they're not living up to it. You're the same ones that carried on over every level of reform proposed and only suggest things that hamper any effective governance and limit other people's inputs.

Oooh we should have a coalition gov't of 300+ independent MPs and no effective leader... c'mon get real!

Edited June 25, 2023 by herbie

[myata]

17 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Excluding those who work directly in politics of course, since it's their job to BE partisan.

And FPTP hugely exacerbates this problem, like 1,000,000 magnification telescope. There are exactly three instances of FPTP in what is considered developed democracies. One is unique through the history. Another is very thoughtfully, carefully and deliberately constructed system of checks and balances, however having mounting issues due to rising partisanship. And one is on the brink of going completely dysfunctional.

FPTP is bad, bad for the democracy, unless it's a miracle. But no such miracles here. Only dysfunctional. Now try to show or explain it to the entitled bunch at the trough, forever.

Edited June 25, 2023 by myata

[BeaverFever]

On 6/20/2023 at 10:34 AM, CdnFox said:

And as usual the left has to lie to try to make it's point

In fact the RCMP's response note there was evidence, but not enough to go to trial 

Nope as usual you have to lie by falsely accusing other people of lying it literally says NO EVIDENCE:

However, the RCMP’s Monday-evening statement said investigators dropped the matter after determining there was no evidence of criminality.

 

Nowhere in the article does it say “the RCMP's response note there was evidence, but not enough to go to trial”.  You invented that claim you little liar. 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Nope as usual you have to lie by falsely accusing other people of lying it literally says NO EVIDENCE:

However, the RCMP’s Monday-evening statement said investigators dropped the matter after determining there was no evidence of criminality.

 

Nowhere in the article does it say “the RCMP's response note there was evidence, but not enough to go to trial”.  You invented that claim you little liar. 

Sigh -  Well thanks for proving the point that the left has to lie

from the article:

RCMP said Monday that it was not currently investigating political interference allegations during the SNC-Lavalin affair, after a “comprehensive and impartial” review of the matter found insufficient evidence of criminality

Insufficient. They had been given evidence going into it. That's why they investigated. You don't launch an official investigation without there being evidence of wrongdoing. This isn't just "we're looking into it" - they had an official investigation.

And nowhere in the article does it say 'no'  evidence at all.  Honestly - are you so stupid you think that the RCMP would say "Oh yes - we had no evidence at all of anything so we launched an official investigation that went on for quite some time".

They mention they couldn't get FURTHER information because of parliamentary privilege.

 

Holy shit you're stupid - why wouldn't you at least read the article before you jump in and say something that dumb? Seriously your first clue should have been that they opened an official investigation a all - nobody does that without evidence.

[Guest]

On 6/19/2023 at 3:15 PM, CdnFox said:

Is it me or is this guy more like trump every day?

Soon enough even the hair, if genetics gave a say.

[myata]

This is what window dressing of democracy looks like. Look we have representatives! (from this one angle only, please don't move!), courts (no, stay on this one page) and independent" investigation offices (you know, in the great picture book). It just never happens in the reality. Why bother?

[BeaverFever]

On 6/26/2023 at 11:21 AM, CdnFox said:

Sigh -  Well thanks for proving the point that the left has to lie

from the article:

RCMP said Monday that it was not currently investigating political interference allegations during the SNC-Lavalin affair, after a “comprehensive and impartial” review of the matter found insufficient evidence of criminality

Insufficient. They had been given evidence going into it. That's why they investigated. You don't launch an official investigation without there being evidence of wrongdoing. This isn't just "we're looking into it" - they had an official investigation.

And nowhere in the article does it say 'no'  evidence at all.  Honestly - are you so stupid you think that the RCMP would say "Oh yes - we had no evidence at all of anything so we launched an official investigation that went on for quite some time".

They mention they couldn't get FURTHER information because of parliamentary privilege.

 

Holy shit you're stupid - why wouldn't you at least read the article before you jump in and say something that dumb? Seriously your first clue should have been that they opened an official investigation a all - nobody does that without evidence.

Hey dumbass I literally quoted the part that said “no evidence” amd your response is to lie and say nowhere does the article say no evidence. 
 

You are the one lying amd claiming the article says something it doesn’t. No where does it say they found any evidence. Youare hanging your hat on the fact that ONE referee to “insufficient evidence”.  When there’s a finding of Insufficient evidence” that also includes situations of no evidence buddy it doesn’t automatically mean “some evidence”

Edited July 3, 2023 by BeaverFever

[Queenmandy85]

On 6/20/2023 at 9:02 AM, TreeBeard said:

I predict a coalition government next election.   The Conservatives will win the most seats, but the Libs/NDP will join forces to form government.  

The great thing about Canadian politics is any attempts to predict who will win the next election are futile before the last week before the election. That is what makes it so exciting. Remember 2015? The predictions focused on whether Harper could stop Mulcair and would the liberals be able to hold on to their third party position? Then, in a previous election, there was the orange wave that came out of no where to make Jack Layton opposition leader.

That being said, I continue to predict Mr. Poilievre will win the next election. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Hey dumbass I literally quoted the part that said “no evidence” amd your response is to lie and say nowhere does the article say no evidence. 
 

Hey Re-tard,  i quoted the part where the ACTUAL POLICE ARE QUOTED - not just the journalist. The JOURNALIST said "no evidence" -  The POLICE said "insufficient".

So you prove my point twice - the journalist had to lie and YOU had to lie. The POLICE said "insufficent".

Go read it again. And this time don't skip over the big words just because they're hard for you.

Quote

You are the one lying amd claiming the article says something it doesn’t

I literally quoted it.   THe writer says 'no' evidence, the POLICE said 'insuffiicent'.

Holy shit you're stupid. And you'd think after so many times looking like an !diot you'd be sure to double check before you call me 'wrong' about something. But nooooo - still with your head firmly stuck examining your colon     Well at least you're consistent.

[TreeBeard]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The great thing about Canadian politics is any attempts to predict who will win the next election are futile before the last week before the election. That is what makes it so exciting. Remember 2015? The predictions focused on whether Harper could stop Mulcair and would the liberals be able to hold on to their third party position? Then, in a previous election, there was the orange wave that came out of no where to make Jack Layton opposition leader.

That being said, I continue to predict Mr. Poilievre will win the next election. 

If Trudeau retires, I can’t see PP winning.  The only reason PP has a chance is because Trudeau is yesterday’s news.  His leadership, or lack of, is getting to be tiring.  
 

That said, if Trudeau stays on, I agree that PP’s party will win the most sets, but I don’t think they’ll form government.  

[Queenmandy85]

There isn't much to investigate. The events are public knowledge. 

The company asked for a deferred prosecution. The PM passed on the request to Attorney-General Wilson-Raybould.

He was worried about the loss of 6000 jobs. Passing the request on to the AG was inappropriate and she told him so. The request by the company for a deferred prosecution is perfectly legal, but should have been addressed to the Crown Prosecutor, not the Ministry. Attorney-General Wilson-Raybould told the PM the request was denied. That decision was further ratified by her successor, Minister Lametti.

Minister Wilson-Raybould was not fired or even demoted. Some time after these events, Minister Brison resigned, leading to a cabinet shuffle. Her tenure as Minister of Justice and AG were quite productive. The Department of Veterans Affairs has been a troubled (dysfunctional in my view) department for years and Minister Wilson-Raybould's demonstrated abilities were seen as a move to repair it. It was a vote of confidence in her abilities.

When the SNC Lavilin request became public, Minister Wilson-Raybould resigned from Cabinet. She was not fired.

The Prime Minister mishandled the government's response, leaving the impression he is arrogant and has difficulty with women, but he did not do anything criminal. Like many of us, he is reticent to admit his mistakes. It cost him his majority.

I am looking forward to see how Prime Minister Poilievre will explain why he is going to run away from his promises to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada, gut the nation's public broadcaster, and replace real money with counterfit digital stuff. His first year behind the big boy's desk should be very interesting. My fear is that he will abandon all his bizzare promises and be a competent Prime Minister. That would be boring. ?

[CdnFox]

32 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

.

He was worried about the loss of 6000 jobs. Passing the request on to the AG was inappropriate and she told him so. The request by the company for a deferred prosecution is perfectly legal, but should have been addressed to the Crown Prosecutor, not the Ministry. Attorney-General Wilson-Raybould told the PM the request was denied. That decision was further ratified by her successor, Minister Lametti.

 

You left out some important parts.   The number one being that after she told him NO - he continued to pressure her and had Butts go so far as to threaten her careeer and they got all of this on tape.   And that's illegal.

Your description would be similar to saying " A guy went into the bank, took some money out, and left" without mentioning he had a gun and no account.

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

You left out some important parts.   The number one being that after she told him NO - he continued to pressure her and had Butts go so far as to threaten her careeer and they got all of this on tape.   And that's illegal.

Your description would be similar to saying " A guy went into the bank, took some money out, and left" without mentioning he had a gun and no account.

I'm not sure what is illegal about that. It is inappropriate, but his pressure had no impact. Stupid does not equate to criminal. Mr. Poilievre should be happy about that.

" A guy went into the bank, asked to take some money out, and left without any money because the teller said no."

Cabinet ministers pressure each other all the time. King vs Ralston 1942-1945. Diefenbaker vs. Hees, Harkness, Fulton et al. 1963. Chretien vs. Martin. 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Queenmandy85

[OftenWrong]

11 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I'm not sure what is illegal about that. It is inappropriate, but his pressure had no impact. 

" A guy went into the bank, asked to take some money out, and left without any money because the teller said no."

Cabinet ministers pressure each other all the time. King vs Ralston 1942-1945. Diefenbaker vs. Hees, Harkness, Fulton et al. 1963. Chretien vs. Martin. 

Different with the AG.

[PIK]

38 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I'm not sure what is illegal about that. It is inappropriate, but his pressure had no impact. Stupid does not equate to criminal. Mr. Poilievre should be happy about that.

" A guy went into the bank, asked to take some money out, and left without any money because the teller said no."

Cabinet ministers pressure each other all the time. King vs Ralston 1942-1945. Diefenbaker vs. Hees, Harkness, Fulton et al. 1963. Chretien vs. Martin. 

PP should be happy about what?

[Queenmandy85]

9 minutes ago, PIK said:

PP should be happy about what?

That stupidity is not illegal. ?

[PIK]

4 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That stupidity is not illegal. ?

He's stupid?

[Queenmandy85]

In the political sense. As a human being, I am sure he is a fine man with integrity and intelligence. But, he has gone way out on a limb promising things he can't deliver and expectations from his base that he can't or shouldn't deliver. When he makes a mistake, rather than admitting it like Premier Ford would, Mr. Poilievre doubles down on it. 

He's a lot like the Prime Minister in his flaws. Nice hair though.

He is very good at the glib one-liner. Kudos to his speech writer. His true calling is in stand-up comedy.

The sad thing is, we could have had Raitt or, even better, Ambrose. Ambrose is the best Prime Minister we never had.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Queenmandy85