He just wasn't ready

[stevecanuck]

"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau violated four sections of the Conflict of Interest Act during separate family trips to the private island of the Aga Khan in the Bahamas last year, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson has concluded".

Trudeau Lite became the first Canadian PM to be found in violation of ethics. What a guy. Then, to make matters worse, he said the following at today's press conference:

"I consider the Agha Khan to be a family friend", "I fully accept the report of the commissioner", and, "She made a determination he is not a family friend".

So, which is it Mr. PM, do you accept the finding that he is not a family friend or will you continue to say he is? Only in the minds of his most ardent supporters will that blatant contradiction go unnoticed. For those who don't know, the Agha Khan's foundation is a registered lobby group in Canada, which causes the appearance of a quid pro quo situation.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...an-trip-ethics-watchdog-says/article37393519/

 

[Hawkeye10]

It's time to go back on tour:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-touring-to-escape-concentric-circles-in-ottawa-1.3727746

 

[Surrealistik]

It's time to go back on tour:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-touring-to-escape-concentric-circles-in-ottawa-1.3727746

Here's a simple alternative: stop cozying up to billionaires and big donors, then use your majority to reinstate public campaign finance, pass stringent limits on private campaign finance, lobbying and political spending and then enshrine those changes in the Charter so you, and everyone else, don't have to ever again.

It's time to stop the Americanization and plutocratization of Canadian politics before it's too late.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Here's a simple alternative: stop cozying up to billionaires and big donors, then use your majority to reinstate public campaign finance, pass stringent limits on private campaign finance, lobbying and political spending and then enshrine those changes in the Charter so you, and everyone else, don't have to ever again.

It's time to stop the Americanization and plutocratization of Canadian politics before it's too late.

That's no fun, this guy has a lifestyle of hobnobbing with the powerful and with celebs, I dont think he wants to give it up.

And we know how addictive it is......just look at Obama.

 

[Surrealistik]

That's no fun, this guy has a lifestyle of hobnobbing with the powerful and with celebs, I dont think he wants to give it up.

And we know how addictive it is......just look at Obama.

The Conservatives are little better on this issue if not worse.

I mean they're the ones who phased out public financing of elections for example, making our political parties entirely dependent on (and beholden to) private donations and donors; it was among the very first things they did after getting their majority.

 

[Hawkeye10]

The Conservatives are little better on this issue if not worse.

I mean they're the ones who phased out public financing of elections for example, making our political parties entirely dependent on (and beholden to) private donations and donors; it was among the very first things they did after getting their majority.

Well you know the thing about Canada is that the reality and the the self image as portrayed in the press releases match up poorly...... there as an aversion to knowing the truth when the truth is unpleasant.....not so much better than how America and Europe do the same thing. Canadians are about to figure out that the smugness they feel when they think about America is misplaced, though I get the sense that you already know.

 

[bearpoker]

That's no fun, this guy has a lifestyle of hobnobbing with the powerful and with celebs, I dont think he wants to give it up.

And we know how addictive it is......just look at Obama.

Everything's bad when Obama does it.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

The Conservatives are little better on this issue if not worse.

I mean they're the ones who phased out public financing of elections for example, making our political parties entirely dependent on (and beholden to) private donations and donors; it was among the very first things they did after getting their majority.

Considering how leftist Hollywood is, i'd say you're absolutely wrong on that one.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Everything's bad when Obama does it.

Obama is very error prone, always has been, always will be, but that is not the point here.

 

[Hawkeye10]

"Those Americans who object to the "let them all come as they want" immigration plan suck, we Canadians are ever so much more tolerant" worked only till immigrants started to come as they will, because Canada has long been super selective about who they take, because Canada cant afford to take just anyone and everyone. Then they had to backtrack, while refusing to be honest about backtracking.

This is Canada.



EDIT: The really fun part is watching Canadians jam Trump for wanting America to do what Canada has long done...being selective on who we let in, trying to get people who dont cost a ton of money in upkeep at least immediately and who can provide some benefit to America.

 

[bearpoker]

Obama is very error prone, always has been, always will be, but that is not the point here.

So it's not ok for Trump to play golf either?

 

[Hawkeye10]

So it's not ok for Trump to play golf either?

Let's try to talk about Canada MKay?

I suggest that if you cant tie a post into Canada somehow then it must be in the wrong place.

 

[Surrealistik]

Well you know the thing about Canada is that the reality and the the self image as portrayed in the press releases match up poorly...... there as an aversion to knowing the truth when the truth is unpleasant.....not so much better than how America and Europe do the same thing. Canadians are about to figure out that the smugness they feel when they think about America is misplaced, though I get the sense that you already know.

Though I personally don't think 'smugness' is constructive and shouldn't ever feature, I will say that things in Canada aren't quite yet nearly as bad as they are in the States: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...63883FF?doi=10.1.1.668.8647&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Considering how leftist Hollywood is, i'd say you're absolutely wrong on that one.

I was referring to the Canadian Conservative party specifically, but on the issue of cozing up with private money and big donors, I'd say liberals are better on this overall yes, because doing in exchange for legislative favours so at least presents a level of cognitive dissonance and internal conflict for the left leaning and typically means a rightward shift in policy economically that tends to be resisted, whereas conservatives are generally proponents of the rich by default to begin with; there's much less friction in the latter case.

Now that said, the corrupting influence of money in politics is very much bipartisan and transcends party lines. However, the Dems at least have a motivated, vital and expanding progressive wing fighting against the corruption of private money indulged in by its establishment/third way factions; I currently know of no such prominent Republican equivalent.

 

[bearpoker]

Let's try to talk about Canada MKay?

I suggest that if you cant tie a post into Canada somehow then it must be in the wrong place.

You're the one who brought Obama into it.

 

[Hawkeye10]

You're the one who brought Obama into it.

Because Canada's current leader is following in the failed Obama/Blair mold....see I had a point about Canada.

 

[Buzz62]

"Those Americans who object to the "let them all come as they want" immigration plan suck, we Canadians are ever so much more tolerant" worked only till immigrants started to come as they will, because Canada has long been super selective about who they take, because Canada cant afford to take just anyone and everyone. Then they had to backtrack, while refusing to be honest about backtracking.

This is Canada.



EDIT: The really fun part is watching Canadians jam Trump for wanting America to do what Canada has long done...being selective on who we let in, trying to get people who dont cost a ton of money in upkeep at least immediately and who can provide some benefit to America.

This is true. Very true in fact.

We Canucks do like to flaunt our 'nice guy' image, and do tend to stick our heads in the sand when things get weirdly American-like.
And we do like to do the passive-aggressive thing...as a national identity that is. I don't really do passive-aggressive very well.
PM Pixy-Dust does this perfectly. The darling son of the friggin' Holy Grail of Canadian politics, Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

To this subject, I have to give Pixy-Dust a pass...to be fair. He is a rich kid and has rich kid friends. I get that, and wouldn't begrudge him, or any rich kid, from fully enjoying the benefits of running in such circles. But restoring the election regulations and lobby regulations would be a good idea IMO. Its hard to pontify about the bought and paid-for politics of the Americans, when we're quickly headed in the same direction.

Canada...of all places on Earth...must stay relatively 'clean' of corruption, so we can try to moderate the rest of the crazy-ass bastards and bitches who are trying to drive the world to pure chaos. However...once the legalization of pot is done, Justin will have worn out his usefulness, IMO. By then Canada will likely need a stronger leader and federal government.

 

[Hawkeye10]

This is true. Very true in fact.

We Canucks do like to flaunt our 'nice guy' image, and do tend to stick our heads in the sand when things get weirdly American-like.
And we do like to do the passive-aggressive thing...as a national identity that is. I don't really do passive-aggressive very well.
PM Pixy-Dust does this perfectly. The darling son of the friggin' Holy Grail of Canadian politics, Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

To this subject, I have to give Pixy-Dust a pass...to be fair. He is a rich kid and has rich kid friends. I get that, and wouldn't begrudge him, or any rich kid, from fully enjoying the benefits of running in such circles. But restoring the election regulations and lobby regulations would be a good idea IMO. Its hard to pontify about the bought and paid-for politics of the Americans, when we're quickly headed in the same direction.

Canada...of all places on Earth...must stay relatively 'clean' of corruption, so we can try to moderate the rest of the crazy-ass bastards and bitches who are trying to drive the world to pure chaos. However...once the legalization of pot is done, Justin will have worn out his usefulness, IMO. By then Canada will likely need a stronger leader and federal government.

"We are too nice to tell the truth" is a real problem, and this constantly apologizing for what your ancestors did needs to go away as well. That said we Americans dont think about or talk about Canada very much, it's nice to have some of you'all around, I might learn something.

:2wave:

 

[can2man]

"We are too nice to tell the truth" is a real problem, and this constantly apologizing for what your ancestors did needs to go away as well. That said we Americans dont think about or talk about Canada very much, it's nice to have some of you'all around, I might learn something.

:2wave:

Joyeux Noel
Mon Ami

 

[Hawkeye10]

Joyeux Noel
Mon Ami

I have no idea but I am in the Christmas Spirit and you said NOEL:

+1 2 U

 

[Quag]

Here's a simple alternative: stop cozying up to billionaires and big donors, then use your majority to reinstate public campaign finance, pass stringent limits on private campaign finance, lobbying and political spending and then enshrine those changes in the Charter so you, and everyone else, don't have to ever again.

It's time to stop the Americanization and plutocratization of Canadian politics before it's too late.

Public financing of political parties was awful
It was based on votes which meant there was no hope for new parties as they needed the votes to get the cash to get their message out to get the votes to get the cash to get their message out, etc etc...
An antidemocratic measure if ever there was one.
Also your vote provided money to a party for the NEXT election when you may have decided you did not want them to have any cash.
I say put strict limits on how much a party can spend as a far better solution.

 

[Surrealistik]

Public financing of political parties was awful
It was based on votes which meant there was no hope for new parties as they needed the votes to get the cash to get their message out to get the votes to get the cash to get their message out, etc etc...
An antidemocratic measure if ever there was one.
Also your vote provided money to a party for the NEXT election when you may have decided you did not want them to have any cash.
I say put strict limits on how much a party can spend as a far better solution.

Except other countries with more vibrant democracies than our own such as Norway use public financing of elections and have no issues with democratic plurality. Moreover repealing public financing of elections doesn't in reality provide that much of a boost to upcoming parties, particularly left leaning parties, since the majority of private donor money originates from the wealthy which tend to lean conservative (or otherwise provide money in exchange for conservative leaning policy concessions) for reasons of self-interest. What this change _has_ done is advantage Conservatives (unsurprising, both intuitively and because they were responsible for the elimination of the public vote subsidy; you can bet your ass they didn't have the best interests of small parties in mind), and provide a strong incentive for our political parties to lean rightward in light of the donor base.

The best way to allow new parties to rise to promise is to institute a democratic system to replace this ludicrous anarchronism of an anti-democratic structure known as first past the post.

 

[Quag]

Except other countries with more vibrant democracies than our own such as Norway use public financing of elections and have no issues with democratic plurality. Moreover repealing public financing of elections doesn't in reality provide that much of a boost to upcoming parties, particularly left leaning parties, since the majority of private donor money originates from the wealthy which tend to lean conservative (or otherwise provide money in exchange for conservative leaning policy concessions) for reasons of self-interest. What this change _has_ done is advantage Conservatives (unsurprising, both intuitively and because they were responsible for the elimination of the public vote subsidy; you can bet your ass they didn't have the best interests of small parties in mind), and provide a strong incentive for our political parties to lean rightward in light of the donor base.

The best way to allow new parties to rise to promise is to institute a democratic system to replace this ludicrous anarchronism of an anti-democratic structure known as first past the post.

Yeah I dont think of Norway as more vibrant democracy, and if you cant get individuals to support you monetarily then you dont have enough support. Again Limiting spending would do far more than forcing a vote to provide financing to a party, one that you may not agree with but chose as the lesser of 2/3/4 etc. evils If you limit donations to individuals and limit the amount you can donate with spending limits on parties you will have an infinitely more fair system. The plan we had favored the party who garnered the most votes in the last election which isn't necessarily the one who would be favored in the next one.
As to first past the post it is flawed but infinitely preferable to every single other system anyone has ever come up with as they are all far more anti-democratic than first past the post.
It is beyond absurd to have proportional representation which results in the rule of the minority as minority parties end up holding the balance of power or the instant run off the Liberals proposed which would result in near permanent Liberal control of the govt.

 

[Surrealistik]

Yeah I dont think of Norway as more vibrant democracy, and if you cant get individuals to support you monetarily then you dont have enough support. Again Limiting spending would do far more than forcing a vote to provide financing to a party, one that you may not agree with but chose as the lesser of 2/3/4 etc. evils If you limit donations to individuals and limit the amount you can donate with spending limits on parties you will have an infinitely more fair system. The plan we had favored the party who garnered the most votes in the last election which isn't necessarily the one who would be favored in the next one.
As to first past the post it is flawed but infinitely preferable to every single other system anyone has ever come up with as they are all far more anti-democratic than first past the post.
It is beyond absurd to have proportional representation which results in the rule of the minority as minority parties end up holding the balance of power or the instant run off the Liberals proposed which would result in near permanent Liberal control of the govt.

A more comprehensive assessment would beg to differ on the subject of Norway not being a more vibrant and integral democracy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

Second, I agree that substantial and meaningful spending and political advertising limits, including spending in kind by third parties, are a crucial and key component to keeping Canadian democracy integral and relatively uncorrupted by private money, and I fully support it, especially since it would help mitigate the considerable funding advantage the right has in terms of private donations; the pressure would remain nonetheless however given the relative ease and logistical advantage of reaching out to a relatively small number of key and centralized donors rather than individuals (unless we somehow managed to forbid donation bundling entirely; if so, great).

That having been said, the problem posed by private donations must be attacked from both sides if we want to assure an integral and healthy democracy; this is why a public vote subsidy is important: assuring that fundamental integrity is far more important than spending money on parties you may or may not agree with (particularly since odds are excellent there will be parties you agree with in whole or part that _do_ get money). The public vote subsidy had its issues, most notably the lagging funding as you've pointed out, but it is vastly preferable to having parties becoming entirely beholden to private donations, and thus the strings attached to those donations.

Third, no, proportional representation would likely not be a case of kingmaker minorities in practice; such pessimism presumes a pretty unrealistic fracturing of broad public support of the major three parties, and/or the inability of those parties to enter into ruling coalitions, particularly with a votation threshold similar to Germany's (5%+). Barring some pretty implausible scenarios in terms of the future distribution of political support, and hardcore political ransoming on top of that with such a votation threshold in place, it is hard to see how PR would produce a government less democratic than the one which put the Conservatives into a de facto 5 year dictatorship with about 24% of the population's assent, or the Liberals with a scarcely better 27%, and in general has been depressingly consistent with producing blatantly undemocratic results.

 

[Quag]

A more comprehensive assessment would beg to differ on the subject of Norway not being a more vibrant and integral democracy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

Canada ranks 6h overall in what is a subjective list and you think there is a problem with our democracy?

Second, I agree that substantial and meaningful spending and political advertising limits, including spending in kind by third parties, are a crucial and key component to keeping Canadian democracy integral and relatively uncorrupted by private money, and I fully support it, especially since it would help mitigate the considerable funding advantage the right has in terms of private donations; the pressure would remain nonetheless however given the relative ease and logistical advantage of reaching out to a relatively small number of key and centralized donors rather than individuals (unless we somehow managed to forbid donation bundling entirely; if so, great).

Public funding for parties favors established parties and as was done in Canada encourages people NOT to vote if they dont like any of the options rather than vote for the least offensive (to them options) The ide asis actually anti-democratic. Limit donations, dont allow any groups whether they be corporations, union or other to make political donations limit spending including 3rd party and the idea of public funding has no reason to even be discussed. It is a flawed solution that doesn't even try to attempt to deal with the actual problems.

That having been said, the problem posed by private donations must be attacked from both sides if we want to assure an integral and healthy democracy; this is why a public vote subsidy is important: assuring that fundamental integrity is far more important than spending money on parties you may or may not agree with (particularly since odds are excellent there will be parties you agree with in whole or part that _do_ get money). The public vote subsidy had its issues, most notably the lagging funding as you've pointed out, but it is vastly preferable to having parties becoming entirely beholden to private donations, and thus the strings attached to those donations.

Totally disagree see above it is anti-democratic serves no public good and wastes taxpayers money
Not 1 single good thing can be said for such a flawed and wasteful idea.

Third, no, proportional representation would likely not be a case of kingmaker minorities in practice; such pessimism presumes a pretty unrealistic fracturing of broad public support of the major three parties, and/or the inability of those parties to enter into ruling coalitions, particularly with a votation threshold similar to Germany's (5%+). Barring some pretty implausible scenarios in terms of the future distribution of political support, and hardcore political ransoming on top of that with such a votation threshold in place, it is hard to see how PR would produce a government less democratic than the one which put the Conservatives into a de facto 5 year dictatorship with about 24% of the population's assent, or the Liberals with a scarcely better 27%, and in general has been depressingly consistent with producing blatantly undemocratic results.

It would be pretty incredible if PR did NOT make it less democratic the fracturing of the political landscape is already happening with the system we have. We went from 2 to 3 parties now we have The greens and Bloc. They show that single issue or regional parties can exist in Canada. Yes I know Greens have a full platform but they are considered to have 1 single main purpose by most. Canada is a very large (2nd largest) country with a very diverse population each region will most likely end up with their own parties, certain 1 issue parties will emerge, Look to the USA and see the nationalism on the rise you dont think that PR would encourage such a party in Canada? If you look at most countries with PR you will notice that they tend to have instable govts that are almost always coalitions with the smaller parties who tend to be 1 issue parties holding the balance of power this is NOT godo for democracy.
Basically you are trying to fix a system that isn't really broken and in doing so will actually break it with poorly designed and thought out changes

 

[Surrealistik]

Canada ranks 6h overall in what is a subjective list and you think there is a problem with our democracy?

I certainly invest more credibility with aggregated surveys in their far more comprehensive assessment than your individual opinion, particularly given its recognition and adoption by peer reviewed journals; it's not some sensationalist, inconsequential trash poll.

Moreover it is notable that those democracies which beat us all have publicly funded elections which runs counter to your notion that publicly funded elections are anti-democratic.

In general the point of citing this is that:

A: Norway is indeed likely to be a more vital democracy as a direct counter to your claim and individual opinion that it is not.

and

B: Public financing of elections may actually be a positive force for vitalizing democracy given that those countries which scored better than us all have substantial public funding for elections/parties.

Public funding for parties favors established parties and as was done in Canada encourages people NOT to vote if they dont like any of the options...

What encourages Canadians not to vote is not public funding but the all or nothing FPTP electoral system that makes the emergence of new parties nigh impossible. I very much doubt the vast, vast majority of Canadians had their votation in any way materially impacted by public financing considerations, nevermind that many if not most didn't even know of the public vote subsidy in the first place.

Assuming you're right though, and it is a material consideration, in all likelihood it's all the more incentive to vote in order to provide financing for your political party of choice, since odds are you'll agree with at least one party more than the others.

Second, public financing of election presents a two pronged attack against the undue influence of private money in public office; limits are only one tool and can absolutely be supplemented by public finance.

Cont...