MigL

There's hope for you guys yet. Rangerx and I agree on quite a few things. The problem is he doesn't really read what I post because he has preconceived notions about me. And, I have to admit, sometimes I don't really read his posts for similar reasons.

So who would you like to see left in, I Now ? I would have thought all the bull leveled at J Biden by D Trump would have damaged his candidacy, but it doesn't seem to have affected his support numbers. And although he's approx. the same age as J Biden, with his recent heart issues, I hope B Sanders drops out. K Harris' numbers also seem to be nosediving since the boost from the debates.

So Rangerx, you really do like discussing politics with me, But I think I've said all I'm going to say on the matter. Incidentally, did you catch J Trudeau's Wednesday morning Press Conference where he said he is definitely going ahead with the pipeline. Obviously he'll get Conservative support. What did I tell you ?

I'd like to see the field whittled down to about 4-5 of their best candidates, so that they can all present their vision for America's future, without having to 'shout over' or 'out-do' the other 20-odd candidates. Never mind the in-fighting between candidates which helps only the current President. I realize everyone wants a shot at knocking down D Trump, but I think it will be even better once ( quite ) a few more leave the field.

HaHaHa. You accuse me of 'whataboutism' when it was you who brought up S Harper and basically said "But what about what Harper did ?" in a thread about the current election. Talk about tunnel vision with blinders on. You must not have many friends with your attitude, and you seem to have a label for everyone and everything. Tell you what, if you don't like discussing MY OP, feel free to stay out of it; no one is forcing you to participate. If you do want to participate, own up to it, and admit that you find my comments/discussion interesting and stimulating.

And again, S Harper wasn't running in this election ( if he was he would have gotten my vote ) , so what does any of this have to do with the OP ? Tell us how many times S harper wore black-face and then had to apologize for it. J Trudeau seems to preach racial harmony and inclusivity, but then does things like put on black-face, wear a t-shirt with bananas on it, stuffs something large down his pants, and jumps around like a gorilla. Real Prime ministral behavior. And J Trudeau was so outraged, he adopted S Harper's GHG reduction targets, and then proceeded to not lower emissions, but actually raise them, compared to the previous S Harper Government. And flew around in this election campaign using 2 gas guzzling older jets, because he bought carbon credits, which makes it OK for rich people to keep polluting. He seems so contrite because he's had to apologize for so many things in 4 short years, in which he did little else other than legalize pot. He is a spoiled rich brat, and the very definition of white privilege, who got his job simply because of his dad's name. And he reminds me of the Church with his "do as I say, not as I do" attitude; hell, he doesn't have to abide by the same rules as us normal people, if he doesn't like the law, and the Minister of Justice won't change it to suit him, he simply fires her ( And she gets re-elected as an independent ) Oh, did I forget to mention he claims to champion women's rights ? Only until they disagree with him, I guess. I'm surprised he didn't grope her before firing her, like he did with that other woman in Kokanee, 18 yrs ago. You remember, the one who might have perceived things differently than he did. Old news but at least they pertain to the OP. I'm just glad to be discussing something/someone other than that moron D Trump or Brexit, for a change, INow. I think I've now done most of the complaining that my vote entitles me to. I'd better quit now, or I may not be allowed any more complaining during the next 4 yrs of 'Trudeau-mania'.

The courts will decide what to do about SNC-Lavelin's wrongdoings. You don't seem to understand that our sitting Prime Minister tried to prevent that. And that is an ethics violation at least, and possibly criminal. By the way, SNC stock is jumping, now that the BQ can put pressure on the PM to give them Deferred Prosecution, and they have the combined seats to pass it. I don't put people in Liberal or Conservative 'Boxes'. J Chretien's liberals got my vote every time, as did P E Trudeau. I even voted for P Martin's Liberals ( the first time ), who was a fiscal Conservative, and made all the cuts to the federal contributions to Ontario that M Harris usually gets blamed for in the early 90s. And I voted Socialist ( NDP ) in the last provincial election, so I don't see where your comments are coming from. "Snark', like offense, is taken, not given. And you seem to take it whenever things don't go your way.

And what about that deal is illegal ? Is giving Bombardier hundreds of millions and then having them sell the C Series to Airbus for a dollar illegal ? Is bailing out GM and Chrysler to the tune of a billion dollars and then having them close up plants all over Canada illegal ? What J Trudeau did was try to subvert justice by putting pressure on his Justice Minister ( J Wilson-Raybould ). It has nothing to do with SNC-Lavelin's alleged wrongdoing or not. It is about a Prime Minister putting Himself above the law, or at the very least, favoring his friends or large contributors to the party. And he was the only PM found to have violated the Conflict of Interest Act by the Ethics Commissioner. TWICE ! And if you can't see the distinction you better stay away from those 'famous' BC mushrooms. ( and you Americans thought your country was polarized, eh ? )

What part of SNC liability ? If you have proof, he's now a private citizen and can be brought up on charges. Please present your proof. But as I've said, He was not on the ballot in this election. So what does he have to do with the OP = Canadian Election.

Sorry. Edited my post. And no, I'm not OK with the trade agreement S Harper made with the Chinese. But that's not what we're discussing is it ? As far as I know neither S Harper nor D Ford were running in this election.

No , what J Trudeau did wrong was... "After a six-month-long investigation, Ethics Commissioner Dion issued a report that concluded that Trudeau had contravened Section 9 of the federal Conflict of Interest Act by improperly pressuring Wilson-Raybould." straight from Wikipedia. Also, Deferred Prosecution Agreements were only introduced in 2018 by J Trudeau; 3 yrs after S Harper left office. You might wanna look into that.

We were having a perfectly reasonable discussion until you started slinging shit with the comment "No need to apologize. You're fine with the removal of our constitutional rights and leaving citizens holding the bag for the pollution it causes. Thank you for clearing that up." seven hrs ago. And speaking of reading each other's posts... I don't recall ever saying I was in favor of the pipeline. I said we'll probably end up getting it so that J Trudeau won't have to call another election and to placate the west. Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

So how exactly are your Constitutional rights being taken away ? you are free to challenge any decision in the courts, are you not ? Its not like anyone has used the Notwithstanding Clause to stop such actions. Yet I don't hear a single peep from you about the rights of Religious Quebeckers ( or even J Singh who wears his Religious symbol on his head ! ) being taken away and the Notwithstanding Clause has been threatened again ( like they did last time ) in Quebec. Are only your Constitutional rights important to you ? I think any "lip service and political quackery" are on your part !

Its not one or the other for me, RangerX. Any pipeline I care about would be coming to Ontario. TMX is something to be worked out between BC and Alberta. I might add that there is already talk of 'Wexit' ( I guess the West has learned from Quebec ). So you tell me the solution !

Simple. J Trudeau has to stay in power. If he lose confidence of the House, and calls another election too soon, he will be punished by the electorate and lose large. He has to be willing to make deals with any parties that will prop up the Liberals. That's what I know.

Wow, you and your wife really are 'Loony Tunes'.

If you read carefully ( I know that's asking a lot ), I implied that its a bad thing, hence 'monster under the bed'. If you'd rather pick fights, don't worry, I've got much more.

I say it's a 'monster under the bed' and you stretch that to mean Ther's no winning with you, is there, Rangerx ? I only went 'sideways' into the debt problem, INow, because it was an election issue, as J Trudeau seemed to be running against D Ford, judging by how often he mentioned his name and the 'massive' cuts he's done to Ontario social services. They don't Zap. The only thing that can nullify our constitution is the 'Not-withstanding Clause', which only Quebec seems to use. Edit: Treaties however are a different matter.

Some of the best memories of my youth ( early 70s ) are of Saturday evening dinner. Me and my brother would prepare supper after school, always chicken and potatoes in the oven ( only thing we knew how to make ), and my mother would make a quick salad when she got home from work at 5 pm ( we had just immigrated to Canada a few years earlier ). The best part was, that we didn't have to eat at the table on Saturday evenings, but could eat in the living room while watching 'The Bugs Bunny/Road runner Hour'. Oh, and re-runs of 'Star Trek' at 7 pm. ( first episode I ever saw was 'Who Mourns for Adonis' with the 'God' Apollo )

The 'monster under the bed', INow, is J Trudeau's need to retain power. To ensure his government doesn't fall, he will partner with the Conservatives to build pipelines for Alberta oil and northern BC gas to the coast, where surprisingly, the Conservatives won seats through the proposed corridor. ( sorry Rangerx ) And to ensure BQ support/confidence for his Government, he will pander unashamedly to Quebec, their intolerant Bill C21 ( no religious symbols in workplaces ) , give the crooks at SNC-Lavelin a 'get out of jail free card' ( their stock is already jumping ), and re-negotiate the North American free trade agreement to protect Quebec dairy farmers with unfair protectionist and price fixing rules ( who knows what the rest of the markets will lose to D Trump ). ( sorry rest of Canada ) PS I don't get it Dim.

So we all agree with Raider's assertion that there is good debt and bad debt. And bad debt is to be avoided, while good debt can provide economic stimulus. What about when a party ( just to bring this back to the Canadian election ) promotes a platform for the next several years relies on borrowing just to run the government as the Liberals have? Who knows how much larger it will be with the BQ and NDP making demands of them. To be fair the Conservatives also projected deficits for 4 yrs, but a balanced budget on the fifth, and we have 4 yr terms so they may not be in power in the 5th yr. ( good way to cover your ass, isn't it ? ) And these are favorable economic times. What happens if a recession doe hit us next year ( as has been predicted by some ) ? My understanding ( I'm not an economist either John ) was that economic stimulus, through deficit spending, is provided in bad economic times, while good economic times allow for balanced budgets and re-payment. Doing otherwise seems foolish to me. And what you call your currency has little to do with its value/amount, INow. Greece was simply spending more than it could afford. They maxed out their credit card, and the lenders imposed a re-payment plan on them. ( just like household budgets, isn't it ? )

You can look at it any way you want INow, but ( again using the Ontario 2019-20 budget numbers because I'm familiar with them ) that 8.2 % of Government revenue that has to be paid to service the debt, is NOT available for program spending. IOW it will not grow the economy or provide services. IOW it is equivalent to a 'cut' of 13.1 Bill dollars which could otherwise ( if there was no debt ) be used for program spending. It's simple addition and subtraction. ( by the way, I also enjoy our head-butting, as you've never made it personal )

You saw the numbers I posted 5 hrs ago regarding the Ontario budget. Even if we don't pay off the debt ( ie never borrow again ), our Provincial Government pays 8.3 % of all tax revenue to nameless banks ( who are making Billions of dollars profits every year ). Isn't that equivalent to a 'cut' of 8.3% ? !3.1 billion dollars of money that can't be used to grow the economy or provide services is certainly much higher than the 1 billion in 'cuts' D Ford is accused of making ( and as CharonY posted above, he hasn't ). And that's just our Provincial Government. And yes, sometimes if you borrow too much, your creditors see you as a higher risk of defaulting and lower your credit rating ( it has happened in the past ), resulting in even higher interest payments and even less money available to grow the economy and provide services. The solution from some political parties is not to 'tighten their belts' but to borrow even more, thereby making the situation even worse, with higher interest rates and larger interest payments. How do you think Greece got in such a mess ? ( sorry INow, I remain a fiscal Conservative, but feel free to try and convince me otherwise )

Well you're from the coast, so you're aware of the risks, and it seems you've lived it. ( scariest fire I've ever fought is 2 tons of molten Phosphorus metal all over the floor of a building ) All I'm saying is you can't tell one ( large ) portion of the country 'stop what you're doing and go back to an agricultural lifestyle' without giving them a viable alternative. That's where our politicians are failing us.

As our American friends say... "Get over it. Everyone does it."