Author Topic: Just Who is the CPC Leader - Andrew Scheer?  (Read 26762 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12466
Re: Just Who is the CPC Leader - Andrew Scheer?
« Reply #120 on: April 09, 2019, 06:05:51 am »
 
by the by, just "who/what" does the dinner invites for a PM... while taking the inordinate steps to have a PM personally vette those invites? 

the waldo speaks the truth...

from someone personally sitting down, or speaking with one who advocates racist theology (Scheer) to someone who goes to a mosque from which terrorist fundraising happened...

the latter doesn't have as much 'association'...

Back to capital letters: why aren't Conservatives more concerned about the far-right morons who are worming their way into their parties ?  The knee-jerk defense of anybody wearing a blue 'C' on their shirt is going to hurt those folks, because some of the blue 'C' people just showed up and are wearing armbands underneath.

Offline Boges

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Just Who is the CPC Leader - Andrew Scheer?
« Reply #121 on: April 09, 2019, 09:46:33 am »
I can see the hidden agenda engine gearing up again for October.

When will we get people claiming he'll ban abortions and gay marriage?

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8714
Re: Just Who is the CPC Leader - Andrew Scheer?
« Reply #122 on: April 09, 2019, 09:52:33 am »
I can see the hidden agenda engine gearing up again for October.

When will we get people claiming he'll ban abortions and gay marriage?

the sauce is... weak - so weak!


Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8714
Re: Just Who is the CPC Leader - Andrew Scheer?
« Reply #123 on: April 09, 2019, 10:15:27 am »
How does threatening to sue Scheer over what Scheer has been saying about the SNC scandal hurt or help Trudeau’s brand?

I think it makes him look cowardly and weak.
Lawyer letters to your political opponents is asinine.  Harper did the same thing and dropped it.  What an idiotic move...

no - Harper actually sued... there wasn't even a threat to sue in the PM Trudeau lawyer's letter... such a dramaQueen is Scheer!

and no, Harper didn't "drop it", as you say. Rather, there was a negotiated settlement between the respective parties - to the point the Harper suit was dismissed without costs.

again, notwithstanding incorrect media headlines and weakSauces's drama, the letter - this letter - has no threat to sue within it. The letter's reference to, "treated as notice", is exactly that - and nothing more! The letter gave notice to Scheer in writing, specifying the matter complained of - nothing more, nothing less - no threat to sue no matter how hard Scheer insisted so during his whining presser charging PM Trudeau with being a bully!

Offline Rue

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • The beast feeds on fear - I feast on the beast.
  • Location: inside a matrix
Re: Just Who is the CPC Leader - Andrew Scheer?
« Reply #124 on: April 09, 2019, 10:40:31 am »
Waldo started this thread to run and hide from the Lavalin thread and what Trudeau has done and engage in a juvenile hero worship session of Trudeau complete with homo-erotic photo.

His exercise to date on what Trudeau has done in the Lavalin thread  is toengage in personal insults, attacks against anyone who has disagreed with him and he has engaged in lame name calling against Sheer and JWR precisely because he dettracts-he dettracts from the behaviour of his beloved Feuhrer-Messiah-Savour.

Can someone point to one thing raised in this thread that proves a thing? Hmmm? How about you Michael Harder? You want o cheer on Waldo-what has he presented other than subjective hero worship of Trudeau and juvenile name calling of Sheer?  You have any proof Sheer is a racist? Well? Put up ot shut up? Where is the proof?

What we do know is Waldo agrees with Trudeau that the needs of Trudeau’s constituents to make profit  from a project that came from bribing Ghaddafi are more important than the lives of those persons in Libya, Afica, Asia, who Ghadafi killed through illegal invasions of their countries or by financing and training terrorists that killed them. That is racism

What we do know is Waldo agrees with Trudeau that the profit Trudeau’s constituents made is more important than the victims of not just Ghaddafi but all the other persons subject to the tyranny of the corrupt and brutal leader Lavalin bribed for over 30 years. That is racism.

Yah Sheer is a racist, but Trudeau who ignores the victims of Lavalin and claims he lives of his constitutents to make blood off these victims is more important than the victims, that's what Michael Harder?  His equating the profit needs of his constituents is morally more important than the victms of Ghadaffi’s crimes, hey that is not racism, that’s Trudeau Liberalism you know the one that will pose for photo ops with Syrian refugees private sponsors not the federal government brought in as photo ops. You know the same Trudeau who never fails to patronize and insult ethnics to pander to them for votes. The same Trudeau who posed last week with an Israeli flag and the Israeli President grinning like a jackass thinking it will get him “Jewish” votes and just like he pranced and posed in India thinking it would get him Indian votes. Who Trudeau a racist? He sheds tears for aboriginals every photo op he gets. Never mind he hisses at them in racist ignorance when one of them has he nerve to raise the fact they have no fresh drinking water.

What a joke. Sheer is a racist.

Here you lovers of Libyan, Africa, Asian, victims of governments Lavalin bribed,...here....here  is what Waldo and racist Liberal  Trudeau cult followershe hide from with this pathetic attempt to run  from  own racist agenda speaks for itself:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-the-real-scandal-in-the-lavalin-affair-is-trudeaus-attempts-to-pretend-its-not-a-scandal

“This is the scandal in the SNC-Lavalin affair. It isn’t just that the prime minister and a phalanx of other senior government officials — including his principal secretary, Gerry Butts, his chief of staff, Katie Telford, and the clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick — quietly tried to derail the prosecution of a company with a long history of corruption and an even longer history of donating to the Liberal party; that they pressured the former attorney general, Jody Wilson-Raybould, to have prosecutors drop charges of fraud and corruption against the company in favour of a “remediation agreement” for which it had already been deemed ineligible; or that they did so, by the former attorney general’s account, for explicitly partisan reasons.
It isn’t that the crimes of which the company is accused — bribing officials in the bestial Gaddhafi regime in Libya, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars — makes this one of the most serious cases of alleged corporate corruption in Canadian history; or that the case is regarded as an important test of Canada’s willingness to prosecute companies alleged to have engaged in corruption overseas, as a signatory to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials, after years in which we were regarded as international scofflaws.
It isn’t that the legislation providing for remediation agreements — also known as deferred prosecution agreements, they are a kind of plea bargain wherein a company admits guilt, pays a fine and restitution, but avoids a criminal conviction — had only just been passed, tucked deep inside an omnibus bill, in response to a massive public and private lobbying campaign by SNC-Lavalin; or that, when the director of Public Prosecutions, Kathleen Roussel, declined to offer the company the escape hatch it had spent so much money to obtain, it mounted yet another furious lobbying campaign to have her decision overturned.

It isn’t that when caught Justin Trudeau and his people lied about it (“the allegations are false”); that when they were done lying about it stonewalled, deflected and obfuscated; that they repeatedly smeared, or encouraged others to smear, both the former attorney general and the former Treasury Board president, Jane Philpott, who resigned from cabinet rather than participate in this sordid campaign; that they muzzled both women by selective application of solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality, even as they ignored these constraints themselves; that they shut down two parliamentary committees rather than hear all the evidence from these and other relevant witnesses; and that after all this, when there was nothing to be achieved by it but sheer humiliation, kicked them both out of caucus.
, the real scandal is the determined — and, it would appear, largely successful — campaign on the part of the prime minister and his officials to normalize their conduct: as if monkeying around with criminal prosecutions was all part of the usual give and take of cabinet government, or at worst a misunderstanding between people who “experienced situations differently.”

But it isn’t normal. More, it must not become normal. If SNC-Lavalin’s campaign had succeeded — if it were yet to succeed — it would not only mean the independence of the attorney general and that of the DPP had been compromised on this occasion, or that this particular prosecution had been improperly suppressed. It would set a precedent for every similar prosecution in future. The lesson for any large company facing criminal charges would be, not to phone their lawyers, but to phone their lobbyists, their MP, cabinet ministers, civil servants, anyone with the presumed ability to get the charges killed.

Because the arguments the government has used to justify its conduct in this affair could just as well be used in other cases. If it was all normal and above-board this time, it would surely all be normal the next. That is what makes all this so dangerous. Lying about it, covering up, at least acknowledges that something wrong was done. Whereas shrugging it off, in the prime minister’s airy fashion, clouds our very ability to tell right from wrong.

That is where the scandal is, here: less in the scandal itself, than in the attempts to pretend it is not a scandal.
Why is prosecutorial independence such a big deal? Simply, because power, unchecked, tends to be abused.

The powers of the state to investigate, arrest, charge, try, convict and ultimately imprison someone are among its gravest; they are in some sense the foundation of all of its other powers. The consequences, if such powers were to be corruptly or even mistakenly applied, are so severe that each of the institutions responsible is walled off from the others, that any errors or abuses might be contained.
Only the police may lay charges. Only prosecutors may decide whether to take those charges to trial. Only the courts may find someone guilty. And no one outside the judicial system may interfere with any of them.

This stricture applies most firmly to those most in a position to violate it: those at the apex of political power, in charge of the government that employs all these officials. The concern is obvious. People in power typically wish to use their power to entrench themselves in power. Were they to have access to any of these powers it is easy to predict how they might be used: to punish their enemies, or reward their friends. It is easy to predict, because that is how they are used, in places where police, prosecutorial and judicial independence is not the norm.

And yet it is mostly just that: a norm. Woe betide the cabinet minister who is caught phoning a judge about a case in front of him — he will be forced to resign, probably within the day. Why? Because convention decrees it.
But suppose a minister were to phone a judge, and being caught, refused to resign. Suppose instead he were to say he had a good reason. And suppose he succeeded in confusing the issue, relying on the public’s ignorance and the media’s short attention span. Not only would he have gotten away with it — he would have established the precedent.

That’s the thing about conventions: they apply only until they don’t. Each, moreover, is to some extent dependent on the others — on the broader convention that conventions are to be observed. It’s harder to insist on one convention if all the others are sliding into disuse.
All the more reason, then, to insist.

Why is prosecutorial independence such a big deal? Simply, because power, unchecked, tends to be abused

Perhaps the case for prosecutorial independence is clear enough in principle. What seems to elude many people is what it means in practice, or the necessity of certain institutional safeguards to protect it.

In the present case, there are two. The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was established by act of Parliament in 2006 in the wake of the sponsorships scandal, with a view to making explicit the broad independence prosecutors had hitherto been afforded under the common law. The sole exception: the attorney general may direct the DPP with regard to the “initiation or conduct” of a prosecution, or even take over a prosecution altogether — provided she does so in writing, and in public, via the Canada Gazette.

The point of that last provision was to ensure such decisions would not be taken lightly. An attorney general has the power to instruct the DPP, but it is expected she will do so only in exceptional circumstances, for example in the case of an egregious error of law; otherwise little would be left of the DPP’s independence. In fact, it has never happened.

The other pillar of prosecutorial independence is the attorney general. As the DPP is (largely) independent of the AG, so the AG is intended to be independent of the rest of government; if anything the proscription on interference is more absolute. Not only is the attorney general not to be directed or instructed with regard to a particular prosecution, she may not even be pressured, by the prime minister or anyone else.

More than a convention, this has the status of a constitutional principle. Famously enunciated by a former attorney general of the United Kingdom, Sir Hartley Shawcross, in a 1951 speech to the British Parliament, the principle has been repeatedly upheld by Canadian courts.

So far as an attorney general involves herself in a decision about a particular prosecution — which is to say, almost never — she must be able to do so free of extraneous considerations, whether these be the consequences for her party, her relationship with colleagues, or her job.”

Regards Rue the Racist
You have me mistaken with an eagle. I only come to eat your carcass.

Offline Boges

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Just Who is the CPC Leader - Andrew Scheer?
« Reply #125 on: April 09, 2019, 10:43:43 am »
the sauce is... weak - so weak!



That's pretty definitive that he won't re-open such debates.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Just Who is the CPC Leader - Andrew Scheer?
« Reply #126 on: April 09, 2019, 11:17:25 am »
About the only thing definitive I hear in that whole clip is Rosemary's frustration at not getting any definitive answers to her questions.
Disagree Disagree x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8714
Re: Just Who is the CPC Leader - Andrew Scheer?
« Reply #127 on: April 09, 2019, 11:31:02 am »

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12466
Re: Just Who is the CPC Leader - Andrew Scheer?
« Reply #128 on: April 09, 2019, 11:42:39 am »

Can someone point to one thing raised in this thread that proves a thing? Hmmm? How about you Michael Harder? You want o cheer on Waldo-what has he presented other than subjective hero worship of Trudeau and juvenile name calling of Sheer?   

I posted about the unequal application of guilt by association only.  Scheer should make a public disavowment of association with the unsavoury right.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Just Who is the CPC Leader - Andrew Scheer?
« Reply #129 on: April 09, 2019, 01:04:38 pm »
Regards Rue the Racist

I am glad you are keeping up with your therapy sessions. Writing long inflammatory narratives is kind of like punching pillows.
Funny Funny x 1 View List

Offline Squidward von Squidderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5630
Re: Just Who is the CPC Leader - Andrew Scheer?
« Reply #130 on: April 09, 2019, 01:07:51 pm »
there wasn't even a threat to sue in the PM Trudeau lawyer's letter...


LOL

Quote
Trudeau defends lawsuit threat,

PM has delivered notice of defamation suit over SNC-Lavalin statement

Speaking about the threatened lawsuit for the first time today, Trudeau said...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-lawsuit-scheer-defamation-1.5090240

Offline Boges

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Just Who is the CPC Leader - Andrew Scheer?
« Reply #131 on: April 09, 2019, 01:41:43 pm »
About the only thing definitive I hear in that whole clip is Rosemary's frustration at not getting any definitive answers to her questions.

And that he won't re-open the debate on Same Sex Marriage. She wanted his personal views. He probably is opposed to same-sex marriage. But like most conservatives in Canada, he knows what battles to have and what battles not to have.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Just Who is the CPC Leader - Andrew Scheer?
« Reply #132 on: April 09, 2019, 02:31:15 pm »
And that he won't re-open the debate on Same Sex Marriage. She wanted his personal views. He probably is opposed to same-sex marriage. But like most conservatives in Canada, he knows what battles to have and what battles not to have.

Somehow with all his waffling I don't trust that if he did get elected Pm that he wouldn't try to reopen those issues.

Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: Just Who is the CPC Leader - Andrew Scheer?
« Reply #133 on: April 09, 2019, 02:48:25 pm »
Somehow with all his waffling I don't trust that if he did get elected Pm that he wouldn't try to reopen those issues.

That would be a mistake, that ship has sailed.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Boges

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Just Who is the CPC Leader - Andrew Scheer?
« Reply #134 on: April 09, 2019, 02:55:02 pm »
Somehow with all his waffling I don't trust that if he did get elected Pm that he wouldn't try to reopen those issues.

And you're worried about troops in the street as well right?