Liberal Scandals Piling up

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

'scandals sinking governemts'

SRS question - when has a scandal ever immediately 'sunk' a government in Canada, in the last 30 years?

As far as I know, its usually carried over to the election events. All this is, is just noise and more clicks to sell from the media.

Sponsorship scandal would be one. But I guess that would depend on what you'd consider 'immediate.' The sinking was delayed a bit with the transition from Chretien's camp to Martin's camp but it took the Liberals close to a decade to recover from that.

At the provincial level the Fast Ferries in BC might not have been the only scandal to sink the party, but certainly the most infamous (similarly Skypalace with the Alberta PCs was the crown on a large list)

An example of a scandal that actually killed a party would be the Saskatchewan PCs expense-fraud scandal in the 90s. Anybody who wasn't directly implicated jumped to the Saskatchewan Party and the charred remains of the PCs haven't won a seat since.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You're precious, you know that?

You didn't merely claim they weren't as virtuous as they pumped themselves up to be. You didn't even try to show that the CPC actually treat women and natives well or better. You said it was a service they didn't pander to these groups and they're on the same level as the Conservatives. A service that both parties are on the same level which is "hating women and natives." Similar to you actually wanting the province to go to shit and rack up debt and people losing jobs (because it 'would show people how bad the NDP are and not vote for them again'), you seem to actually want women and natives to be treated badly because it makes the 'team' you oppose look worse (rather than trying to show why the party you support is actually better, which would be the logical and sane position to take). It's like reading the rantings of an incel blogger.

[revelations]

By 'immediate' I mean that the GG states or the house votes that the government is not capable of governing any more due to criminal conduct or other serious violations by the senior levels of the elected officials.

Surely there are such rules in place in Canada.

I am not talking about election propaganda. Paul Martin famously claimed during his election that Mr. Harper will put military on every street corner in Canada.

There will be noise from all sides.

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

and they're on the same level as the Conservatives. A service that both parties are on the same level which is "hating women and natives."

I actually didn't say that at all. This is why you are so precious. You never read what someone says. You just simply imagine what you'd like to hear them say, and then respond to your insane imaginings.

What I said was that the Liberals are on the same level as what they CLAIM the conservatives act like.

I can't refute something (in this case, the conservatives "hating" women and natives) because its not actually real. There is nothing to refute, as the claim is false.

But the liberals are going to have a tough time using that false accusation when they themselves have clearly demonstrated actual, meaningful hateful actions against these groups of people.

I also said, it will be great to see the parties have to fight on things that actually matter (women are equal in Canada and treated equally, along with natives. Some crazy feminists and a lot of natives don't believe their entitlements are great enough). So that conversation can go out the window, because its nothing more than identity politics and vote buying. Yawn.

And this is why it is so tiring to ever have discussions with you. Which is why I usually don't. But in this case, you are just flat out wrong in your assumptions Man, to spend a day in your head would be fascinating.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

By 'immediate' I mean that the GG states or the house votes that the government is not capable of governing any more due to criminal conduct or other serious violations by the senior levels of the elected officials.

Surely there are such rules in place in Canada.

The GG disolving parliament without a vote would trigger a scandal on it's own, they don't really get involved like that.

Other than that you're basically talking about non-confidence votes, for which the Opposition passed in '05 against Martin and the Liberals as a result of the Sponsorship scandal. But also calling that immediate is up to interpretation since it was a calculated move with a lot of 'poll watching' waiting for the best time to do it. As for cases where a majority would force an election on it's own as a result of a scandal, there isn't one in Canada that I can recall, certainly not federally.

[revelations]

So in otherwords, the fliberals could have a scandal every week .... even involving the RCMP....and even if criminal charges were laid against this Trudeau character, nothing would become of it...... until election time (which could be years away in some cases).

[ExtraSlow]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So in otherwords, the fliberals could have a scandal every week .... even involving the RCMP....and even if criminal charges were laid against this Trudeau character, nothing would become of it...... until election time (which could be years away in some cases).

That sounds correct.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So in otherwords, the fliberals could have a scandal every week .... even involving the RCMP....and even if criminal charges were laid against this Trudeau character, nothing would become of it...... until election time (which could be years away in some cases).

This is a pretty big jump from scandals of the past 30 years, but in short, pretty much.

Being charged with something doesn't disqualify you from sitting in parliament. Hell, even being convicted doesn't automatically disqualify you (you're only automatically kicked out if it's a greater than two year sentence). But that doesn't mean nothing will come of it, just that nothing automatic happens as the result of a charge (and why should it? It's the conviction that matters). For example Dean Del Mastro, the most recent case of a sitting MP going through criminal proceedings of note, was pretty adamant he'd stick around in parliament after his conviction (which carried a one-month sentence) but when the time came, was convinced to resign instead.

In the case of something like this 'Trudeau character' getting charged and convicted with something tied directly to a scandal like this would probably see the party compel him to resign/step down as leader which would mean they'd be compelled to call an election relatively quickly, anyways. For a regular MP you can always kick them out of caucus if they don't resign, but as for the party leader, it would depend on the party bylaws. Kicking them out of the party doesn't kick them out of parliament however, they could choose not to resign and just sit as an Independent.

As for why a conviction of less than 2 years doesn't automatically disqualify you? No idea. It was brought down from 5 years in the early/mid-90s and hasn't changed since.

[revelations]

So basically, it just noise and entertainment/drama-fest of clicks and PPV (pay per view) for the MSM.

Nothing will become of this - until election time.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So basically, it just noise and entertainment/drama-fest of clicks and PPV (pay per view) for the MSM.

Nothing will become of this - until election time.

Are we even at the point where something should happen before election time?

And why shouldn't the media report on it even if it doesn't reach a theoretical threshold of 'RCMP laying charges against the PM in weekly scandals'? The Sponsorship scandal was just noise for a few years but that prompted audits and reports until the big one came about that really started the ball rolling (and even when the ball was rolling it was still months before it caused any changes).

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But the liberals are going to have a tough time using that false accusation when they themselves have clearly demonstrated actual, meaningful hateful actions against these groups of people.

I also said, it will be great to see the parties have to fight on things that actually matter (women are equal in Canada and treated equally, along with natives. Some crazy feminists and a lot of natives don't believe their entitlements are great enough). So that conversation can go out the window, because its nothing more than identity politics and vote buying. Yawn.

Cognitive dissonance right here. They're equal and talking about it is just pandering and vote buying...but they're also being treated hatefully. Or putting it another way, the governing party is committing "meaningful hateful actions" against women and natives, but it isn't something worth fighting about for either party?

Well glad you cleared that up.

[revelations]

What I am saying is that this 'news' is of no importance in terms of affecting change - until election time.

If the fliberals were able to white wash the Sponsorship issue long enough to last years in parliament, until the elections, Trudeau would pretty much have to murder a fellow MP in order to get deposed.

[suntan]

It’s only “whataboutism” when it’s not about Liberals. Otherwise it’s fair game to compare.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What I am saying is that this 'news' is of no importance in terms of affecting change - until election time.

If the fliberals were able to white wash the Sponsorship issue long enough to last years in parliament, until the elections, Trudeau would pretty much have to murder a fellow MP in order to get deposed.

Again, are we at the point yet where there's enough to go on to need something to happen before election time? The Liberals could 'depose' Trudeau tomorrow and still be the government until the election, so what are you asking for?

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Again, are we at the point yet where there's enough to go on to need something to happen before election time? The Liberals could 'depose' Trudeau tomorrow and still be the government until the election, so what are you asking for?

Im not asking for anything - I am stating that all this BS is just 'noise' that needs to be ignored, until election time. There is no change with this case that can be affected with 'national outrage'.

The last time 'national outrage' accomplished anything was when the government (cant recall if CPC or Libs) were pondering about giving Canadian NHL teams subsidies. That was shut down pretty fast - although with the games that they play - it was likely concocted with the results known.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Im not asking for anything - I am stating that all this BS is just 'noise' that needs to be ignored, until election time. There is no change with this case that can be affected with 'national outrage'.

Sounds like a dream for any government. People don't get outraged, and outrage can't affect what the election will even be about. A lot harder to gain traction on issues retroactively. No need for inquiries (that say, lead to reports and audits that eventually show that a little million dollar contract that didn't have a good tendering process was actually just a part of a hundred million dollar way to funnel money to government friendly corporations.

There wouldn't have been a Sponsorship scandal if the noise was ignored.

The last time 'national outrage' accomplished anything was when the government (cant recall if CPC or Libs) were pondering about giving Canadian NHL teams subsidies. That was shut down pretty fast - although with the games that they play - it was likely concocted with the results known.

Not only is this a weird one to pick (old enough the CPC didn't even exist), but national outrage wasn't even why it was shot down. It was shot down because the provinces and cities didn't want to get on board for 2/3 of the cost (which was the feds provision).

There was a time this decade when, 'caving' to overwhelming public pressure, the Canadian government finally agreed to not oppose asbestos being listed as a hazardous substance for international trade.

[HiTempguy1]

https://trib.al/YhuO6HZ

Liberal sinking ship, huzzah!

[Buster]

I'm surprised. Butts is the guy actually running the show. Hell, I thought Trudeau would step down before Butts.

[Supa Dexta]

I hope these fucks end up in jail. That would make the last 4 yrs of having that doofus in charge worth it.

Trudeau will be outside welcoming that truck convoy now though, to try and take the focus off the scandal.

[dirtsniffer]

So does he still have to appear before the justice committee?