Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Justin Trudeau the Worst PM Since Pierre Trudeau?


Recommended Posts

 

1. It sounds good to me.  There are pretty much no pensions in private employment these days.

2. That sounds awful.

3&4. It sounds like the Conservatives were worse to the soldiers in the scenario you mentioned, and yet most military types seem to hate the Liberals.  ok...

5. That's just Canadian quality service... a.k.a. the cruel and heartless bureaucracy.

There is a lot more to it than what I've describe in a few paras, there are hundreds of cases before the courts today, about soldiers suing our government over issues relating to treatment, pensions, medical payments or coverage, etc.....

One comes to mind is a retired major living in Ottawa, that lost both legs in Afghanistan due to an IED, every year our government makes him prove that his legs have not somehow re appeared....before they will send him his medical disability check . Every year they cut off his checks and it takes months to get them reinstated....he has taken this to the media every year since his accident and still he has to prove to VAC that his legs will not grow back....

I am a conservative, but trust me when I say there has not been a government that has stood behind our troops with any conviction to their promises they make in regards to our military...the Cons have provided more equipment recently, but they have also pulled back the most funding, and slashed benefits to the bone....the liberals promised the moon, to correct all of the cons doings....to no avail, like Justin said we are asking for more than they can provide....but hey we got us a slightly used pipeline now... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

"Politics of fear" is one of those shallow come-backs from the Left - and especially our rudderless Liberal Party led by Captain Clarabell. Canadians are not "afraid". There is no "fear". There are on

This PM is such a loser. A terrorist loving cos-play actor. What else is there to say?

What's that you say? You were not one of the lucky 500,000 Canadians picked by the government who will access your personal banking information without your permission. Don't worry, your turn could co

Posted Images

 

There is a lot more to it than what I've describe in a few paras, there are hundreds of cases before the courts today, about soldiers suing our government over issues relating to treatment, pensions, medical payments or coverage, etc.....

One comes to mind is a retired major living in Ottawa, that lost both legs in Afghanistan due to an IED, every year our government makes him prove that his legs have not somehow re appeared....before they will send him his medical disability check . Every year they cut off his checks and it takes months to get them reinstated....he has taken this to the media every year since his accident and still he has to prove to VAC that his legs will not grow back....

I am a conservative, but trust me when I say there has not been a government that has stood behind our troops with any conviction to their promises they make in regards to our military...the Cons have provided more equipment recently, but they have also pulled back the most funding, and slashed benefits to the bone....the liberals promised the moon, to correct all of the cons doings....to no avail, like Justin said we are asking for more than they can provide....but hey we got us a slightly used pipeline now... 

We need to take away politicians benefits and pensions and give them to the veterans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

We need to take away politicians benefits and pensions and give them to the veterans.

That's another moronic idea straight out of the populist handbook.  Please do a little math on how this would work and get back to us.  I'm in favour of allocating military budget towards people, and maybe having a smaller military or (gasp) raising taxes somewhere to raise an extra few billion for soldiers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

That's another moronic idea straight out of the populist handbook.  Please do a little math on how this would work and get back to us.  I'm in favour of allocating military budget towards people, and maybe having a smaller military or (gasp) raising taxes somewhere to raise an extra few billion for soldiers.

Politicians don't deserve benefits or pensions, so the millions wasted on these pieces of shit is given to the veterans who do deserve them. What is difficult to understand?

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Politicians don't deserve benefits or pensions, so the millions wasted on these pieces of shit is given to the veterans who do deserve them. What is difficult to understand?

Look - I know you're angry and I want to help you out, so I'll give you the first steps:

We have 338 MPs and about 100K serving in the forces.  Let's add in Senators and assume 500 politicians.  If you divide that out it means 1/2 of 1% of a politician pension added per member of the forces.

Any questions ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Look - I know you're angry and I want to help you out, so I'll give you the first steps:

We have 338 MPs and about 100K serving in the forces.  Let's add in Senators and assume 500 politicians.  If you divide that out it means 1/2 of 1% of a politician pension added per member of the forces.

Any questions ?

Ten cents in a veterans pocket rather than millions in a politicians pockets would suit me fine any day of the week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Hates politicians said:

Ten cents in a veterans pocket rather than millions in a politicians pockets would suit me fine any day of the week.

Well, great but you're not actually doing anything.  It's symbolic.  Reform said they were going to give up MP pensions... what ever happened to them...

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Look - I know you're angry and I want to help you out, so I'll give you the first steps:

We have 338 MPs and about 100K serving in the forces.  Let's add in Senators and assume 500 politicians.  If you divide that out it means 1/2 of 1% of a politician pension added per member of the forces.

Any questions ?

I think Hates Politicians' intends to convey a figurative rather than literal position. Perhaps we should simply defund parliament and tell politicians to survive solely on their own savings and resources. Oh, and we'd take the funding away capriciously and then ask them to beg to explain why it should be reinstated and put layers of mindless bureaucracy in their way to render their pursuit of remedy as frustrating as possible. Maybe then these politicians would have some understanding of the insecurity faced by many who are forced for reasons entirely beyond their control to rely for their survival on the resources of the state. Who, exactly, could or would be more deserving of public support than wounded and/or ill war vets? Really, who?

Edited by turningrite
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, turningrite said:

1. I think Hates Politicians' intends to convey a figurative rather than literal position.

2. Perhaps we should simply defund parliament and tell politicians to survive solely on their own savings and resources. Oh, and we'd take the funding away capriciously and then ask them to beg to explain why it should be reinstated and put layers of mindless bureaucracy in their way to render their pursuit of remedy as frustrating as possible.

3. Maybe then these politicians would have some understanding of the insecurity faced by many who are forced for reasons entirely beyond their control to rely for their survival on the resources of the state.

4. Who, exactly, could or would be more deserving of public support than wounded and/or ill war vets? Really, who?

1. Yes - symbolic.  I said that above.

2. Simply... riiiight....   You know if all the blustering anti-politics types spent their time actually looking into policies, service levels and calling their MPs and voting we would have better politicians on all sides.  Donut shop complaining that they are all crooks is kind of hypocritical if you never look at CIHI or take the time to research your country's services.

3. Then we would only have people running who are rich enough to work 'for free', except that they fix the laws for themselves and their friends... including kickbacks.  Oh wait, that model works fine and also supports populism !

4.  Exactly.  So why not do them the justice of taking about TWO minutes to look at some numbers and propose something, rather than just saying they are all crooks.  If the Liberals and PCs know you aren't paying attention to numbers they will both play you - as they have done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes - symbolic.  I said that above.

2. Simply... riiiight....   You know if all the blustering anti-politics types spent their time actually looking into policies, service levels and calling their MPs and voting we would have better politicians on all sides.  Donut shop complaining that they are all crooks is kind of hypocritical if you never look at CIHI or take the time to research your country's services.

3. Then we would only have people running who are rich enough to work 'for free', except that they fix the laws for themselves and their friends... including kickbacks.  Oh wait, that model works fine and also supports populism !

4.  Exactly.  So why not do them the justice of taking about TWO minutes to look at some numbers and propose something, rather than just saying they are all crooks.  If the Liberals and PCs know you aren't paying attention to numbers they will both play you - as they have done.

I think you're trying to ignore the actual point Hates politicians is making, which is that politicians often apply different standards to the legitimacy of their own entitlements than they do to the claims of many others.  I think this is an entirely legitimate critique. 'Hp' is obviously not proposing a practical or practicable solution.

I'm not sure what you mean by your final sentence: What "numbers" are you referencing? And who, exactly is being played? As I am not a veteran, I have no stake in this matter so don't understand how I can be played one way or another. But any reasonably objective observer can understand the moral/ethical basis of claims for ongoing support made by those injured in the service of this country. It's not rocket science. There is clear delineation between 'right and wrong' on this and successive federal governments have tilted in the latter direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, turningrite said:

1. I think you're trying to ignore the actual point Hates politicians is making, which is that politicians often apply different standards to the legitimacy of their own entitlements than they do to the claims of many others. 

2. I think this is an entirely legitimate critique. 'Hp' is obviously not proposing a practical or practicable solution.

3. I'm not sure what you mean by your final sentence: What "numbers" are you referencing? And who, exactly is being played? As I am not a veteran, I have no stake in this matter so don't understand how I can be played one way or another. But any reasonably objective observer can understand the moral/ethical basis of claims for ongoing support made by those injured in the service of this country. It's not rocket science. There is clear delineation between 'right and wrong' on this and successive federal governments have tilted in the latter direction.

1. Really ?  Is that his point.  Lucky he had you to come and explain it then.  Wish I had my own turningrite to explain my points.    Anyway if that's his point, then my response is simply "wow man, like, I knew that already"

2.Obviously not.  And MLW is legitimately a kind of Wailing Wall for yelling about politicians... or a quiet Tim Horton's donuts.

3. It's not rocket science, but it's a system.  It's a system supported by a public conscience.  You can argue conscience subjectively but not numbers.  A veteran just explained how pensions work (for military people) a few days ago and it's hard facts.  You can build an argument on that, it's objective.  Right and wrong are definitely real things but they are subjective and relative also.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Really ?  Is that his point.  Lucky he had you to come and explain it then.  Wish I had my own turningrite to explain my points.    Anyway if that's his point, then my response is simply "wow man, like, I knew that already"

2.Obviously not.  And MLW is legitimately a kind of Wailing Wall for yelling about politicians... or a quiet Tim Horton's donuts.

3. It's not rocket science, but it's a system.  It's a system supported by a public conscience.  You can argue conscience subjectively but not numbers.  A veteran just explained how pensions work (for military people) a few days ago and it's hard facts.  You can build an argument on that, it's objective.  Right and wrong are definitely real things but they are subjective and relative also.

1.) I was happy to help.

2.) Obviously not? Surely you mean, 'in my opinion, obviously not', right?

3.) My bet is that my view is likely reflective of public opinion. That you don't seem to recognize the moral and ethical case here suggests a degree of desensitization on your part. Or is it partisan affiliation that shapes your perspective as you seem intent on providing cover for an intransigent government and bureaucracy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Well - he stuck his foot in his mouth again - now he's alienated Brian Pallister of Manitoba:

Quote

 

Things took a sharp turn last month when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau visited Manitoba and wished publicly that Pallister "would encourage some of the other conservative voices around the country to recognize that having a plan to fight climate change is something that all Canadians ... have a right to expect."

Pallister gave no indication at the time, but on Wednesday he suddenly announced he was dropping his plans for a carbon tax and said he did not appreciate Trudeau's comments.

"I don't think anybody likes to be used as a prop, and I certainly am not inclined that way," Pallister said a day later.

 

Link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/pallister-carbon-tax-decision-caucus-surprised-1.4853963

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also easily the best known internationally. Otherwise it has not been a sign of poor general knowledge here in Europe not to know who is the PM of Canada but everyone knows Justin Trudeau.j

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2018 at 11:28 PM, turningrite said:

My bet is that my view is likely reflective of public opinion. That you don't seem to recognize the moral and ethical case here suggests a degree of desensitization on your part. Or is it partisan affiliation that shapes your perspective as you seem intent on providing cover for an intransigent government and bureaucracy?

My "moral and ethical case" is about me figuring out what is actually happening, rather than just braying about Trudeau.  I took the time to read a veteran's perspective, which was full of information.  That is actually my responsibility as member of the public.   Thanks to the dialogue between myself and that veteran I have some information I can use as a member of the public.

Saying "pay the MPs zero and give the money to veterans" is a rock-headed stupid opinion that helps nobody.  People with such opinions are better to shut their mouths than create more noise.  Loud caterwauling is not "public opinion", it's useless and doesn't help the situation. 

I won't put up with vain idiots saying that they have a monopoly on caring or on patriotism.  They have blown off their public responsibilities so they should be ignored IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hates politicians said:

As I said liars and thieves

Well, if you're going after Reform then you are going after the people who wrote the book on grassroots politics.  The fact that they went south, so to speak, should tell you something and that is: the process will always move towards consolidating power and marginalizing protest.  Professional politicians - they exist for a reason.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, if you're going after Reform then you are going after the people who wrote the book on grassroots politics.  The fact that they went south, so to speak, should tell you something and that is: the process will always move towards consolidating power and marginalizing protest.  Professional politicians - they exist for a reason.  

Ya to rape and pillage taxpayers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2018 at 10:57 AM, Michael Hardner said:

My "moral and ethical case" is about me figuring out what is actually happening, rather than just braying about Trudeau.  I took the time to read a veteran's perspective, which was full of information.  That is actually my responsibility as member of the public.   Thanks to the dialogue between myself and that veteran I have some information I can use as a member of the public.

Saying "pay the MPs zero and give the money to veterans" is a rock-headed stupid opinion that helps nobody.  People with such opinions are better to shut their mouths than create more noise.  Loud caterwauling is not "public opinion", it's useless and doesn't help the situation.

Who said Trudeau is the only problem here? Canadian veterans were mistreated under Harper as well. And while "loud caterwauling" might not in its own right constitute public opinion, it likely reflects strands of a broader view that Canada's treatment of its military vets isn't and hasn't always been particularly fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, turningrite said:

Who said Trudeau is the only problem here? Canadian veterans were mistreated under Harper as well. And while "loud caterwauling" might not in its own right constitute public opinion, it likely reflects strands of a broader view that Canada's treatment of its military vets isn't and hasn't always been particularly fair.

That was awhile ago, you have to go back on the thread.  The Army Vet had the facts and a good post on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2018 at 10:45 PM, Michael Hardner said:

That was awhile ago, you have to go back on the thread.  The Army Vet had the facts and a good post on it.

And yet, much of the complaining on this issue is coming from vets, including in legal actions filed by vets against the Canadian government. This undermines your position, don't you think? I believe you've fallen into the trap of conflating a specific case, based on anecdotal reference, with the broader general case. One should be more careful to avoid such lapses in logic.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-pensions-benefits-court-1.4608601

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2018 at 3:24 PM, Michael Hardner said:

That was information from a knowledgeable source, not a personal anecdote.

Ah, and the CBC isn't a knowledgeable source and neither are the vets who are pursuing legal claims against the government? What's the standard you're applying here? Your own?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...