Canadian Politics Redux

1…181182184186187…464

Comments

  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,521
    PJ_Soul said:
    I want to know what in the world Jane Philpott is up to. I am not satisfied with the explanation she gave for her resignation ... I have a strong suspicion that she is just playing politics right now, trying to strategically position herself, like she's trying to look ahead some moves in the game... It remains to be seen if she's choosing wisely for herself. I'm just not buying that it's all about principles for her... or for JWR for that matter. It's questions like these, as well as the conflicting testimony we're hearing, that is making me feel most comfortable with simply sitting back and letting this whole thing pan out before at all deciding where I stand with it. Just watching and waiting.
    exactly. every trudeau hater out there is framing this as if it's some slam dunk. "I'll believe someone under oath over someone who isn't". why? because no one in the history of ever has lied under oath when it suits them? HAHA

    give me irrefutable evidence, not just a he said she said debacle where one side can claim the moral high ground with nothing to back it up, and I'll bite. 
    By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.




  • Meltdown99
    Meltdown99 None Of Your Business... Posts: 10,739

    Give Peas A Chance…
  • DarthMaeglin
    DarthMaeglin Toronto Posts: 3,008
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I want to know what in the world Jane Philpott is up to. I am not satisfied with the explanation she gave for her resignation ... I have a strong suspicion that she is just playing politics right now, trying to strategically position herself, like she's trying to look ahead some moves in the game... It remains to be seen if she's choosing wisely for herself. I'm just not buying that it's all about principles for her... or for JWR for that matter. It's questions like these, as well as the conflicting testimony we're hearing, that is making me feel most comfortable with simply sitting back and letting this whole thing pan out before at all deciding where I stand with it. Just watching and waiting.
    exactly. every trudeau hater out there is framing this as if it's some slam dunk. "I'll believe someone under oath over someone who isn't". why? because no one in the history of ever has lied under oath when it suits them? HAHA

    give me irrefutable evidence, not just a he said she said debacle where one side can claim the moral high ground with nothing to back it up, and I'll bite. 
    Unfortunately it's become clear that there will be no real evidence, and it's all going to come down to the issue of credibility, a she-said-he-said situation (which parallels Trudeau's interpretation of the Kokanee Grope).  After watching Wilson-Raybould's testimony last week and Wernick and Drouin's testimony today (I'll admit I'm reduced to soundbites on Butts, having slept in today), I'm with Wilson-Raybould so far.  The Liberal majority on the committee isn't helping things either by their clear circling of the wagons (denying a third round of questioning Wernick and Drouin, as well as refusing to recall the former Justice Minister).

    It was hilarious watching Wernick go from "I don't recall, I wasn't wearing a wire" to "No, I do clearly and specifically recall not threatening the former AG" (I'm paraphrasing, to be fair).
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,694
    edited March 2019
    I'm just not too sure why JWR is being given all the benefit of the doubt. What if she is way off in her perceptions? What if she's playing victim? What if she's even got deeper intentions here? We don't know that she doesn't. We don't know that she does. How many people will have to refute her testimony before people start wondering if her perception of what happened are skewed? I'm not saying I think that. But I'm saying I acknowledge it as possible.
    FWIW, I don't see anything odd about someone forgetting one thing, and also being sure they didn't threaten someone.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • DarthMaeglin
    DarthMaeglin Toronto Posts: 3,008
    PJ_Soul said:
    I'm just not too sure why JWR is being given all the benefit of the doubt. What if she is way off in her perceptions? What if she's playing victim? What if she's even got deeper intentions here? We don't know that she doesn't. We don't know that she does. How many people will have to refute her testimony before people start wondering if her perception of what happened are skewed? I'm not saying I think that. But I'm saying I acknowledge it as possible.
    FWIW, I don't see anything odd about someone forgetting one thing, and also being sure they didn't threaten someone.
    Having watched JWR's full testimony last week and Wernick's today, were I sitting on a jury she would be miles ahead the more credible witness.  Other than his seemingly selective memory, the only "proof" offered this afternoon was a sheaf of social media posts attacking Wernick, totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.  And it's sickening hearing others put words into JWR's mouth on matters she still feels (legally) bound not to discuss.
  • DarthMaeglin
    DarthMaeglin Toronto Posts: 3,008
    To be fair, the reports I've seen have painted Butts as a much stronger witness than this afternoon's.
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,694
    edited March 2019
    DarthMaeglin said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I'm just not too sure why JWR is being given all the benefit of the doubt. What if she is way off in her perceptions? What if she's playing victim? What if she's even got deeper intentions here? We don't know that she doesn't. We don't know that she does. How many people will have to refute her testimony before people start wondering if her perception of what happened are skewed? I'm not saying I think that. But I'm saying I acknowledge it as possible.
    FWIW, I don't see anything odd about someone forgetting one thing, and also being sure they didn't threaten someone.
    Having watched JWR's full testimony last week and Wernick's today, were I sitting on a jury she would be miles ahead the more credible witness.  Other than his seemingly selective memory, the only "proof" offered this afternoon was a sheaf of social media posts attacking Wernick, totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.  And it's sickening hearing others put words into JWR's mouth on matters she still feels (legally) bound not to discuss.
    That isn't how juries are supposed to be coming up with verdicts though. They are supposed to consider evidence, not just pick a person who they feel like believing more. Me, I have absolutely no reason right now to believe her any more than I believe anyone. I'm not too clear on why people seem to think she is the most honest person to ever be in politics. 
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    PJ_Soul said:
    DarthMaeglin said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I'm just not too sure why JWR is being given all the benefit of the doubt. What if she is way off in her perceptions? What if she's playing victim? What if she's even got deeper intentions here? We don't know that she doesn't. We don't know that she does. How many people will have to refute her testimony before people start wondering if her perception of what happened are skewed? I'm not saying I think that. But I'm saying I acknowledge it as possible.
    FWIW, I don't see anything odd about someone forgetting one thing, and also being sure they didn't threaten someone.
    Having watched JWR's full testimony last week and Wernick's today, were I sitting on a jury she would be miles ahead the more credible witness.  Other than his seemingly selective memory, the only "proof" offered this afternoon was a sheaf of social media posts attacking Wernick, totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.  And it's sickening hearing others put words into JWR's mouth on matters she still feels (legally) bound not to discuss.
    That isn't how juries are supposed to be coming up with verdicts though. They are supposed to consider evidence, not just pick a person who they feel like believing more. Me, I have absolutely no reason right now to believe her any more than I believe anyone. I'm not too clear on why people seem to think she is the most honest person to ever be in politics. 
    Court issues are absolutely about credibility of witnesses, and the courts comment on that all the time. 

    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,694
    edited March 2019
    oftenreading said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    DarthMaeglin said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I'm just not too sure why JWR is being given all the benefit of the doubt. What if she is way off in her perceptions? What if she's playing victim? What if she's even got deeper intentions here? We don't know that she doesn't. We don't know that she does. How many people will have to refute her testimony before people start wondering if her perception of what happened are skewed? I'm not saying I think that. But I'm saying I acknowledge it as possible.
    FWIW, I don't see anything odd about someone forgetting one thing, and also being sure they didn't threaten someone.
    Having watched JWR's full testimony last week and Wernick's today, were I sitting on a jury she would be miles ahead the more credible witness.  Other than his seemingly selective memory, the only "proof" offered this afternoon was a sheaf of social media posts attacking Wernick, totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.  And it's sickening hearing others put words into JWR's mouth on matters she still feels (legally) bound not to discuss.
    That isn't how juries are supposed to be coming up with verdicts though. They are supposed to consider evidence, not just pick a person who they feel like believing more. Me, I have absolutely no reason right now to believe her any more than I believe anyone. I'm not too clear on why people seem to think she is the most honest person to ever be in politics. 
    Court issues are absolutely about credibility of witnesses, and the courts comment on that all the time. 

    Only if there are actual reasons to think they have more credibility. That's why they bring in character witnesses and all that shit. It's why the lawyers have to show juries why someone lacks credibility. Juries don't just sit there and pick the credible ones randomly, or just based on feelings (or shouldn't, anyway). That isn't the case here as far as I can tell. That is why I said I don't see why people seem to trust JWR so much, over anyone else. What exactly is everyone basing that on? I know some people on the news said she seemed to be credible on the day she testified... they never said why they thought that. Is it just because she decided to talk?
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • DarthMaeglin
    DarthMaeglin Toronto Posts: 3,008
    PJ_Soul said:
    DarthMaeglin said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I'm just not too sure why JWR is being given all the benefit of the doubt. What if she is way off in her perceptions? What if she's playing victim? What if she's even got deeper intentions here? We don't know that she doesn't. We don't know that she does. How many people will have to refute her testimony before people start wondering if her perception of what happened are skewed? I'm not saying I think that. But I'm saying I acknowledge it as possible.
    FWIW, I don't see anything odd about someone forgetting one thing, and also being sure they didn't threaten someone.
    Having watched JWR's full testimony last week and Wernick's today, were I sitting on a jury she would be miles ahead the more credible witness.  Other than his seemingly selective memory, the only "proof" offered this afternoon was a sheaf of social media posts attacking Wernick, totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.  And it's sickening hearing others put words into JWR's mouth on matters she still feels (legally) bound not to discuss.
    That isn't how juries are supposed to be coming up with verdicts though. They are supposed to consider evidence, not just pick a person who they feel like believing more. Me, I have absolutely no reason right now to believe her any more than I believe anyone. I'm not too clear on why people seem to think she is the most honest person to ever be in politics. 
    Fair enough, but what adds weight to JWR's credibility on this is the amount of evidence she presented, in the form of emails, texts and so on.  As I said, all Wernick brought today was a bunch of social media posts attacking him after his initial testimony (again, totally irrelevant to the matter at hand).
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,694
    edited March 2019
    DarthMaeglin said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    DarthMaeglin said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I'm just not too sure why JWR is being given all the benefit of the doubt. What if she is way off in her perceptions? What if she's playing victim? What if she's even got deeper intentions here? We don't know that she doesn't. We don't know that she does. How many people will have to refute her testimony before people start wondering if her perception of what happened are skewed? I'm not saying I think that. But I'm saying I acknowledge it as possible.
    FWIW, I don't see anything odd about someone forgetting one thing, and also being sure they didn't threaten someone.
    Having watched JWR's full testimony last week and Wernick's today, were I sitting on a jury she would be miles ahead the more credible witness.  Other than his seemingly selective memory, the only "proof" offered this afternoon was a sheaf of social media posts attacking Wernick, totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.  And it's sickening hearing others put words into JWR's mouth on matters she still feels (legally) bound not to discuss.
    That isn't how juries are supposed to be coming up with verdicts though. They are supposed to consider evidence, not just pick a person who they feel like believing more. Me, I have absolutely no reason right now to believe her any more than I believe anyone. I'm not too clear on why people seem to think she is the most honest person to ever be in politics. 
    Fair enough, but what adds weight to JWR's credibility on this is the amount of evidence she presented, in the form of emails, texts and so on.  As I said, all Wernick brought today was a bunch of social media posts attacking him after his initial testimony (again, totally irrelevant to the matter at hand).
    I have not seen any texts or emails actually... She didn't present them on the day she testified as far as I know. Did she? Have you actually seen any that prove she is telling the truth or that her perspective isn't "off"?
    Again, I'm not siding with anyone here. I'm completely neutral right now.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    PJ_Soul said:
    oftenreading said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    DarthMaeglin said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I'm just not too sure why JWR is being given all the benefit of the doubt. What if she is way off in her perceptions? What if she's playing victim? What if she's even got deeper intentions here? We don't know that she doesn't. We don't know that she does. How many people will have to refute her testimony before people start wondering if her perception of what happened are skewed? I'm not saying I think that. But I'm saying I acknowledge it as possible.
    FWIW, I don't see anything odd about someone forgetting one thing, and also being sure they didn't threaten someone.
    Having watched JWR's full testimony last week and Wernick's today, were I sitting on a jury she would be miles ahead the more credible witness.  Other than his seemingly selective memory, the only "proof" offered this afternoon was a sheaf of social media posts attacking Wernick, totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.  And it's sickening hearing others put words into JWR's mouth on matters she still feels (legally) bound not to discuss.
    That isn't how juries are supposed to be coming up with verdicts though. They are supposed to consider evidence, not just pick a person who they feel like believing more. Me, I have absolutely no reason right now to believe her any more than I believe anyone. I'm not too clear on why people seem to think she is the most honest person to ever be in politics. 
    Court issues are absolutely about credibility of witnesses, and the courts comment on that all the time. 

    Only if there are actual reasons to think they have more credibility. That's why they bring in character witnesses and all that shit. It's why the lawyers have to show juries why someone lacks credibility. Juries don't just sit there and pick the credible ones randomly, or just based on feelings (or shouldn't, anyway). That isn't the case here as far as I can tell. That is why I said I don't see why people seem to trust JWR so much, over anyone else. What exactly is everyone basing that on? I know some people on the news said she seemed to be credible on the day she testified... they never said why they thought that. Is it just because she decided to talk?
    Character witnesses have little to do with credibility. 

    Generally credibility rests more on contemporaneous documentation or proof, since memories fade and change over time. It’s my understanding that Wilson-Raybould had contemporaneous notes to support her assertions. Consistency is also important.  Motive is also considered, though in this case of course both sides have external motivations. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,694
    edited March 2019
    oftenreading said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    oftenreading said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    DarthMaeglin said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I'm just not too sure why JWR is being given all the benefit of the doubt. What if she is way off in her perceptions? What if she's playing victim? What if she's even got deeper intentions here? We don't know that she doesn't. We don't know that she does. How many people will have to refute her testimony before people start wondering if her perception of what happened are skewed? I'm not saying I think that. But I'm saying I acknowledge it as possible.
    FWIW, I don't see anything odd about someone forgetting one thing, and also being sure they didn't threaten someone.
    Having watched JWR's full testimony last week and Wernick's today, were I sitting on a jury she would be miles ahead the more credible witness.  Other than his seemingly selective memory, the only "proof" offered this afternoon was a sheaf of social media posts attacking Wernick, totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.  And it's sickening hearing others put words into JWR's mouth on matters she still feels (legally) bound not to discuss.
    That isn't how juries are supposed to be coming up with verdicts though. They are supposed to consider evidence, not just pick a person who they feel like believing more. Me, I have absolutely no reason right now to believe her any more than I believe anyone. I'm not too clear on why people seem to think she is the most honest person to ever be in politics. 
    Court issues are absolutely about credibility of witnesses, and the courts comment on that all the time. 

    Only if there are actual reasons to think they have more credibility. That's why they bring in character witnesses and all that shit. It's why the lawyers have to show juries why someone lacks credibility. Juries don't just sit there and pick the credible ones randomly, or just based on feelings (or shouldn't, anyway). That isn't the case here as far as I can tell. That is why I said I don't see why people seem to trust JWR so much, over anyone else. What exactly is everyone basing that on? I know some people on the news said she seemed to be credible on the day she testified... they never said why they thought that. Is it just because she decided to talk?
    Character witnesses have little to do with credibility. 

    Generally credibility rests more on contemporaneous documentation or proof, since memories fade and change over time. It’s my understanding that Wilson-Raybould had contemporaneous notes to support her assertions. Consistency is also important.  Motive is also considered, though in this case of course both sides have external motivations. 
    Okay (But I think character witnesses do have a fair bit to do with credibility, at least in some cases) ... Yes, proof of some sort. A reason. I don't think any of that exists in this case either. Not yet anyway. And Philpott resigning actually made me feel randomly suspicious, I admit that. I don't have any really good reason for that... there was just no reasonable explanation given, which makes me suspect her motives, and also makes me wonder what kind of relationship she and JWR might have. I just really want more info across the board!
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • DarthMaeglin
    DarthMaeglin Toronto Posts: 3,008
    PJ_Soul said:
    DarthMaeglin said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    DarthMaeglin said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I'm just not too sure why JWR is being given all the benefit of the doubt. What if she is way off in her perceptions? What if she's playing victim? What if she's even got deeper intentions here? We don't know that she doesn't. We don't know that she does. How many people will have to refute her testimony before people start wondering if her perception of what happened are skewed? I'm not saying I think that. But I'm saying I acknowledge it as possible.
    FWIW, I don't see anything odd about someone forgetting one thing, and also being sure they didn't threaten someone.
    Having watched JWR's full testimony last week and Wernick's today, were I sitting on a jury she would be miles ahead the more credible witness.  Other than his seemingly selective memory, the only "proof" offered this afternoon was a sheaf of social media posts attacking Wernick, totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.  And it's sickening hearing others put words into JWR's mouth on matters she still feels (legally) bound not to discuss.
    That isn't how juries are supposed to be coming up with verdicts though. They are supposed to consider evidence, not just pick a person who they feel like believing more. Me, I have absolutely no reason right now to believe her any more than I believe anyone. I'm not too clear on why people seem to think she is the most honest person to ever be in politics. 
    Fair enough, but what adds weight to JWR's credibility on this is the amount of evidence she presented, in the form of emails, texts and so on.  As I said, all Wernick brought today was a bunch of social media posts attacking him after his initial testimony (again, totally irrelevant to the matter at hand).
    I have not seen any texts or emails actually... She didn't present them on the day she testified as far as I know. Did she? Have you actually seen any that prove she is telling the truth or that her perspective isn't "off"?
    Again, I'm not siding with anyone here. I'm completely neutral right now.
    I'll admit I haven't personally read them, however she introduced them as part of her testimony and they were distributed to the members of the committee.

    Another thing that adds to her credibility has been Trudeau and company's constantly changing story, unfortunately.
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,694
    DarthMaeglin said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    DarthMaeglin said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    DarthMaeglin said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I'm just not too sure why JWR is being given all the benefit of the doubt. What if she is way off in her perceptions? What if she's playing victim? What if she's even got deeper intentions here? We don't know that she doesn't. We don't know that she does. How many people will have to refute her testimony before people start wondering if her perception of what happened are skewed? I'm not saying I think that. But I'm saying I acknowledge it as possible.
    FWIW, I don't see anything odd about someone forgetting one thing, and also being sure they didn't threaten someone.
    Having watched JWR's full testimony last week and Wernick's today, were I sitting on a jury she would be miles ahead the more credible witness.  Other than his seemingly selective memory, the only "proof" offered this afternoon was a sheaf of social media posts attacking Wernick, totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.  And it's sickening hearing others put words into JWR's mouth on matters she still feels (legally) bound not to discuss.
    That isn't how juries are supposed to be coming up with verdicts though. They are supposed to consider evidence, not just pick a person who they feel like believing more. Me, I have absolutely no reason right now to believe her any more than I believe anyone. I'm not too clear on why people seem to think she is the most honest person to ever be in politics. 
    Fair enough, but what adds weight to JWR's credibility on this is the amount of evidence she presented, in the form of emails, texts and so on.  As I said, all Wernick brought today was a bunch of social media posts attacking him after his initial testimony (again, totally irrelevant to the matter at hand).
    I have not seen any texts or emails actually... She didn't present them on the day she testified as far as I know. Did she? Have you actually seen any that prove she is telling the truth or that her perspective isn't "off"?
    Again, I'm not siding with anyone here. I'm completely neutral right now.
    I'll admit I haven't personally read them, however she introduced them as part of her testimony and they were distributed to the members of the committee.

    Another thing that adds to her credibility has been Trudeau and company's constantly changing story, unfortunately.
    Alright, and we have yet to hear a word about whether or not those email or texts prove anything at all... I will wait until I actually know if they do or not (if we ever hear either way - if we don't, I'll assume they prove nothing).
    I feel like Trudeau and friends were just scrambling in the face of overwhelming attention from a rabid, scandal-hungry media and opposition, and might have tripped over themselves a bit when attempting to explain this and that, but I've not seen anything damning at all coming from their side, yet.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    PJ_Soul said:
    oftenreading said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    oftenreading said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    DarthMaeglin said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I'm just not too sure why JWR is being given all the benefit of the doubt. What if she is way off in her perceptions? What if she's playing victim? What if she's even got deeper intentions here? We don't know that she doesn't. We don't know that she does. How many people will have to refute her testimony before people start wondering if her perception of what happened are skewed? I'm not saying I think that. But I'm saying I acknowledge it as possible.
    FWIW, I don't see anything odd about someone forgetting one thing, and also being sure they didn't threaten someone.
    Having watched JWR's full testimony last week and Wernick's today, were I sitting on a jury she would be miles ahead the more credible witness.  Other than his seemingly selective memory, the only "proof" offered this afternoon was a sheaf of social media posts attacking Wernick, totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.  And it's sickening hearing others put words into JWR's mouth on matters she still feels (legally) bound not to discuss.
    That isn't how juries are supposed to be coming up with verdicts though. They are supposed to consider evidence, not just pick a person who they feel like believing more. Me, I have absolutely no reason right now to believe her any more than I believe anyone. I'm not too clear on why people seem to think she is the most honest person to ever be in politics. 
    Court issues are absolutely about credibility of witnesses, and the courts comment on that all the time. 

    Only if there are actual reasons to think they have more credibility. That's why they bring in character witnesses and all that shit. It's why the lawyers have to show juries why someone lacks credibility. Juries don't just sit there and pick the credible ones randomly, or just based on feelings (or shouldn't, anyway). That isn't the case here as far as I can tell. That is why I said I don't see why people seem to trust JWR so much, over anyone else. What exactly is everyone basing that on? I know some people on the news said she seemed to be credible on the day she testified... they never said why they thought that. Is it just because she decided to talk?
    Character witnesses have little to do with credibility. 

    Generally credibility rests more on contemporaneous documentation or proof, since memories fade and change over time. It’s my understanding that Wilson-Raybould had contemporaneous notes to support her assertions. Consistency is also important.  Motive is also considered, though in this case of course both sides have external motivations. 
    Okay (But I think character witnesses do have a fair bit to do with credibility, at least in some cases) ... Yes, proof of some sort. A reason. I don't think any of that exists in this case either. Not yet anyway. And Philpott resigning actually made me feel randomly suspicious, I admit that. I don't have any really good reason for that... there was just no reasonable explanation given, which makes me suspect her motives, and also makes me wonder what kind of relationship she and JWR might have. I just really want more info across the board!
    I agree that Philpott’s resignation raises some questions, since most would argue that you are more likely to effectively influence change in cabinet rather than out. A speaker on CBC today said that she’s a close, personal friend of W-R, so maybe it was really just done as a personal gesture of support. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Meltdown99
    Meltdown99 None Of Your Business... Posts: 10,739
    I believe her.  Why wouldn't I?  She turned down the Indigenous Affairs Minister job because she is opposed to the Indian Act, something she has spent 30 fighting.  Gerald Butts, on the other hand, was the driving force that drove people in Ontario into energy poverty, and it was not until he left that some sanity was returning.

    It's a liberal-dominated committee, it slanted in their favour.  And any committee that does not swear in witness's might not be the forum to determine the true outcomes...and now we'll see if Trudeau has found his balls and will call a public enquiry.

    And Wernick was a clown.

    And if people do not believe witness credibility is important, it's very important...maybe the most famous trial of all came down to the jury siding with OJ over a racist cop who committed perjury, even though DNA said OJ was the man.
    Give Peas A Chance…
  • Meltdown99
    Meltdown99 None Of Your Business... Posts: 10,739
    It is also not just about which side to believe.  It should also be about the DPA law that was slipped into the budget bill that basically allows corporations to escape proper justice and pay a fine.  White collar criminals need to be brought to justice and made to pay for their crimes.  We watch time and time again the corporations and banks get away with paying low taxes and operating criminally.

    And there were no 9000 jobs at stake, the engineering work would have gone to other engineer companies, and loss of jobs is no reason to ignore criminal behaviour.
    Give Peas A Chance…
  • DarthMaeglin
    DarthMaeglin Toronto Posts: 3,008
    Meltdown99 said:
    It is also not just about which side to believe.  It should also be about the DPA law that was slipped into the budget bill that basically allows corporations to escape proper justice and pay a fine.  White collar criminals need to be brought to justice and made to pay for their crimes.  We watch time and time again the corporations and banks get away with paying low taxes and operating criminally.

    And there were no 9000 jobs at stake, the engineering work would have gone to other engineer companies, and loss of jobs is no reason to ignore criminal behaviour.
    How the legislation was slipped into an omnibus budget bill is still one of the most troubling aspects of this, and I’m a bit flabbergasted it’s kind of been swept aside for the various dueling narratives about pressure around a potential deal that maybe shouldn’t even be an option.

    All aspects of this go to the independence of our justice system, and we should all be very concerned, regardless of party preference/allegiance. Hopefully (as I’ve said before), the media hounds this story in the run-up to the election the same way Duffy was front-and-centre last election.
  • Meltdown99
    Meltdown99 None Of Your Business... Posts: 10,739
    DarthMaeglin said:
    Meltdown99 said:
    It is also not just about which side to believe.  It should also be about the DPA law that was slipped into the budget bill that basically allows corporations to escape proper justice and pay a fine.  White collar criminals need to be brought to justice and made to pay for their crimes.  We watch time and time again the corporations and banks get away with paying low taxes and operating criminally.

    And there were no 9000 jobs at stake, the engineering work would have gone to other engineer companies, and loss of jobs is no reason to ignore criminal behaviour.
    How the legislation was slipped into an omnibus budget bill is still one of the most troubling aspects of this, and I’m a bit flabbergasted it’s kind of been swept aside for the various dueling narratives about pressure around a potential deal that maybe shouldn’t even be an option.

    All aspects of this go to the independence of our justice system, and we should all be very concerned, regardless of party preference/allegiance. Hopefully (as I’ve said before), the media hounds this story in the run-up to the election the same way Duffy was front-and-centre last election.
    That's why we need a public enquiry to get to the bottom of this.  I think the media will stick with the storey.   Andrew Coyne on CBC at issue was pretty pissed, I am not sure I have ever seen him this pissed.  He is probably pissed like many Canadians about a PM that spent weeks trying to discredit JWR and the more the other liberals speak the worse it gets and the better she looks.

    Let's not forget the 2 other players in this  Jane Philpot, who many say it one of the most respected MPs in Canada, she has sided with JWR,
    and Celina R. Caesar-Chavannes who resigned out of the blue.  The oddity of this whole affair, os trying to figure out which liberal is lying.
    Give Peas A Chance…

Categories