As uke mentions Freeland >>> Trudeau and if you could seamlessly transition her into that spot I think the majority would do so

Masks are a lock in the toronto area. 1/10 will use his shirt to cover as a displaced weirdo. Province left it up to municipalities. It is really up to people at this point if anything will resemble normal anytime soon.

Q1 of this year was promising, and now people need to not cough on each other, and we can do this. -190 on minimum 2 additional global complications by 2025

anand continuing to prove her effectiveness in the Trudeau governments covid response. It’s these little things that aren’t splashy but are so important.

THe question will be what the % of folks will choose to get the vaccine and I do believe it is a legitimate personal choice

https://www.canadalandshow.com/we-ch...rity-watchdog/

Enough will. You only need like 60-70%.

Man Trudeau said sorry and apologized, isn't that enough? Just drop it already!

Nope Nope Nope

I think We will end Justin's dictatorship

FYP.

But your prayers are being a bit dashed by the top public servant today:

I suppose you could make the case that the youth minister I quoted form extensively earlier in the thread, as a cabinet minister, might be completely lieing through their teeth. But their story is completely consistent with this one here, so we are going to have to see some major new evidence released for this to edge up beyond minor on the scandal scale.

I did quite enjoy #scheerstupidity trending all last night as everyone pointed out HIS outrageous personal grift that the conservative back benchers arn't saying anything at all about while trying to shame liberal back benchers.

As long as we relentlessly name and shame anyone so ****ing moronic as to refuse vaccines, I'm happy with the occasional parenthetical about personal choice.

On the minor point that is coming out with people questioning WE's finances, I think this is instructive:

Again, appropriate. Can they execute the immediate project they are being hired to do? All this investigative reporting about being over extended on real estate holdings and blah blah of course has nothing to do with the actual controversy: the lack of recusal. But it is all window dressing.

Lozen honest question. We have different perspectives, and I respect yours. However you keep complaining abt justin. If you produced an anti justin ad with only 2 bullet points, be facts/attacks/anything, what would your 2 points be in a 20 second political ad against him?

Note: just the points not wording or spin

I would go with Justin promised us transparency unless it involves Justin's covering up of SNC and invoking cabinet privilege. Than Justin promises he must do better. Yet again when it comes to WE if he has nothing to hide why will he not testify? Than I would show and iceberg and say the top reflects all of all the the ethics violations he is guilty of and the bottom reflects what we do not.

Oops I did what you said I shouldnt

Transparency is what I would pound


I remind you I voted for him the first time and I think he will be tough to beat but his numbers are sliding

Do you think folks have a right to be nervous about a vaccine that will be rushed to market and may not have undergone all the testing that other vaccines may go through.

Let me add so you do not imply I am a anti vaccine person I will be getting the vaccine at the first opportunity

Anyone has the "right" to think whatever stupid things they want, that's not a helpful framing. Any vaccine will go through pre-clinical and then clinical Phase I-III testing. This is why there are hundreds of candidates already, but it is still many months if not a year out, because of the requirement to go through the rigorous testing. There are some things being done to speed up the process, but they are all largely valid things. And the good news is that the major regulators in europe and NA are working very well together despite the macro political conflicts, which makes sense as they have to get something safe enough for 7 billion people. And when you look at the major mechnisms, toxicity is looking extremely safe (both theoretically and in the early clinical results) so the big worry is not that it won't be safe, but that it won't give enough of an immune system response for long enough.

I'm assuming that this will all be well explained in the news media (I have the luck of a brother in drug development), as that is all understandably complex, and after it is well explained and they want to still resist THEN the naming and shaming.

Someone who should really know published a much better version of the basic take I made here: https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/in-defence-of-we/

It's a weird thing that people are focusing so much on attacking WE in this or that way, when it really doesn't affect the scandal. So maybe it is just as silly to push back because WE being "not as bad as people are suggesting" again doesn't really affect the scandal. But who knows, maybe articles like that get through to somebody.

I would be more nervous about a vaccine developed in the USA than anywhere else as with Trumps administration regulations seemed to be one thing they have no issue getting rid of


As for the Mclean's article it is one of many.
http://globalnews.ca/news/7203337/tr...lding-company/
Let this play out. Trudeau testify and do not invoke cabinet privilege and let the public decide. No question he will get another ethics violation for his poor judgement.

You do realize that CDN's have the right to not believe Trudeau based on his previous lies on ethics issue.

Though reality its no different than what is going on in the USA . Trump voters really do not care what Trump does. The sentiment will be the same for Trudeau proponents.

Do you have any concern with WE holding 50 million $ in real Estate that is highly leveraged?

Different subject If as a culture we must change the name of the Edmonton Eskimos and remove statues of John A Mcdonald. Both of which I can understand both points of view. Than should we not remove the name of Pierre Elliot Trudeau Airport as he was Prime Minister under residential Schools. He did not start it but under all his terms he did nothing to remove it.

Why on earth would I care about the degree of leverage on real estate holdings of a charity? The "scandal" of not recusing himself - although as the top public servant says it is hard to imagine how trudeau could not be involved at all in a program this big - then ok. But leverage details of the charity? Who cares. It doesn't make it one iota more or less of a scandal.

As was detailed in the committee testimony, the public service vetted the charity on the basis of their ability to engage in the operation this summer. That is the correct basis.

I think people are obsessing over this because they WANT it to be a fire and so they are trying to find any possible smoke they can. Perhaps there is an imaginary world where WE, desparate for money, and their influence over trudeau got him to give them a bail out in disguise in exchange for more money for trudeau's family. But that is just a pure fantasy land conspiracy theory at this point, there is literally zero evidence of that. Hence why the scandal remains firmly "minor" on the evidence we have.

You keep talking about having "the right" on a bunch of different issues recently. You should stop that. No conversation about "rights" has anybody ever denying that people can't think things like about vaccinnes or trudeau or whatever. It makes your statements true, but only vacuously.

Regardless of your poor wording, I think you are hitting the nail on the head though. There is a very minor scandal about recusing in cabinet decisions etc. No big deal. But there is a major scandal that people are imagining. There isn't any evidence for it, but because "trudeau might be lying" they irresponsibly conjecture all sorts of things. Maybe there will be some evidence for a more major scandal in the future, as I'm sure you are hoping for, but it isn't here yet.

Gee we suspect Trudeau is lying. Why would we do that? Maybe because he has lied about before were the ethics committee was involved. Maybe folks are suspicious when the charity involved is his friends that pays most of his family to speak. Plus we do not know what expenses they paid as well.

Charities usually do not own 9 properties when they are trying to save kids

Heck the CBC says this stinks. Bottom line is you have no issue with ethic violations if its for what you consider the greater good.

Sorry I had another comment but I just had remembered that I forgot to reimburse WE for a $41,000 trip I took 3 years ago.

This just gets juicier every day

Hasn't everybody had a 40k trip paid for by a "charity" then forgot to pay it back until 3 years later? Has he apologized yet, If so then who cares? I'm sure it was for what he thought was best for the country at the time.

You will be ecstatic to know that both trudeau and his CoS have committed to testifying. Sounds like he has nothing to hide, in your view.

Morneau should resign for this failure to pay back. Yes, he has donated a hundred k of his own money to the charity, there isn't reason to believe his support was for his personal gain, butt nevertheless I think he should resign.

Huh? Charities have foundations all the time with large swaths of assets. Stick to actual evidence based criticisms. There is nothing illegal or immoral about this.

What do you mean "the CBC"? Do you mean there was an op-ed published on their website or a commentator who said it stinks?


Why would you accuse me of something that I have already fully explained is not true?