Election 2015

[Mark H.]

Guilty people don't confess but innocent people do? Can you please explain that, Mark H as it is a confusing statement? I don't think we are "civilized". Civilized countries don't have crime like sexual assaults, murdering 2 year old kids etc. A civilized society doesn't have beheadings, terrorism,torture, prisoner of war camps, or wars. We, as the human race try to convince ourselves that we are civilized when I believe we're not.

 

Ask any lawyer or judge who practices criminal law, or any criminal psychologist.  People who are innocent will often confess to being guilty due to the stress of the situation. I've had lawyers as guest speakers in my highschool classes. They will always tell you that they have seen both scenarios: someone who was guilty as sin saying they are innocent, or the flip side, a person who was completely innocent saying they are guilty.

 

Stress makes people do and say strange things.  Also, 90% of criminals are repeat offenders who know the system. None of them are going to confess, unless they are mentally ill. But a first time offender (or non-offender) often sees confessing the crime as being the right thing to do. Morally it may very well be the right thing to do, but legally it's foolish.

 

Being civilized does not mean we are perfect. If Canada isn't a civilized country, then quite frankly, there are no civilized countries.  I'm sorry, but I don't buy the argument that we need the death penalty because we're not a civilized country.  Which country would meet the criteria for 'not needing' it?

[kelownabomberfan]

 

A lot of confessions come from extreme police pressure and trickery. Typically this happens to uneducated people even some that have development delays and are borderline mentally challeneged.

 

 

The brother of a guy I worked with axe-murdered his girlfriend back in 1998.  He of course swore he didn't do it.  The cops knew that he did do it.  They brought him in for questioning and told him that NASA had supplied satellite imagery of him leaving the house holding an axe.  At that point he said that since they had the photos he might as well admit that yes, he did axe murder his girlfriend.  And of course he did.  Did the RCMP have the photos?  No.  Did they use trickery?  Yes.  Am I glad that they did? Yes.  Because at least an axe murderer didn't get away with axe murder.  BTW - he's already out of jail.

[AtlanticRiderFan]

Just a question. In the case of a tie, a by-election is held. Does anyone know how this particular by-election works? Usually, a by-election is held to account for a seat vacancy, so it is only held in that riding. But in this case, a seat vacancy isn't involved, so does it only take place in certain ridings or all ridings, and what are the procedures involving the by-election?

 

Just curious, because I would not be surprised if we see a tie this year.

[Mark H.]

 

 

A lot of confessions come from extreme police pressure and trickery. Typically this happens to uneducated people even some that have development delays and are borderline mentally challeneged.

 

 

The brother of a guy I worked with axe-murdered his girlfriend back in 1998.  He of course swore he didn't do it.  The cops knew that he did do it.  They brought him in for questioning and told him that NASA had supplied satellite imagery of him leaving the house holding an axe.  At that point he said that since they had the photos he might as well admit that yes, he did axe murder his girlfriend.  And of course he did.  Did the RCMP have the photos?  No.  Did they use trickery?  Yes.  Am I glad that they did? Yes.  Because at least an axe murderer didn't get away with axe murder.  BTW - he's already out of jail.

 

 

I would assume he was found guilty of second degree murder. That would have made him eligible for parole in 2013 or 2014 (15 years after sentencing). There's definitely some room for stiffer sentences there.

[iso_55]

 

 

 

A lot of confessions come from extreme police pressure and trickery. Typically this happens to uneducated people even some that have development delays and are borderline mentally challeneged.

 

 

The brother of a guy I worked with axe-murdered his girlfriend back in 1998.  He of course swore he didn't do it.  The cops knew that he did do it.  They brought him in for questioning and told him that NASA had supplied satellite imagery of him leaving the house holding an axe.  At that point he said that since they had the photos he might as well admit that yes, he did axe murder his girlfriend.  And of course he did.  Did the RCMP have the photos?  No.  Did they use trickery?  Yes.  Am I glad that they did? Yes.  Because at least an axe murderer didn't get away with axe murder.  BTW - he's already out of jail.

 

 

I would assume he was found guilty of second degree murder. That would have made him eligible for parole in 2013 or 2014 (15 years after sentencing). There's definitely some room for stiffer sentences there.

 

A couple just got convicted yesterday in Calgary for killing their little daughter. They got life. Seventeen years with no parole. Our justice system is a joke.

[Goalie]

If you kill someone and the evidence proves you did... you should die too. No life in prison crap. Why? So you me and other tax payers can pay for that person to live. Nope. Always thought the best solution Is if you kill someone and it's absolutely certain you did... you die too. If there's one or 2 mistakes along the way so be it. Cop killers and child killers should get instant death.

The death penalty should be put to a cross country vote. Yes or no. Bet the majority would vote yes.

[Mark H.]

If you kill someone and the evidence proves you did... you should die too. No life in prison crap. Why? So you me and other tax payers can pay for that person to live. Nope. Always thought the best solution Is if you kill someone and it's absolutely certain you did... you die too. If there's one or 2 mistakes along the way so be it. Cop killers and child killers should get instant death.

The death penalty should be put to a cross country vote. Yes or no. Bet the majority would vote yes.

 

Capital Punishment does not save money.

 

Evidence proves, absolutely certain, if there are one or two mistakes along the way - those things don't fit together, you can't have it both ways.

[kelownabomberfan]

all those in favor of capital punishment should read John Grisham's book "The Confession".  Counties in Texas have gone bankrupt from the costs of trying to put an offender to death.  It takes a long time. 

[StevetheClub]

Guilty people don't confess but innocent people do? Can you please explain that, Mark H as it is a confusing statement? I don't think we are "civilized". Civilized countries don't have crime like sexual assaults, murdering 2 year old kids etc. A civilized society doesn't have beheadings, terrorism,torture, prisoner of war camps, or wars. We, as the human race try to convince ourselves that we are civilized when I believe we're not.

Ask any lawyer or judge who practices criminal law, or any criminal psychologist. People who are innocent will often confess to being guilty due to the stress of the situation. I've had lawyers as guest speakers in my highschool classes. They will always tell you that they have seen both scenarios: someone who was guilty as sin saying they are innocent, or the flip side, a person who was completely innocent saying they are guilty.

Stress makes people do and say strange things. Also, 90% of criminals are repeat offenders who know the system. None of them are going to confess, unless they are mentally ill. But a first time offender (or non-offender) often sees confessing the crime as being the right thing to do. Morally it may very well be the right thing to do, but legally it's foolish.

Being civilized does not mean we are perfect. If Canada isn't a civilized country, then quite frankly, there are no civilized countries. I'm sorry, but I don't buy the argument that we need the death penalty because we're not a civilized country. Which country would meet the criteria for 'not needing' it?

In addition to confessions, eyewitness testimony is also highly problematic and has no doubt put many innocent people behind bars and I'm sure even on death row.

[The Unknown Poster]

The Cons were part of a "cooperation" a few years ago but Haper did specifically say it wasn't a coalition.

Mark is correct. Innocent people confess a lot. Either due to mental issues (many FASD sufferers confess) or intimidation by the police.

Okay so what are you saying? That a signed confession should be thrown out of court because it probably isn't true? Don't be ridiculous.

Basically what Fraser said. The worst evidence is statements. Either confessions of witnesses. That's why we do forensic investigations. Ultimately if you execute one innocent person the idea of capital punishment fails

Thus it can't happen. And it won't.

[The Unknown Poster]

A lot of confessions come from extreme police pressure and trickery. Typically this happens to uneducated people even some that have development delays and are borderline mentally challeneged.

The brother of a guy I worked with axe-murdered his girlfriend back in 1998. He of course swore he didn't do it. The cops knew that he did do it. They brought him in for questioning and told him that NASA had supplied satellite imagery of him leaving the house holding an axe. At that point he said that since they had the photos he might as well admit that yes, he did axe murder his girlfriend. And of course he did. Did the RCMP have the photos? No. Did they use trickery? Yes. Am I glad that they did? Yes. Because at least an axe murderer didn't get away with axe murder. BTW - he's already out of jail.

That's not the kind of trickery anyone is talking about. If he had been innocent he'd orobably say it was impossible there were photos of him.

But you said the police knew he did it. So they used obvious lies. And counted on him being stupid. The kind of trickery Mentioned refers to the pressure tactics and means of interrogation. There are many cases. I'm too tired to look them up right now.

Often times cops want to clear a case and don't care how or who as long as they have someone.

[The Unknown Poster]

If you kill someone and the evidence proves you did... you should die too. No life in prison crap. Why? So you me and other tax payers can pay for that person to live. Nope. Always thought the best solution Is if you kill someone and it's absolutely certain you did... you die too. If there's one or 2 mistakes along the way so be it. Cop killers and child killers should get instant death.

The death penalty should be put to a cross country vote. Yes or no. Bet the majority would vote yes.

Life in prison in cheaper.

[Fatty Liver]

If you kill someone and the evidence proves you did... you should die too. No life in prison crap. Why? So you me and other tax payers can pay for that person to live. Nope. Always thought the best solution Is if you kill someone and it's absolutely certain you did... you die too. If there's one or 2 mistakes along the way so be it. Cop killers and child killers should get instant death.

The death penalty should be put to a cross country vote. Yes or no. Bet the majority would vote yes.

 

I think if this was put to a vote you'd find the vast majority of Canadians would vote against the death penalty.  The example set by the US would be enough to convince most Canadians that there is no benefit to having capital punishment in our justice system.

[17to85]

Trudeau: 43

 

Harper: 56

 

Mulclair: 60

 

According to Con logic, we should all vote NDP. Just sick and tired of this 3rd grade logic they keep throwing at us.

 

I missed the debate last night as the Broncos game was far more interesting.  I did turn over to CPAC at half time, and caught part of Mulcair's interview (I can only watch about 30 seconds of that clown before my gag reflex starts kicking in) after the debate.  He was asked why the NDP used $67 a barrel for oil in his platform rather than $45.  You could tell he had no clue, and didn't know what to say, so he did the usual Mulcair thing and just channeled Pat Martin, getting annoyed and angry that anyone would dare question anything the NDP would say, instead of giving an actual answer.  But what else is new.  All three leaders in my opinion are pretty weak, but they are trying to govern a pretty schizo country in my opinion.  If you pander to the West you piss off Quebec and Ontario.  If you pander to Quebec you piss off Ontario and the west.  There is no answer that will please everyone.  But it was a good question in my view - why is the NDP using $67 a barrel?  I think I know why.  Because their total bullshit platform that is "costed and accounted for" is total bullshit.  If they used actual oil prices they wouldn't even come close to a balanced budget.  So they have to lie to try and make it look like they will.  I think promising balanced budgets was a huge mistake.

Same thing here in Alberta. The Tories always under/over estimated a barrel of oil. It worked for Klein for a decade as he always underestimated the price of a barrel of West Texas Intermediate & he had massive surpluses. Didn't work for Stelmach, Redford or Prentice who all over estimated to pay for their election goodies then rung up massive deficits. Klein was the luckiest politician in Canada. Not the best but the luckiest to have governed in a time of wealth & prosperity everywhere unlike the other 3 poor sap AB Premiers. Even the good politicians are clueless.

Klein wasn't lucky he was ruthless. He wanted surplussed and he cut things in order to get them. It's part of the reason why Alberta had to start running deficits. Klein left a lot needing to be done to support the provinces growing population. But he balanced the books which was his goal

[The Unknown Poster]

Can't say I agree with the conclusion here but the content is bang on

Three reasons why Harper will win decisively -- maybe even a majority

MITCH WOLFE

REBEL BLOGGER

The overpaid, clueless commentators at the Toronto Star, Globe and even the National Post have once again missed the political boat.

For weeks, all these supposed experts have been predicting the fall of Harper and the Conservatives.

You expect that sort of thing from the Star’s Salutin and Walkom, who have been overdosing on the leftist Kool-Aid for decades.

But even the normally politically astute Chantal Hebert has fallen victim to the Star’s biased, herd-like political reporting and commentary.

The Globe’s Radwanski began breaking “insider” stories about the crumbling Conservative base; voters were gravitating to Mulcair one day, and to Trudeau the next.

Even John Ivison and Andrew Coyne of the National Post have been prematurely sitting shiva for the Tories.

What evidence do these political windbags cite for the Fall of the House of Harper?

According to them, three recent events have allegedly crippled the Harper campaign:

The Duffy trial, the economy and the Syrian refugee crisis.

Let’s look at each supposedly fatal blow to the Conservative campaign.

The Duffy Trial

This tale of a puffed-up pol with his fat nose in the political trough is of no political significance.

We’re talking about a mere $90,000 of taxpayers’ money that may or may not have been illegally reimbursed to Duffy. These funds were repaid by Nigel Wright out of his own pocket, because even the appearance of misuse of Canadian taxpayers’ money was, for the Tories, unethical.

Contrast that with the $40 million that Liberal-connected insiders stole from the public in the famous “sponsorship” scandal. Not a cent was repaid.

Or the billions of dollars the McGuinty/Wynne governments used to stay in power, (the $1.1 billion gas plant scandal being the most obvious.)

The silent majority of Canadians care about the bottom line: How politicians use voters’ hard-earned money.

And for ten years, Harper and his government have respected taxpayers.

Canada’s Recession That Wasn’t

Remember when the Canadian economy slipped into a “technical recession" for about ten minutes?

Journalists all reported with glee that the Canadian economy was in decline, and Harper and Finance Minister Oliver were responsible.

Trudeau immediately announced that if elected Prime Minister, he would plunge Canada into three annual years of $10 billion dollars deficits to stimulate the apparently moribund economy.

The myopic political analysts had conveniently ignored wiser men and women, including Harper, who had argued rationally and persuasively that Canada’s economy was holding its own in all sectors except oil and gas.

Then lo and behold, the Finance Department released figures indicating that the economy was back in growth mode. Exports were finally up, and a surplus had been recorded by fiscal year end.

Once again, these so-called political pundits looked like fools, with huge gobs of congealed eggs dripping down their blank and dumbfounded faces.

The Syrian Refugee Crisis

Over two hundred fifty thousand Syrian innocent civilians had been killed as a result of the horrific Syrian civil war.

Trudeau’s response? Send them touques and Roots jackets.

Mulcair’s response? It’s not Canada’s job to stand shoulder to shoulder with our western allies fighting the murderous ISIS.

But thanks to a photograph of a dead Syrian boy washed up on shore (under suspicious circumstances) Trudeau and Mulcair tried to outdo each other in the fake compassion sweepstakes.

“I’ll see your 25,000 refugees and raise you another 10,000 refugees.”

In contrast, Harper called for calm. International and UN supported procedures had to be followed before any refugees could be admitted.

He added that, in the interests of national security, these refugees had to be properly vetted.

Editorials lambasted Harper for hurting Canada’s international reputation.

Despite the public fulminations of these self-acclaimed political elites, Harper stood firm.

And the silent majority of Canadians supported him.

Then the backlash occurred in Europe as country after country closed their borders to these surging refugees, proving Harper’s measured reaction had been the correct one.

In summary, Harper will triumph once again, because a substantial number of people in Canada agree: Duffy, the non-recession and the Syrian refugees are minor issues. They’re sideshows.

Most voters believe that Harper and his party are the best choice to manage the economy while respecting the hard-earned incomes of Canadian taxpayers. The Conservatives will do that by keeping taxes low, spending when necessary, but also making hard choices when it comes to cutting back government.

Meanwhile, Trudeau wants to tax and spend Canada out of a non-existent recession.

Mulcair talks about balancing the budget, but his “tax the rich” strategy to fund numerous government programs is just voodoo economics.

The not-so-hidden agenda of the NDP base, to destroy the oil and gas industry and with it the Canadian economy, has many Canadians back to the Harper fold.

And another electoral victory.

Folks, you read it here first

[The Unknown Poster]

Good one on one interview with JT

http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/mobile/video?clipId=708807&binId=1.1145463&playlistPageNum=1#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=twitter&_gsc=UKogwGm

[sweep the leg]

That "Rebel Blogger" post seems a little out there. You're really stretching credibility trying to tie the problems with refugees in Europe to what could happen here. A quick glance at a map explains why Europe is having a problem with these refugees. Geography has stopped a rush of refugees at our border, not Harper's "measured reaction".

[Mark H.]

Rebel blogger eh - I could think of some 'choicer' adjectives.

 

The refugee crisis is a side show? Maybe the rebel blogger should move there - and then decide.

 

Harper will reduce the size of government? In which universe?  We've been hearing that promise since '06 - it hasn't happened.

 

The best Harper will do is win a minority. That's clear - and the reasons are well founded.

[The Unknown Poster]

I think you guys missed his point on the refugees.

[Fatty Liver]

 

 

So the Conservatives set up a photo op and make a manufacturing-related announcement on the weekend at a Windsor manufacturing business and stuff it full of retired people.  Here is a photo of Harper's base, can you spot anyone under the age of 65?

[The Unknown Poster]

 

 

So the Conservatives set up a photo op and make a manufacturing-related announcement on the weekend at a Windsor manufacturing business and stuff it full of retired people.  Here is a photo of Harper's base, can you spot anyone under the age of 65?

Yes.  Cant you?

[Noeller]

that rebel blogger post is straight up funny.....had to be satire. Only explanation. 

[Fraser]

You have 3 left of centre parties, the Libs, the NDP & the Green Party & one centre right. Of course the vote is split. I have no idea if Trudeau has brought the Libs to centre-left as he should to get some of the Conservative vote... I still think people are afraid to vote NDP & come election day the voters who are courting the NDP will instead park their votes behind the Libs & Conservatives. I just hope the wacko Elizabeth May & the Greens get eliminated. What an annoying ***** of a politician she is.

Wouldn't having 3 parties on one side of center and 1 on the other adjust where the center is?

[The Unknown Poster]

that rebel blogger post is straight up funny.....had to be satire. Only explanation. 

Other than it being pretty accurate that none of the issues really stuck to the Conservatives.  In fact, the Duffy thing is straight out absurd considering the details, the economy might have been a brilliant strategy on Harper's part and the the biggest take away from the refugee issue is Donnelly is a liar and Canadians seem cool with current processes.

 

Even better than the rebel blogger post is the one on one interview with JT I posted.  Its a pretty easy watch and I recommend it.  Not sure what JT supporters will get out of it but it really reinforced the idea that Justin is an empty suit.  A nice suit, sure, but empty.

 

Found a transcript of part of it (Not sure if its in this transcript but JT also admitted the longer election was a benefit to Canadians)

 

This is a transcript of interview that Steve Murphy of CTV Halifax did with Justin Trudeau: Justin Trudeau's performance skills on the national stage have improved. In general, he looks more poised and confident despite not looking as in command of his files during the debate as his opponents. But when you read the content of Justin Trudeau's actual words in an interview that lightly challenges his rhetoric, they don't, to be generous, live up to his visual presentation. Please read it for yourself and share. 

SM: A couple months ago, you were promising a balanced budget. Now you’re promising not to balance the budget. 

JT: Actually that’s not true. I’m still promising to balance the budget but do it in 2019.

SM: But you were promising balanced budgets as soon as you got into office…

JT: No, I never said “as soon as.” I knew the priority is to grow the economy. The priority is to get things going in the right way. And when Mr. Harper brought us back into recession right now, I knew that what Canadians need is a government that invests in them. Particularly when we have low interest rates, a very healthily low debt to GDP ratio, and a whole bunch of skilled people out of work.

SM: Why did you decide to change the promise from balancing the budget to balancing the budget later. What changed in your thinking?

JT: What changed is that we have we had a surplus that disappeared. Uh Mr. Harper…

SM: …the Finance department, Mr. Trudeau, with all due respect, the Finance department says we have a surplus now.

JT: A year ago, a year ago before the oil prices crashed we were talking about billions of dollars in surplus, and the debate was going to be over what…how best to spend that surplus. Then we ended up…the oil price crashed… we end up in recession. There’s questions of whether we are in deficit or not now…either way we’re on the knife edge of it. There’s not the billions of dollars to spend. 

SM: But you know…

JT: And we realized, and we realized that investing in what Canadians need now is more important than putting things off. So we’ve been straight…

SM: I want to go back to the deficit piece however…[cross talk]

JT: Three years of deficits…

SM: The finance ministry says that we are not in deficit now. 

JT: No, no…

SM: For the first quarter…we are not in deficit.

JT: They said we’re not in deficit for last year. We don’t know where we are now. We won’t know until next year.

SM: But why do you believe that we are in deficit now?

JT: Because the Parliamentary Budget Officer, in his analysis, said that we were.

SM: I want to ask you, if you could change your mind about this again. You know you changed your mind about having a balanced budget out of the gates… [cross talk]

JT: No…no…no. I’ve never changed... 

SM: But will you ever…would you ever…[crosstalk]

JT: I never changed my mind about that. I said that the Liberal party…the Liberal Party is committed to fiscal discipline and we will balance the budget. We will balance it in 2019 because we need investment. And the fact is that I’m not going to do what Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Harper has done three times, which is to stand and tell people “I’m going to balance the budget” and then afterwards say “oops, the numbers aren’t that good. We’re not going to be able to do that”

SM: how much spending have you done during this campaign? What’s the dollar value of all of your new spending promises?

JT: Uh we’re about two thirds of the way through to our..our…commitment to balance…to to a $10 billion deficit in year one, two and less in year three.

SM: So how much new spending have you announced?

JT: Ummmm….a fair bit…we have a full costing coming out…no…we we’re we’re the first party to put out a fully costed framework that said three years of deficits plus a balanced budget. And that gives us a framework to invest more in E.I., to invest more in infrastructure that people need.

SM: I understand but how much have you spent in new promises, thus far? I mean you either know and won’t say or you don’t know?

JT: Uhhh…the fact is we are going to put out a properly costed platform once we’ve announced all our promises. And if you want to tabulate them you can go on our website and do that. I’m more focused on actually talking about what we’re going to do right away for Canadians then sitting there with a calculator which… you know, you guys can do!

SM: Some of your opponents have had out the calculator and they see you up around twenty-five or thirty billion in new spending…

JT: That’s completely wrong…

SM: But what is right then? [crosstalk]

JT: That’s completely wrong.

SM: What is the number then?

JT: No, what is wrong is they’re folding in promises that provinces have made. Mr. Harper counts on pensions as taxes. Pensions are not taxes. Pensions are money that you get back when you retire. Taxes, you pay to the government.

SM: Have you spent most of your deficit already? What I’m trying to figure out is out of the $10 billion that you’re willing to go into deficit, have you announced that already?

JT: No not not not even close.

SM: So there’s more to come?

JT: Yes

SM: Where are you going to get the money, the revenue?

JT: We are going to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% so we can cut them for the middle class. And that’s not even new money brought in. That’s an offsetting. We’re raising taxes by three billion dollars for the wealthiest one percent and we’re lowering them for the middle class

SM: I understand. But that’s only 3 billion. 

JT: That’s right.

SM: What are the other revenues sources you have in mind?

JT: There’s another $2 billion coming in that we’re going to put towards Canada Child Benefits - more generous for the people that need them. Less generous for the wealthy Canadians who don’t need them. These are some of the issues we’re looking for. We also know that the best way to create revenue for Canadians, and for the gov’t, is to grow the economy. Mr. Harper has been unable to create growth. He has the worst growth record of any prime minister in 80 years. And we need to kick-start the economy, invest in infrastructure to create that growth. 

SM: But do you have other revenue streams in mind that you have not announced yet? 

JT: We will have more to announce in the coming weeks. 

SM: So you do have new revenue ideas in mind? 

JT: We will have more things to announce in the coming weeks. 

SM: Are there new taxes in mind? 

JT: No.

SM: So where are you going to get the money? 

JT: We have…

SM: …if it’s not new taxes?

JT: Steve, we could put this off for a few weeks, and we can have more conversation once I have everything…

SM: But we can’t put it off too much longer. The election’s in 4 weeks.

JT: In 4 weeks. And therefore we can talk again in 2 weeks…or 2 or 3 weeks, and I’ll be glad to highlight all the elements in it. The fact is, in a long election campaign like this, there’s an awful lot of time to talk about individual announcements, like the one we made today – where the money for investing in the navy is actually going to come from cancelling the F-35s, which were billions…tens of billions dollars more expensive than they need to be.

SM: What is the cost of cancelling the F-35 contract to Canada’s aerospace industry?

JT: Zero.

SM: So you can get out and it won’t cost anybody…

JT: There is no contract. It’s zero. There are jobs in the aerospace industry linked to the F-35. But those are jobs that were created by commitment in the Liberal gov’t to be part of the F-35 process. Not commitment to buy an F-35. 

SM: Just a few things before we go, because our time is almost up. What do you mean when you talk about a leaner military? Does that mean fewer salaries being paid to people in uniform? 

JT: No, actually. It means less consultants. This current gov’t is wasting record amounts of military budget on external consultants. That’s not what our military needs, as Andy Leslie says, ‘more teeth, less tail.’ 

SM: No spending cuts pertaining to salaries for people in uniform? 

JT: We’ve committed to keeping military spending at the same level, and actually following up on the increases promised, which this Conservative gov’t hasn’t been able to do.

SM: Does the Halifax shipyard contract remain exactly the same as it is now, under Justin Trudeau? 

JT: Yes. Absolutely.

SM: You are spending a lot of time talking about spending a lot of money. What is the largest budget you’ve actually ever presided over in your lifetime thus far? 

JT: $20 million Katimavik budget. I was running Canada’s national youth service program. 

SM: $20 million is quite a bit of money. A hundred billion…

JT: That’s one of the reasons I’ve surrounded myself with an extraordinary team. The team of Liberal candidates we’ve put forward across this country to be strong, credible voices for their communities and within gov’t are going to be extraordinary at delivering the right kind of gov’t.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

You have 3 left of centre parties, the Libs, the NDP & the Green Party & one centre right. Of course the vote is split. I have no idea if Trudeau has brought the Libs to centre-left as he should to get some of the Conservative vote... I still think people are afraid to vote NDP & come election day the voters who are courting the NDP will instead park their votes behind the Libs & Conservatives. I just hope the wacko Elizabeth May & the Greens get eliminated. What an annoying ***** of a politician she is.

Wouldn't having 3 parties on one side of center and 1 on the other adjust where the center is?

 

if you stand in the center of the room and three people stand on one side of you and one stands on the other, it doesnt change where the center of the room is.