[animatronic]

Well he's made some big mistakes but he's also accomplished a lot more in his career than the vast majority of politicians.

Not sure that someone with such contempt for the rule of law should get rewarded with a job to make new laws.

 

[EagleEye]

Well he's made some big mistakes but he's also accomplished a lot more in his career than the vast majority of politicians.

He bailed on 2 of the 3 debates. He was hammered about G20 repeatedly in the only one he went to by the Green candidate who was a G20 detainee and refused to go to the next one because they didn't cater to his demand of being given the questions in advance. The Con candid didn't show up for any of the debates.

 

[Jimmi T]

He bailed on 2 of the 3 debates. He was hammered about G20 repeatedly in the only one he went to by the Green candidate who was a G20 detainee and refused to go to the next one because they didn't cater to his demand of being given the questions in advance. The Con candid didn't show up for any of the debates.

He's made some bad decisions and I'm not sure I'd vote for him either. But compare his whole career to that of, say, a career politician who's accomplished squat--many people running fit that bill.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It would be interesting to see how he'd vote for legislation around decriminalizing/legalizing marijuana, given the difference between the stance of his party and his stated views.

AoD

 

[Jimmi T]

It would be interesting to see how he'd vote for legislation around decriminalizing/legalizing marijuana, given the difference between the stance of his party and his stated views.

AoD

So we could have legalized pot pretty soon? How will Lisi make a living then if people can start buying from legit sources?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

So we could have legalized pot pretty soon? How will Lisi make a living then if people can start buying from legit sources?

Possibly - we will see if the issue even gets into the legislative agenda post-election.

AoD

 

[Jimmi T]

Possibly - we will see if the issue even gets into the legislative agenda post-election.

AoD

I don't see that happening to quickly actually. Look how much of a gong show it's been getting beer and wine in grocery stores!

When it does happen, a lot of dealers will have to start replacing lost pot profits with other drugs.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don't see that happening to quickly actually. Look how much of a gong show it's been getting beer and wine in grocery stores!

When it does happen, a lot of dealers will have to start replacing lost pot profits with other drugs.

I am sure there will be plenty of resistance, though the good old "US exports" will no longer be an effective argument. As to the gong show of beer/wine - there are stronger vested interest with government revenue in play, vs. new revenue potential with pot sales - I am sure the latter can be incentive enough.

As to dealers - they are probably still going to be around, think how legal smokes don't rid of black market cigs (and the Colorado experience).

AoD

 

[Jimmi T]

As to dealers - they are probably still going to be around, think how legal smokes don't rid of black market cigs (and the Colorado experience).

AoD

True, but black market dealers would have to start offering an enticing discount over the regulated stuff.

On a side note, I was chatting with a former dealer the other day.

He was saying heroin is huge these days thanks to cheap stuff coming from the Mexican cartel.

Back in my partying days, that's something I'd never seen before.

 

[Cooper]

I live in Bill Blair's riding. I want to vote Liberal but don't want him to win. Voting Green is kind of a waste so by default, likely NDP.

No such thing as a wasted vote, Jimmi. Remember: political parties receive gov't funding based on the number of votes they attract. That's why I'm considering the Greens. They're not a government-in-waiting, obviously, but I think they represent an important part of the overall debate.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

No such thing as a wasted vote, Jimmi. Remember: political parties receive gov't funding based on the number of votes they attract. That's why I'm considering the Greens. They're not a government-in-waiting, obviously, but I think they represent an important part of the overall debate.

Not anymore - Harper got rid of the vote subsidy:

Per-vote subsidy to 2015
Until 2015, for each registered federal political party that received at least 2% of all valid votes in the preceding general election or at least 5% of the valid votes in the electoral districts in which it had a candidate, the per-vote subsidy, also referred to as the "government allowance", gave the party an inflation-indexed subsidy each year of $2.04 per vote received in the preceding election.[7]

The per-vote subsidy was removed in stages after the passing of the Keeping Canada’s Economy & Jobs Growing Act, a bill introduced by the Conservative Party in October 2011.[17]

Previous to 2015:

Of the three ways in which federal parties are allocated public funding, the per-vote subsidy is largely seen as the most democratic. 100% of the voters of eligible parties (99% of all voters in the preceding election) have a say, with their input treated on equal basis (1 voter, 1 vote).[2][3][4][5][6][7][11][12][14][15][16]

The subsidy entered into effect on January 1, 2004, at $1.75 per vote (indexed to the Consumer Price Index) as part of a set of amendments made by the Jean Chrétien government to the Canada Elections Act which for the first time set limits on political contributions by individuals and organizations (corporations, unions, non-profit groups). The per-vote subsidy was introduced to replace the reliance of political parties and candidates on corporate, union, and wealthy donors in order to reduce the political influence of such donors.[2][5][18]

The subsidy was reduced to $1.53 by the Harper government on April 1, 2012, and was reduced on each subsequent April 1, until its elimination in 2015.[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada#Per-vote_subsidy_to_2015

AoD

 

[Jimmi T]

No such thing as a wasted vote, Jimmi. Remember: political parties receive gov't funding based on the number of votes they attract. That's why I'm considering the Greens. They're not a government-in-waiting, obviously, but I think they represent an important part of the overall debate.

One of those voting tools that tells you how you should vote based on your answers said I should vote Green or Conservative. Strange combo!

 

[Cooper]

Not anymore - Harper got rid of the vote subsidy:

Per-vote subsidy to 2015
Until 2015, for each registered federal political party that received at least 2% of all valid votes in the preceding general election or at least 5% of the valid votes in the electoral districts in which it had a candidate, the per-vote subsidy, also referred to as the "government allowance", gave the party an inflation-indexed subsidy each year of $2.04 per vote received in the preceding election.[7]

The per-vote subsidy was removed in stages after the passing of the Keeping Canada’s Economy & Jobs Growing Act, a bill introduced by the Conservative Party in October 2011.[17]

Previous to 2015:

Of the three ways in which federal parties are allocated public funding, the per-vote subsidy is largely seen as the most democratic. 100% of the voters of eligible parties (99% of all voters in the preceding election) have a say, with their input treated on equal basis (1 voter, 1 vote).[2][3][4][5][6][7][11][12][14][15][16]

The subsidy entered into effect on January 1, 2004, at $1.75 per vote (indexed to the Consumer Price Index) as part of a set of amendments made by the Jean Chrétien government to the Canada Elections Act which for the first time set limits on political contributions by individuals and organizations (corporations, unions, non-profit groups). The per-vote subsidy was introduced to replace the reliance of political parties and candidates on corporate, union, and wealthy donors in order to reduce the political influence of such donors.[2][5][18]

The subsidy was reduced to $1.53 by the Harper government on April 1, 2012, and was reduced on each subsequent April 1, until its elimination in 2015.[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada#Per-vote_subsidy_to_2015

AoD

Crap! Thanks for bringing me up to date. Guess I should make a donation instead.

 

[fishie]

I'm voting Liberal for mostly the same reason. I am however, a Lib at heart but if the NDP candidate had a better chance, I'd throw my vote that way. Keep in mind that I haven't had an MP for a long time because my MP (PMSH's ethics rep.) is in jail for election fraud. Actually he's out on appeal, but yeah. I'm going Liberal.

I'm not really going to expand on that.

I guess we're neighbours! My riding seems to shift back and forth between Conservative and Liberal. The Conservative incumbent who crushed the Libs and NDP in 2011 is not running this time around and the Cons chose a pretty much right out of school 24 (now 25) year-old as their guy. He only showed up to two of the nine debates - ones with pre-determined questions - and has been criticized for his absence and preference for door-knocking and preaching to the converted (or infirm). Both Lib and NDP candidates ran in 2011 (NDP guy is on his 5th fed. election) and were close in votes, but the riding has shifted west and gained north. Trudeau swung by last week to meet the local candidate at her office and they ended up having to close the street due to the crowds. Voting Liberal; this might be a three-way race.

PS YPQ: What do you think of 737s and A320s landing on your namesake? I hadn't heard anything about it until a friend of my mom's took a charter to New Orleans a few weeks back. Just curious.

 

[YPQ]

PS YPQ: What do you think of 737s and A320s landing on your namesake? I hadn't heard anything about it until a friend of my mom's took a charter to New Orleans a few weeks back. Just curious.[/QUOTE]

Yes I believe I know your riding. As for the jets, I'm a bit of an amateur planespotting nerd so I like it. Also, I live in the north end near the university so it never bothers me. The only people who seem to have a problem with it are, predictably, those living very close to the airport and, well it is an airport after all. I know people who are loving the convenience of not always having to drive to YYZ to depart.