Satchmo Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 9 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Why are you posting information from 10 years ago and pretending that it is current? Not current, just pertinent. We were talking work history and net worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 (edited) 15 minutes ago, The Lock said: Okay, so basically we're arguing over 2 people who have been pampered their whole life and vying for PM. There you go, a non-biased state of where we are at. 2 "leaders" who have never been part of the working class. Why do you think I hate BOTH parties? Well at least you are honest about it. And you are 100% correct. Hippy is doing his best to suggest that Trudeau is somehow more of a man for the people than PP. Trudeau has literally been pampered his whole life. So not sure why someone who supposedly doesn’t even like Trudeau is trying so hard to defend him. Why not just admit that both are bad and don’t represent the people at all? Neither does Jimmy Dhaliwal. Apparently he wears a Rolex watch and drives a BMW. So he’s not really a man of the people either. Edited May 23 by Elias Pettersson 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 6 minutes ago, Satchmo said: Not current, just pertinent. We were talking work history and net worth. So Trudeau’s net worth hasn’t changed in 10 years? PP is supposedly now worth $25 million from 10 years ago but Trudeau hasn’t made a single penny in 10 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 41 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Well at least you are honest about it. And you are 100% correct. Hippy is doing his best to suggest that Trudeau is somehow more of a man for the people than PP. Trudeau has literally been pampered his whole life. So not sure why someone who supposedly doesn’t even like Trudeau is trying so hard to defend him. The difference is that Trudeau has actually held real jobs unlike Poilivre who has never done anything of use in his life. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 45 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: So Trudeau’s net worth hasn’t changed in 10 years? PP is supposedly now worth $25 million from 10 years ago but Trudeau hasn’t made a single penny in 10 years? I thought you liked math. All the info required to make an estimate is there. Personally, I'm not sure I care how much money either PP or JT has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 3 minutes ago, Satchmo said: I thought you liked math. All the info required to make an estimate is there. Personally, I'm not sure I care how much money either PP or JT has. I'm concerned about how much PP may have made via insider trading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 1 minute ago, Bob Long said: I'm concerned about how much PP may have made via insider trading. Insider trading has long been a thing for a large percentage of politicians. Maybe almost all of them (especially in the States). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 33 minutes ago, Satchmo said: I thought you liked math. All the info required to make an estimate is there. Maybe you'll hear back once a three-page solution has been worked out? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 1 hour ago, bolt said: He has experience of ruining everything he touches and over taxing the middle class. 9 years and nothing to show for but record amounts of debt. Still havent found the stones to respond to me about that worthless opinion piece that was absolutely not what you thought it was eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said: Well at least you are honest about it. And you are 100% correct. Hippy is doing his best to suggest that Trudeau is somehow more of a man for the people than PP. Trudeau has literally been pampered his whole life. So not sure why someone who supposedly doesn’t even like Trudeau is trying so hard to defend him. Why not just admit that both are bad and don’t represent the people at all? Neither does Jimmy Dhaliwal. Apparently he wears a Rolex watch and drives a BMW. So he’s not really a man of the people either. Hippy is being honest about the two. Hair boy has made literally zero statements disproving who he was or what he was born in to. Angry Trudeau has claimed to be a blue collar guy, man of the people down to earth but has a watch collection that is worth more than some peoples homes and has never in his fucking life held a job. If you don't like me pointing that tidbit of information out to you too bad. It's like when I said Pierre has/had a shitty track record as housing minister, but was told he never held the post. Until I pointed out his position included being a major figure in various ministerial roles and posted him literally claiming "when I was housing minister" I have admitted outright both are absolute shite. That we as a nation deserve better and it's fucking shameful that out of 40 million people these are the best options we found. But when it all shakes out. One of these two oafs has been lying his fucking ass off and misleading people and the other is apparently just inept. You sort out which one is which and then let us know which one you prefer. The inept one. Or the one who lied about everything and promised the world in the process Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 41 minutes ago, Satchmo said: I thought you liked math. All the info required to make an estimate is there. Personally, I'm not sure I care how much money either PP or JT has. PP seems to have substantially increased his net worth since he got into politics. My feeling is that Trudeau has done the same. That $1.2 million or whatever he got like 10-15 years ago I am sure has grown substantially. Both of these guys are worth in the millions. Look at the US. Every politician that has been around 20+ years is worth in the millions. I have no doubt that all of them partake in insider trading. As a matter of fact, I am certain of it. There is an X account that follows this kind of stuff. Unusual Whales is the handle. That X account has posted many screen shots of politicians and their trading habits over the years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said: So Trudeau’s net worth hasn’t changed in 10 years? PP is supposedly now worth $25 million from 10 years ago but Trudeau hasn’t made a single penny in 10 years? According to various websites he's worth around or about $10 million. The only sites claiming the $97 million estimate are in fact...shall we say dodgy at best with the only mention of a $45 million inheritance coming from a website called Marca which if you look in to it is not very shall we say, trustworthy? But if we're going to be honest we can split the difference and say he's worth say...$40 million. Let's do that, Trudeau is wroth an estimated $40 million based on trust fund, inheritance and his investments paying out over time. https://rusianews.blob.core.windows.net/adela2/justin-trudeau-net-worth-2024.html https://www.ibtimes.com/justin-trudeau-net-worth-insights-wealth-canadas-prime-minister-3726913 https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/presidents/justin-trudeau-net-worth/ https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/how-much-is-justin-trudeau-worth-richest-world-leaders-ranked/ss-AA1j6Cre BUT! If we're going to use those sources as writ, then we have to consider why some are claiming Poilivere is somehow worth almost $400 million and where that money came from. https://richmondhub.ca/the-truth-behind-pierre-poilievres-houses-bentleys-and-play-money/ And no I do not for one second believe that website. All estimates seem to peg Poilivere between $10 million and $25 million in estimated net worth. How? Why? In 20+ years in office he has made almost $3.6 million in salaries as an MP, a cabinet minister and the leader of the Conservative brand. But where did the other money come from and how does that make this individual one of us or a blue collar individual who knows how hard it is to get by on a paycheque in Canada these days? How did he get rich again? https://www.caclubindia.com/assets/pierre-poilievre-net-worth/ https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/pierre-poilievre-is-a-fake-freedom-fighter/article_8a8e3cbe-f8c1-516c-a101-ec863714e677.html Bottom line is both of these oafs have no real idea what it takes to survive in todays world, but between the two only ONE of them has actually worked for any actual income and that is essentially inarguable and a scathing indictment on our current political climate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 16 hours ago, Warhippy said: But....we were JUST told it was $50 million and that Trudeau was a trust fund baby with nepotism and no experience at all doing anything by the guy whose only life experience is being a politician for 20+ years yet somehow got 25 million squirrelled away...one day we will find out who bought him low and will sell him high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 speaking of which, this might be a piece of that who is paying the tab puzzle: Another would-be Conservative nominee alleges 'irregularities' in race to carry party banner 'There were quite a few things that didn't seem kosher,' Aurora, Ont., town councillor says of nomination race https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-nomination-race-aurora-irregularities-1.7212142 Quote A town councillor running for the Conservative nomination in an Ontario riding that was already the source of controversy earlier this month says she was unfairly blocked from carrying the party banner because the top Tory brass wanted another candidate instead. Rachel Gilliland, who sits as a member of Aurora, Ont.'s town council, told CBC News Wednesday she was denied the chance to run for the nomination in the Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill riding and was "given no reason for the denial." "I did ask for clarity and I didn't get any. It seemed to me like there's a candidate that has a little bit more favouritism from the party, let's just say that," she said in an interview. "There were quite a few things that didn't seem kosher." "I've worked my butt off for almost a year and I made a lot of personal sacrifices. If the party was adamant about having a specific person win then by all means ... but pick up the phone and tell me. They could've thrown me a bone," she said. This is the second Conservative candidate in as many weeks from Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill to have their nomination campaign abruptly come to end. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 27 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said: speaking of which, this might be a piece of that who is paying the tab puzzle: Another would-be Conservative nominee alleges 'irregularities' in race to carry party banner 'There were quite a few things that didn't seem kosher,' Aurora, Ont., town councillor says of nomination race https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-nomination-race-aurora-irregularities-1.7212142 more liberal corruption oh wait, sorry, wrong party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 12 hours ago, Satchmo said: Insider trading has long been a thing for a large percentage of politicians. Maybe almost all of them (especially in the States). I'd like to hear how PP justifies it. Everyone knows its slimy, and there's nothing forcing him to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 4 minutes ago, Bob Long said: I'd like to hear how PP justifies it. Everyone knows its slimy, and there's nothing forcing him to do it. There is no justification. There's no force behind it but greed. All I'm saying is that it's standard operating procedure for many politicians, and quite hard to prove. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 13 minutes ago, Satchmo said: There is no justification. There's no force behind it but greed. All I'm saying is that it's standard operating procedure for many politicians, and quite hard to prove. Well, I mean, some people idolize greed and view it as the ultimate virtue... *cough*Ayn Rand*cough* 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 20 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said: Well, I mean, some people idolize greed and view it as the ultimate virtue... *cough*Ayn Rand*cough* PP Shrugged 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 11 minutes ago, Bob Long said: PP Shrugged You sure it's not "Shaked"? As in what guys do when they're done peeing? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 6 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said: You sure it's not "Shaked"? As in what guys do when they're done peeing? Ah yes, the basis of trickle down economics. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 I hadn't heard about this until today. I think from the end of March: Quote The letter reads, “Healthy public debate is good, but it should be based on sound evidence and facts.” “Any attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is going to reduce economic activity,” says Stephen Gordon of the Université de Laval, who, like Leach, is a signatory. “The thing about the carbon tax is it has the least bad effect on economic activity.” Spoiler THE STAR Pierre Poilievre says one thing. 200 experts refute it. Who to believe? Canadian economists signed a letter this week addressing the main arguments against carbon pricing. Here’s what they said, and why it ought to matter. Updated April 2, 2024 at 2:06 p.m. March 28, 2024 But Pierre Poilievre’s party is driving this exhaust-spewing bus. Affordability. Axe the tax. It’s largely opportunistic nonsense, unfortunately. “That (idea) that the Conservatives are fighting for the working class on this: I mean, you’re not,” says Andrew Leach, a professor of law and economics, and the co-director of the Institute for Public Economics at the University of Alberta. “You’re fighting for the people who have a material benefit from the removal of carbon pricing, which are people above that 70 per cent or 80 per cent income line. For the middle, it’s a rounding error. To the bottom, (removing the carbon tax) is a big loss. “And they’re getting away with saying we’re doing this for the poor. And it’s insanity.” One professor? Pfft, you might say. We can find economics professors who say the carbon tax isn’t worth the cost, and who write op-eds whose argument boils down to, uh, CO2 is good for plants. Well, what about more than 200 Canadian economists? Because that’s how many signed a letter this week addressing the main arguments against carbon pricing. That it doesn’t affect emissions, for instance. (It does, according to at least two reports, at a lower cost than alternative approaches.) The letter also counters the arguments that the tax drives up the cost of living as a big factor in inflation, that it doesn’t make sense to offer both carbon pricing and rebates, that it harms Canadian business competitiveness, and that carbon pricing isn’t necessary at all. The letter reads, “Healthy public debate is good, but it should be based on sound evidence and facts.” “Any attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is going to reduce economic activity,” says Stephen Gordon of the Université de Laval, who, like Leach, is a signatory. “The thing about the carbon tax is it has the least bad effect on economic activity.” Assuming a shared priority of reduced emissions in a warming world — and it’s clear not everyone shares that view — the letter is a reminder of why Canada chose the carbon pricing route. The letter is no wholesale endorsement of the Liberals, as many of the signers made clear. Gordon, for instance, is one of many critics of their move last year to carve out home heating oil from the tax across the country. No, this is about objective reality. “Expertise basically goes, ‘famous expert says,’ and then the story ends there,” says Gordon. “They don’t say, why does this famous expert say this? What’s the logic, what’s the reasoning behind the argument? (This letter) is an attempt. It’s hard to do in 800 words, for people who don’t have the background, in very general terms.” It’s perhaps worrying that the state of debate in Canada has reached the point where a huge group of experts feels the need to stage what is essentially an expertise intervention. The Liberals failed to properly explain the policy before they undercut it. The Conservatives decided to act as though the rebates don’t exist, and that evidence on the carbon tax significantly increasing inflation does. Admittedly, sometimes it’s nice to pretend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 Here we have it folks....according to the National Post the lack of a Canadian Stanley Cup winner is yet another thing Justin gets the blame for.... https://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/nhl/canada-not-winning-a-stanley-cup-any-time-soon-after-trudeau-makes-fun-of-bettman-s-height/ar-BB1mZEdO?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=4c51261067474b5b9faf5c153560b87c&ei=64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 9 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: Here we have it folks....according to the National Post the lack of a Canadian Stanley Cup winner is yet another thing Justin gets the blame for.... https://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/nhl/canada-not-winning-a-stanley-cup-any-time-soon-after-trudeau-makes-fun-of-bettman-s-height/ar-BB1mZEdO?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=4c51261067474b5b9faf5c153560b87c&ei=64 Damn. Idiot fans, thinking Bettman actually decides who wins and loses; and a moronic 'newspaper' repeating those thoughts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Ravioli Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 Trudeau's promised made-in-Canada vaccine plant hasn't produced any shots At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made a multi-million dollar funding commitment to build a vaccine plant in Montreal to churn out Canadian-made COVID-19 shots by the end of 2020. Four years later, not a single vial of usable vaccine has rolled off the line. The publicly owned Biologics Manufacturing Centre (BMC) was built quickly on National Research Council-owned land at the site of a former animal vaccines plant, thanks to a cash injection of nearly $130 million from the federal government. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-made-in-canada-covid-vaccine-novavax-1.7211462 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.