Veteran groups seek to influence the 2015 vote

[George Wallace]

You'll have to refresh my memory if it's been posted already (I don't see it, but I do see Danjanou claiming he saw something about $25K), but which FB post from Clarke in June referred to union funds?  The union funds I referred to were over three years ago, from UVAE to CVA for a specific purpose, and I highly doubt UVAE had the foresight to donate funds almost four years before an ABC Veterans campaign.

Three years ago.  OK.  I'll accept that.  How many years ago was this "Duffy affair"?  OH!  That was two or three years ago as well.  Yet that is still being pulled forward as an "election issue".  And don't pull the "Oh, but Duffy is on trial card, and the others are not."  Perhaps there should be charges laid for them as well (and perhaps there are already, but not yet public.)  When someone holds one person to account, but ignore others, and I will include Mulcair in this one, over questionable finances, then something is seriously wrong with their thinking.

 

[Occam]

Duffy was charged with fraud, breach of trust and bribery.

What criminal acts are you alleging here, in the context of the ABC campaign?

 

[George Wallace]

Duffy was charged with fraud, breach of trust and bribery.

What criminal acts are you alleging here, in the context of the ABC campaign?

Just wondering why you excuse some of questionable finances, yet open to accuse others?  Is it really appropriate that CDN25K was given to Mr Clarke in the same time-frame?

 

[Occam]

Just wondering why you excuse some of questionable finances, yet open to accuse others?  Is it really appropriate that CDN25K was given to Mr Clarke in the same time-frame?

One, I don't know if it actually happened or not - nobody's provided anything in the line of proof.

Two, why are we even discussing this?  I don't know what organization Mr. Clarke is alleged to have been running at the time of this supposed transaction, but is it illegal or even questionable for a union to donate funds to an organization that shares a common goal or two?  I personally don't have a problem with a union backing any group working towards sacking the Conservatives, or any other worthy cause.

 

[George Wallace]

One, I don't know if it actually happened or not - nobody's provided anything in the line of proof.

Two, why are we even discussing this?  I don't know what organization Mr. Clarke is alleged to have been running at the time of this supposed transaction, but is it illegal or even questionable for a union to donate funds to an organization that shares a common goal or two?  I personally don't have a problem with a union backing any group working towards sacking the Conservatives, or any other worthy cause.

And I personally don't have a problem of someone paying back a (supposed) debt to the Government.  Yet, the ABC crowd are crying that the Government is corrupt and voters should vote for anyone but them; all the while we have questions being raised about monies being given to their ranks.  Meanwhile you feel free to defend the ABC crowd, ignoring those accusations, but accepting the accusations laid against others. 

 

[Occam]

I've asked this several times now, but it seems to be falling on deaf ears.

What accusation are you making against ABC?  Be specific, and provide proof.

 

[jollyjacktar]

:bigfight: op:

 

[Occam]

I think it's rather amusing, JJT...we have several people all making innuendo and accusations of something that nobody has proof of, and even if they did, it doesn't even qualify as "questionable".

I think I'll just sit by and wait for some proof to get offered up, and then for someone to explain what's questionable about it.

 

[Jed]

I think it's rather amusing, JJT...we have several people all making innuendo and accusations of something that nobody has proof of, and even if they did, it doesn't even qualify as "questionable".

I think I'll just sit by and wait for some proof to get offered up, and then for someone to explain what's questionable about it.

Frankly, I do not find any of it amusing.  I find the whole political process as putrefying. If any military personnel or previous military members are part of it, they should do so with proper decorum and respect.

 

[Occam]

Frankly, I do not find any of it amusing.  I find the whole political process as putrefying. If any military personnel or previous military members are part of it, they should do so with proper decorum and respect.

I agree.  Other than the guy with a dodgy beret and t-shirt, and a fire & brimstone speech that went a little too far with the picketing polling stations issue, I would say the campaign is sticking to the facts and conducting themselves well. 

Somehow, I get the feeling that a certain group of people will still go out of their way to fabricate arguments against the campaign because of their own political beliefs, and not because there's something wrong with the campaign itself.

 

[Jed]

I agree.  Other than the guy with a dodgy beret and t-shirt, and a fire & brimstone speech that went a little too far with the picketing polling stations issue, I would say the campaign is sticking to the facts and conducting themselves well. 

Somehow, I get the feeling that a certain group of people will still go out of their way to fabricate arguments against the campaign because of their own political beliefs, and not because there's something wrong with the campaign itself.

It just takes one awshit to discount 20 attaboys.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I agree.  Other than the guy with a dodgy beret and t-shirt, and a fire & brimstone speech that went a little too far with the picketing polling stations issue, I would say the campaign is sticking to the facts and conducting themselves well. 

Somehow, I get the feeling that a certain group of people will still go out of their way to fabricate [size=12pt]present arguments against the campaign because of their own political beliefs[/size], and not because there's something wrong with the campaign itself.

Of course they will (if you'll agree that "fabricate" is a loaded word) because it is a political campaign and opinions matter. You have an opinion, one to which you are certainly entitled; your interlocutor has a different opinion, one which he is entitled to hold, too. You're not going to convince one another, in fact you're not really trying to convince one another: neither of you wants to concede even the smallest point to the other, nor does either of you want to let the other the last word.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Of course they will (if you'll agree that "fabricate" is a loaded word) because it is a political campaign and opinions matter. You have an opinion, one to which you are certainly entitled; your interlocutor has a different opinion, one which he is entitled to hold, too. You're not going to convince one another, in fact you're not really trying to convince one another: neither of you wants to concede even the smallest point to the other, nor does either of you want to let the other the last word.

:goodpost:  MilPts inbound

 

[Jed]

Mea Culpa ERC and Recceguy. I will stop  :deadhorse:

 

[Occam]

Of course they will (if you'll agree that "fabricate" is a loaded word) because it is a political campaign and opinions matter. You have an opinion, one to which you are certainly entitled; your interlocutor has a different opinion, one which he is entitled to hold, too. You're not going to convince one another, in fact you're not really trying to convince one another: neither of you wants to concede even the smallest point to the other, nor does either of you want to let the other the last word.

Opinions are fine; I have no problem with opinions when they're based on fact.

What I do have a problem with is opinions based on hearsay, innuendo, and maliciousness - and when those opinions are challenged, seldom does the requisite proof get offered up; but the lingering innuendo and maliciousness is left there to fester for all to see.

On the rest, we agree.

 

[PuckChaser]

There are 2 things wrong with this campaign:

1. The opposition had years to introduce any veterans legislation they wanted as a private member's bill, which would have been political suicide for the Tories to filibuster or quash. They didn't, and these ABC dudes are being used by them with no concrete promises other than "trust us, we're better".

2. They've tied in all veterans with their campaign, from a profession that is required by law to be apolitical. Instead of campaigning to bring veteran issues to the forefront of the campaign, they've instantly alienated 30-30% of the voting population who vote Tory against their cause. If they came out and said "We're upset with the current government's false promises, and the opposition parties' failure to act or provide concrete policy statements to fix our issues. We want the shameful treatment of our vets as a main campaign issue." They'd get much more broad, all-party support, and very likely have much more veteran/serving member support as it is.

As well, stating their personal appearance isn't an issue, glosses over the fact that the veterans they seek to unite put great stock in one's personal appearance and professional turnout. How many times have to you just tuned out an officer because s/he looks like crap? If they're too lazy to form a proper beret after X years in the CAF which required them to do it, I'll be just as lazy and tune them out, regardless of how good a deal they struck with X party to help us out.

 

[Occam]

There are 2 things wrong with this campaign:

1. The opposition had years to introduce any veterans legislation they wanted as a private member's bill, which would have been political suicide for the Tories to filibuster or quash. They didn't, and these ABC dudes are being used by them with no concrete promises other than "trust us, we're better".

Do you even look before you make these wild claims?  https://openparliament.ca/politicians/peter-stoffer/

C-633 - died on the order paper.
C-572 - died on the order paper.
C-472 - died on the order paper.
C-447 - died on the order paper.

Sorry, I only searched for 3 minutes and on one MP's website to find those.  I'm sure you won't mind me not wasting any more time dispelling that myth.

2. They've tied in all veterans with their campaign, from a profession that is required by law to be apolitical. Instead of campaigning to bring veteran issues to the forefront of the campaign, they've instantly alienated 30-30% of the voting population who vote Tory against their cause. If they came out and said "We're upset with the current government's false promises, and the opposition parties' failure to act or provide concrete policy statements to fix our issues. We want the shameful treatment of our vets as a main campaign issue." They'd get much more broad, all-party support, and very likely have much more veteran/serving member support as it is.

Sorry, only the CAF is required to be apolitical.  Your average veteran retired from the CAF can do whatever he/she pleases politically.

There are going to be people who are going to vote Tory come hell or high water, regardless of what you tell them.  These people are not the target of the ABC campaign.  Their target is people like me, who voted Tory in the last three elections, but is open enough to realize I may have made a mistake.  I consider myself moderate right - and the CPC left me standing in the dust on their way to extreme right wing status when they got their majority in the last election.  There are a lot of people like me who have jumped ship on the party, and it's going to bite them in the butt.  If you wander over to Erin O'Toole's Facebook page, you'll get the impression that everything is rosy in Veteran land, and this flurry of pre-election activity to shore up the gaping holes in the NVC is much less about sincerely caring about veterans, and more about vote-buying.

As well, stating their personal appearance isn't an issue, glosses over the fact that the veterans they seek to unite put great stock in one's personal appearance and professional turnout. How many times have to you just tuned out an officer because s/he looks like crap? If they're too lazy to form a proper beret after X years in the CAF which required them to do it, I'll be just as lazy and tune them out, regardless of how good a deal they struck with X party to help us out.

Still on about the beret.  Sigh...

 

[ModlrMike]

To contend that the CPC is an extreme right wing party is to completely misunderstand the political lay of the land.

 

[PuckChaser]

Do you even look before you make these wild claims?  https://openparliament.ca/politicians/peter-stoffer/

C-633 - died on the order paper.
C-572 - died on the order paper.
C-472 - died on the order paper.
C-447 - died on the order paper.

Sorry, I only searched for 3 minutes and on one MP's website to find those.  I'm sure you won't mind me not wasting any more time dispelling that myth.

Which of those bills were to create legislation for a convent between Veterans and the Crown? None. Which of them repealed NVC and brought back disability pensions? None. Which legislated that VAC disability awards be set to what a similar injury under WSIB would be? None.

Those 4 bills were small, incremental changes designed to die on the order paper to provide the illusion that they were doing something. If the NDP gave a  :-X about veterans, where's Muclair's private members bill and giant press conference? Not there. Where's Trudeau's policy on veterans other than "we'll do better"? Not there.

I get it, you're pissed off at the CPC. I'm sure most of us think they could do a hell of a lot better. What you're clearly missing here is that nobody else has brought out good ideas on how to fix things, only platitudes and promises.

Still on about the beret.  Sigh...

Show up at a job interview for a bank position in ripped jeans and a mustard-stained tank top. Tell me then how dress and deportment isn't important.

 

[Jarnhamar]

2005-2006 VAC budget under the liberals was 2.8 Billion.
2015-2016 VAC budget under the Conservatives is 3.5 Billion.