Politics in 2016

[Fishbone Jones]

It helps to verify things first:

When asked to clarify the discrepancy Friday morning, a senior government source speaking on background told CBC News that what was presented to the public on Wednesday is, in fact, what's real: all 30 are full ministers.

Some of the Treasury Board statutes pertaining to cabinet roles, however, have to be changed to give all these roles full ministerial status and salaries, retroactive to Wednesday.

Those changes can't just happen overnight, the source said, but will happen pretty quickly.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-cabinet-fine-print-women-junior-ministers-1.3307122

There are no junior ministers in the Trudeau government.

You're avoiding the whole point with your strawman.

Never mind what they are called. They were appointed on gender, colour and race.

They were not appointed by merit.

When you don't appoint by merit, you don't have the most qualified people in the slot, unless by sheer luck.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

argumentum ad ignorantiam

I'm far from ignorant on the subject my learned colleague.

If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true. However, if a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

The point being, that some here have a large tendency of throwing out statements as gospel when they can't be proven. Things like
'The vast majority of Canadians love and support the PM.'

Polls don't count. They are manipulated, questions are worded for a desired result and the people polled can be selected on whatever way you want the poll to lean toward. Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Besides, it's a cheap shot to call me ignorant when it was you that didn't understand what was written and then replied with your broadside against it, but in reality agreeing with exactly what was said.

Calling me ignorant is the weakest type of deflection to draw attention away from your own ignorance or, perhaps, a total lack of comprehension.

 

[Altair]

I'm far from ignorant on the subject my learned colleague.

If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true. However, if a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

The point being, that some here have a large tendency of throwing out statements as gospel when they can't be proven. Things like
'The vast majority of Canadians love and support the PM.'

Polls don't count. They are manipulated, questions are worded for a desired result and the people polled can be selected on whatever way you want the poll to lean toward. Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Besides, it's a cheap shot to call me ignorant when it was you that didn't understand what was written and then replied with your broadside against it, but in reality agreeing with exactly what was said.

Calling me ignorant is the weakest type of deflection to draw attention away from your own ignorance or, perhaps, a total lack of comprehension.

You are not ignorant.

But you cannot prove that Trudeau controlled by puppet masters and I cannot disprove that he is being run by puppet masters.

At least when I point to polls I am using some form of evidence, however flawed polls may be.( even ERC sited the polls)

When you and puckchaser say he is being run by puppet masters and that he is the Manchurian Candidate,  you cannot point to any solid evidence other than your feelings towards it. Unless you are in his inner circle and know something everyone else doesnt

Thus you are in fact arguing from a position of ignorance. You cannot know what you are saying is true or false but are trying to pass it off as fact.

argumentum ad ignorantiam

 

[Halifax Tar]

This thread is the written epitome of :deadhorse:

Both of the sides in this thread are so entrenched in their beliefs that the simple idea of inner judgment and contemplation of ones own political beliefs is impossible.

Its not about politics in 2016 anymore its about a few members smashing their always right attitudes into each other repeatedly and expecting different results each time, isn't that the definition of something ?

 

[Altair]

This thread is the written epitome of :deadhorse:

Both of the sides in this thread are so entrenched in their beliefs that the simple idea of inner judgment and contemplation of ones own political beliefs is impossible.

Its not about politics in 2016 anymore its about a few members smashing their always right attitudes into each other repeatedly and expecting different results each time, isn't that the definition of something ?

Killing time before March 22nd.

Then I can imagine this place getting really civil and polite, with calm insightful points from both sides on the pros and cons of the budget.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Its no where near complaining, its far better ROE than I would have expected out of him.

AFAIK, ROE and/or ROE cards haven't actually changed...

 

[Good2Golf]

jmt, a spokesperson can say all they want, however, until the Governor-in-Council sets forth an Order, the "last order holds" so, until an OIC is approved formally changing the status of the five Minsters of State as approved by the GIC on 4 November, the revision of Ministerial status is not in play.

To say that there are just a few Treasury Board regulations (which itself is an incorrect statement) to make this happen indicates that you do not know how the actual specifics of Government work.  TB does not approve OICs, only the Governor-in-Council can.

The most important issue in all of this particular sub-thread is at *what pay level will the current Ministers of State receive, once they are formally re-approved as Ministers? If they receive the same incremental salary as the current Minsters, then your contention that they are 'full' Ministers will be correct.  However, if they retain the lesser salary for their re-defined Mimiaterial duties, then name notwithstanding, they are still a junior Ministet, advising a senior Minister as Miniaters of State did in the past.

You can keep an eye out on the PCO's OIC link I provided earlier to see when the Ministers previously approved as Minister of State become Ministers.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

*spelling

 

[Journeyman]

There are no junior ministers in the Trudeau government.

Just stop.

You were talking out of your butt.  Good2Golf provided facts* showing you were wrong.

Man up.  Accept it.  Move on.  :not-again:


* Facts:  something painfully  absent from this, and several other, political threads -- relying instead on :deadhorse:    :

 

[Eye In The Sky]

He has repeatedly said that training local ground forces to take the ground isil holds is the best way to defeat isil. To that end he said he would expand the training mission and recall the fighters. In order to protect themselves( and avoid any blue helmet like scenarios ) he has allowed out SFs the ability to shoot first when the situation warrants. Not because, yay combat, but because he wants them to be safe and return home to their families.

As I said, AFAIK, the ROE has not changed since this babble talk over ROE and 'shoot first'.  I could elaborate, but can't.  You can take my word for it, or not, but I'll suggest I know what I'm talking about.

Having a schmick about the tactical level and some at the operational, I will say my  :2c: and that of the majority of the coalition is the best way to defeat ISIL is to continue to bomb them AND train GoI forces to take the ground fight to them.

Good ol "concurrent activity" beats "common sense" in this game called combat. 

just good Ole common sense.

He has stated on multiple occasions that training local forces to take the fight to isil is more effective than bombing.

Okay then, riddle me why he left assets in place that serve the sole purpose of enabling said ineffective bombing?  Aurora's find stuff, Polaris has one and only one purpose; to keep bomb trucks in the air longer.

*I don't believe in bombing to solve tactical situations, therefore I am pulling our fighters out.  However, here are planes that find stuff for fighters to bomb the shit out of, and a tanker to help them do it longer*

The only question he has not answered is why not do both.

And it is the last question he has not answered effectively.

 

[a_majoor]

Taking and holding ground is the all important element in war, so they at least are "talking the talk", but unless they are willing to commit a battlegroup with all its enablers (some of which are air attack elements), or have the time and resources in place to train thousands of local fighters (and you will need lots since they don't come with artillery, tanks or jet fighters), then they are not "walking the walk".

Even a 250 man training team is more of a handwave in the right direction than a serious effort, unless there is a commitment to continue the training mission for at least a decade (of which I have seen no indication). Even then, being able to rapidly back the trainers and trainees with fast moving firepower simply makes then better and more effective at taking and holding ground.

The issue in the entire "Politics in 2016" thread is the difference between "talking the talk", and "walking the walk". The current government is very good at the first, but haven't really demonstrated much of the second in any sphere of activity.

 

[McG]

Taking and holding ground is the all important element in war, so they at least are "talking the talk", but unless they are willing to commit a battlegroup with all its enablers (some of which are air attack elements), or have the time and resources in place to train thousands of local fighters (and you will need lots since they don't come with artillery, tanks or jet fighters), then they are not "walking the walk".

What if we donated all our old Leopard 1 platforms and then trained a Kurd tank battalion?

 

[jmt18325]

When you don't appoint by merit, you don't have the most qualified people in the slot, unless by sheer luck.

Name me a cabinet appointed solely on merit in Canada or anywhere.

 

[jmt18325]

Just stop.

You were talking out of your butt.

I already presented counter evidence.  There are no junior ministers in the Trudeau government.  I am aware of their original status, but that doesn't not change the facts as they exist within the Trudeau government.  That the ministers were originally worn in as Ministers of State (on paper, as required by law) is irrelevant to their title and eventual (originally intended) status as full ministers, with full ministerial compensation.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Taking and holding ground is the all important element in war, so they at least are "talking the talk", but unless they are willing to commit a battlegroup with all its enablers (some of which are air attack elements), or have the time and resources in place to train thousands of local fighters (and you will need lots since they don't come with artillery, tanks or jet fighters), then they are not "walking the walk".

Even a 250 man training team is more of a handwave in the right direction than a serious effort, unless there is a commitment to continue the training mission for at least a decade (of which I have seen no indication). Even then, being able to rapidly back the trainers and trainees with fast moving firepower simply makes then better and more effective at taking and holding ground.

The issue in the entire "Politics in 2016" thread is the difference between "talking the talk", and "walking the walk". The current government is very good at the first, but haven't really demonstrated much of the second in any sphere of activity.

No other country in the coalition is providing a Battle Group - indeed the Government of Iraq would not accept such a thing.  I guess none of us are walking the walk then....

 

[Altair]

Name me a cabinet appointed solely on merit in Canada or anywhere.

Doesn't exist. Every cabinet is pandering to someone.

In terms of scale though, I don't think any politician has pandered to a full 50 percent of the population before.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What if we donated all our old Leopard 1 platforms and then trained a Kurd tank battalion?

Turkey would never allow it to happen, however Russia and Canada could work together on this issue, giving them T-55 or T-72's, flown in by the Russians, who train the crews, the Canadians train the commanders and the logistical guys.

 

[Journeyman]

I already presented counter evidence. 

Actually, you didn't.  Good2Golf provided facts subsequently, as opposed to your saying, in effect, 'I'm wrong.....but things will change....soon.'

Until "soon" happens, your posts are factually wrong.

For whatever it's worth, we're not all HQ people -- some of us have to function based on things like "current regulations" and "truth."  But to be fair, I'm just assuming you're in a headquarters, based on your posts.

Either way, I guess the whole 'man up and accept you were in error' was a bridge too far.

 

[Altair]

Turkey would never allow it to happen, however Russia and Canada could work together on this issue, giving them T-55 or T-72's, flown in by the Russians, who train the crews, the Canadians train the commanders and the logistical guys.

that implies that Russians and Canadians can work together

 

[jmt18325]

Either way, I guess the whole 'man up and accept you were in error' was a bridge too far.

If it were an error, I'd admit the error.  That article was from November.  It's likely that the changes have already been made.

There are no junior ministers in the Trudeau government:

However, the Liberals say the designations were a technicality -- the women in question are full members of cabinet, carry the title of minister, were always intended as such, and will receive benefits and supports commensurate with those of their colleagues.

The five women were appointed under the Ministries and Ministers of State Act to ensure they have access to the support of existing departments, as new organizations are not being created, officials said Friday.

For instance, Hajdu's portfolio, Status of Women, is attached to that of the Canadian Heritage minister and Bibeau's La Francophonie responsibilities are linked to the newly named Global Affairs Canada, formerly Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

"I understand that they are full ministers," said Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion. "I will have the great pleasure to work with minister Bibeau, and I may tell you she is not junior in my mind one minute."

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/all-ministers-are-full-cabinet-members-liberals-say-1.2646131

And just in case you still have any doubt:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/parliamentarians/en/ministries

 

[Good2Golf]

jmt, they're getting the same $80,100 as ministers now, but, they are still Ministers of State, in accordance with The Ministeries and Ministers of State Act, R.C.S. 1985 c. M-8, until another Order-in-Council is approved, superseding the 4 Nov 2015 OIC.  I checked PCO's OIC search site and as of today, such an OIC had yet to be approved.

You can hate the players as much as you wish, but it's really the game you appear to have an issue with, and the game is the law, Federal Legislation to be exact, Bill M-8, The Ministries and Ministers of State Act. 

Personally, I suspect there will be no such OIC, because the original OICs already included, as you can see by my quotes a few pages back, that the Ministers of State would by "styled" as Ministers of [insert State portfolio name here], and thus "styled" as Ministers and, being upgraded from a pre-election MoS remuneration of $60,000 to the post-election MoS rate of $80,100, there's nothing more to be done.  By Federal Law, they are Ministers of State, they are addressed as "Ministers" and those in Minister of State billets are now paid the same as those in Minister billets.

If, however, the day comes when a subsequent OIC is approved by the GIC which quashes the appointments and re-appoints them as full Ministers, I will then concede to you that you are now correct.  Til then...

Regards
G2G