PP's links with foreign interference is just one of several reasons I couldn't vote for him.
His unwillingness to ostrecise memebers of his party to are against LGBTQ rights and access to Abortions still looms large.
Apparently Pierre was asked by reporters about his thoughts on Looch City’s use of the word radical, his response is summed up pretty good in the tail end of this clip
Make PP not wanting to get security clearance make sense. I don’t see how having it handicaps him in any way.
Well you see, without his security clearance he can say anything he wants because he doesn't actually know anything. If he has his security clearance, he might know something and not be able to talk about it.
So not receiving his security clearance protects his right to talk about #### that he doesn't actually know about.
Make PP not wanting to get security clearance make sense. I don’t see how having it handicaps him in any way.
If he had security clearance, he would know that he's legally obligated to eject certain conservative MPs who stand to benefit from election interference.
Right now he has no such obligation. If they benefit and it shakes out that way, he can legally claim to not have been informed.
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
The Following User Says Thank You to GranteedEV For This Useful Post:
This is shaping up to be the most important election in our lifetimes, and I think the majority of Canadians are looking for an intelligent, experienced, mature adult to lead us through this mess. Carney ticks all of those boxes and then some. PP is the polar opposite of all of those things. The choice couldn’t be easier. The Liberals will be getting my vote.
Even my parents are voting Liberal this time, and they’ve traditionally voted Conservative their entire lives. Just a tiny sample size, but I think that gives you an indication of where the mood of the country right now. I honestly don’t know a single person in my immediate circle who is planning to vote for the Cons in this election, either family, friends, or co-workers. Everyone I’ve talked to seems to be on the same page in all of this.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to direwolf For This Useful Post:
All I know is that PP should definitely take advice from a former leader of the opposition who went from polls that pointed to him being the new Prime Minister with a minority government to losing over half his seats and coming in a distant third.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Make PP not wanting to get security clearance make sense. I don’t see how having it handicaps him in any way.
This is my thing, I just want an explanation about why it's such a bad thing. Mulcair seems to have a very strong opinion that this would result in PP being told things that he should be talking about during question period or whatever, but then being required to keep quiet about them for security reasons. Contrary to the other posters dismissing his views, I actually have no trouble believing that Mulcair knows how this works and has a perfectly cogent point to make... So explain all that in detail. Where's the newspaper article I can read that sets out the case for why PP and Mulcair are right about this? Where is the PP written statement that goes through why a security clearance can be used in a political / strategic way to undermine the opposition leader's ability to do his job? I'm willing to read it and I'm willing to be convinced! Just convince me.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
All I know is that PP should definitely take advice from a former leader of the opposition who went from polls that pointed to him being the new Prime Minister with a minority government to losing over half his seats and coming in a distant third.
I think the NDP really screwed up by dumping Mulcair. Of all the politicians, he is the one that makes the most sense when he speaks on tv.
This is my thing, I just want an explanation about why it's such a bad thing. Mulcair seems to have a very strong opinion that this would result in PP being told things that he should be talking about during question period or whatever, but then being required to keep quiet about them for security reasons. Contrary to the other posters dismissing his views, I actually have no trouble believing that Mulcair knows how this works and has a perfectly cogent point to make... So explain all that in detail. Where's the newspaper article I can read that sets out the case for why PP and Mulcair are right about this? Where is the PP written statement that goes through why a security clearance can be used in a political / strategic way to undermine the opposition leader's ability to do his job? I'm willing to read it and I'm willing to be convinced! Just convince me.
Not wanting security clearance makes sense if you’re in opposition and expect to stay that way (like Mulcair’s NDP). It means you’re unfettered in your freedom to attack the government.
It’s a bad look for a party leader who wants to become prime minister. It raises doubts about whether they’ll ever step up and become the adult in the room who has to put the security of the country first.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Not wanting security clearance makes sense if you’re in opposition and expect to stay that way (like Mulcair’s NDP). It means you’re unfettered in your freedom to attack the government.
It’s a bad look for a party leader who wants to become prime minister. It raises doubts about whether they’ll ever step up and become the adult in the room who has to put the security of the country first.
I agree. And it pi**es me off that he avoids getting his security clearance. However, I believe he has to have one to be PM, so if it takes 2 weeks to get it, as mentioned by Carney, he will have to start some time in mid April.
It's a ####ing joke that he doesn't get it. IMO it just makes him looks more like Trump, like with his tax returns in 2016. I want a PM who respects the country and it's institutions enough to participate. This "I don't want to, so I won't" attitude is a mirror image of what we're seeing down south. Have some goddamn integrity and rise above the bull#### if you want to show that you're a leader. As much as I hate comparing politics to sports, there's a reason the best players and best leaders want the puck or the ball. It's because they want the responsibility and the pressure on their shoulders. They don't sit on the bench so they can blame someone else when things go sideways and that's what PP is doing, just sitting on the bench so he can glare at everyone else instead trying to make an actual difference.
The Following User Says Thank You to indes For This Useful Post:
Security clearance requires extensive background checks etc., doesn’t it? Seems suspiciously clear why he doesn’t want it.
He's had it before hasn't he. I doubt its anything more than he doesn't want to hindered in his ability to attack - up to people to decide if that's a good thing or not for a top contender for a PM race.
Not wanting security clearance makes sense if you’re in opposition and expect to stay that way (like Mulcair’s NDP). It means you’re unfettered in your freedom to attack the government.
This still doesn't explain it to me. How does the alternative fetter your ability to attack the government?
I want specific details about the downside and a straightforward, extensive and comprehensive explanation about why one would want to refuse to get security clearance. Spell it out for me - not you specifically, but PP or Mulcair or someone at the Globe and Mail, people whose job it is to explain these things in the context of an election. This has been made a major issue, why isn't there tons of ink spilled elucidating in painful detail the two sides of the story?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
This still doesn't explain it to me. How does the alternative fetter your ability to attack the government?
I want specific details about the downside and a straightforward, extensive and comprehensive explanation about why one would want to refuse to get security clearance. Spell it out for me - not you specifically, but PP or Mulcair or someone at the Globe and Mail, people whose job it is to explain these things in the context of an election. This has been made a major issue, why isn't there tons of ink spilled elucidating in painful detail the two sides of the story?
The reason they can’t is because the PP/Mulcair side is largely made up:
Quote:
Richard Fadden, former CSIS director and national security and intelligence advisor to Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau
“One, I think he has a responsibility to the public to ensure that people in his party are worthy of being members of the party and members of the House of Commons, and if there’s a suspicion that they’re not, I’d argue it’s his duty to find out and to do something about it. And I guess secondly, he argues that if he has a clearance and he’s been given a briefing, he can’t argue about it. Well, if he never has a briefing, he’s arguing in a vacuum, so I’m not sure how that helps him in a practical sense.”
“But fundamentally, I think any number of people over the years have received this kind of briefing. Other countries do it, other Commonwealth countries provide these kind of briefings to opposition members, and they seem to be able to function.”
Leah West, former Department of Justice counsel in National Security Litigation and Advisory Group
“It’s accurate in the sense that if he wants to be able to disclose anything not in the House of Commons, then he would still be subject to the (Security of Information Act) … He still has the opportunity, if he so chooses, to hold the government to account based on what he knows on the floor of the House of Commons because of his (legal) immunity from anything he says on the floor of the House of Commons.”
“I find his choice interesting because it’s my understanding, for the most part, is that briefings that would be going to him … the information is something that he, because of the threat reduction measure, has to reasonably be believed to take measures to reduce the threat. You can’t just share something as a threat reduction measure because it’s nice to know. The definition of a threat reduction measure is, by sharing this information, we can do something to reduce the threat. So conceivably there is something in his power that he could do to reduce the threat once he has this information.”
Ward Elcock, former CSIS director
“The whole thing would be a lot simpler if he would just get clearance … What it frankly says to me, listening to Mr. Poilievre’s normal criticism of the government, he likes to make criticisms that are pretty far-reaching without any visible support. I guess I assume he’s afraid that if he gets a briefing, then he will actually know some facts that he can’t criticize on the basis of those facts. It’s hard to criticize when you actually know something.”
Stephanie Carvin, an international relations professor at Carleton University and former CSIS analyst
“There’s a clear moving of the goal posts. It went from ‘I should be able to get through this a threat reduction measure,’ finally the government agrees, ‘Okay we’re going to give you a threat reduction measure.’ ‘Oh, okay, now I don’t want to because I can’t talk about the intelligence.’ I don’t know what he would say that hasn’t already been said in the (Hogue) report … I guess my concern is that not taking an intelligence briefing because you can’t turn it into a meme is not the seriousness with which we should be approaching this issue.”
Jessica Davis, president of Insight Threat Intelligence and former official at the Financial Transactions and Report Analysis Centre (FINTRAC) and CSIS
“It’s confusing to me that someone who wants to be the prime minister of Canada would turn down information about the country’s security, particularly at a time when the country is facing significant terrorism, foreign interference, and other threats. Surely, greater knowledge of the threats facing Canada would be an asset in crafting policy and running a successful campaign. Turning down this information is a disservice to himself, his party, and, ultimately, Canadian voters.”
I am sure he had the clearance done previously, but how long ago was that? At the end of the day I don't think it is asking too much for a person to be vetted if they want to be the leader of the country.
I agree. And it pi**es me off that he avoids getting his security clearance. However, I believe he has to have one to be PM, so if it takes 2 weeks to get it, as mentioned by Carney, he will have to start some time in mid April.
