Tell me you don't know much about crypto without telling me you don't know much about crypto.
His assets are disclosed, following the letter of the law.
Mark Carney can do the same. He chooses not to because he has conflicts of interest.
Liberal government has ran on an open and transparent government platform in the past (lol), their leader is withholding information that he could disclose, but doesn’t want to.
His assets are disclosed, following the letter of the law.
Mark Carney can do the same. He chooses not to because he has conflicts of interest.
Liberal government has ran on an open and transparent government platform in the past (lol), their leader is withholding information that he could disclose, but doesn’t want to.
They are in a blind trust. What do you want him to say?
His assets are disclosed, following the letter of the law.
Mark Carney can do the same. He chooses not to because he has conflicts of interest.
Liberal government has ran on an open and transparent government platform in the past (lol), their leader is withholding information that he could disclose, but doesn’t want to.
False. Their is a potential for conflict of interest in the future depending on many things. Their may never be a conflict of interest, or their might be one to deal with in the future, which we have procedures for. Y'all's fishing rods keep coming up empty.
False. Their is a potential for conflict of interest in the future depending on many things. Their may never be a conflict of interest, or their might be one to deal with in the future, which we have procedures for. Y'all's fishing rods keep coming up empty.
If there are no conflicts of interest, then why would screens be required as Carney stated?
His assets are disclosed, following the letter of the law.
Mark Carney can do the same. He chooses not to because he has conflicts of interest.
You cannot choose to not disclose your assets. Carney too is following the letter of the law which requires disclosure within a certain time period after taking office.
You might think that that should happen faster than is normal given the context, which is fair enough. But ultimately the purpose of the law is less to give voters a look at a candidate's assets (disclosures happen after a person takes office for a reason), and more to identify potential conflicts of interest for office holders and then manage them where they may exist. The idea that Carney has conflicts of interest but that they will be ignored by the Ethics Commissioner should be continue as PM isn't a well-founded one.
If there are no conflicts of interest, then why would screens be required as Carney stated?
Because that's the IF. If the situation arises.
Man, it's like you explain it to them, they seem to get it, then go back to whatever media feed they drink the #### funnel from, get lied to, and come back here saying "but...but...but." You could save us all a lot of time by just not going back to places that lie to you daily.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Tell me you don't know much about crypto without telling me you don't know much about crypto.
This is the first I’ve heard of him being pro-crypto. All I could dig up is the bitcoin ETF, anything else out there on a guess of his holdings. Should I be expecting a PP coin if he wins?
Pierre was pretty bullish on the BTC a few years ago before the price crash:
Quote:
Poilievre is a big proponent of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin. He has suggested that Canadians can "opt out" of inflation by pouring money into these investments, and he doesn't want the Bank of Canada to offer a competing product.
"A Poilievre government will ban a central bank digital currency and allow Canadians to have the economic and financial liberty that they deserve," he told reporters gathered outside Canada's central bank building in Ottawa.
Quote:
"We don't see cryptocurrencies as a way for Canadians to opt out of inflation or as a stable source of value," Bank of Canada Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Rogers told lawmakers on Monday.
Man, it's like you explain it to them, they seem to get it, then go back to whatever media feed they drink the #### funnel from, get lied to, and come back here saying "but...but...but." You could save us all a lot of time by just not going back to places that lie to you daily.
Either dumb as bricks or purposely doing it to annoy, neither of which makes them worth more than a few seconds of anyone’s time.
We’re talking about “but what about his conflicts of interest” from people who are still planning to vote for Danielle Smith here. Might as well sit through listening to a neo-nazi complain that Trudeau is unelectable because he did blackface.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
I think the key difference is that PP’s assets are available for everyone to see. The same holds true for Singh.
Carney has conflicts of interest with his private investments that he will have to try and manage with screens.
Carney also refuses to publicly disclose his assets, although he is not obligated to do so for a period of time. So basically using a loophole to not disclose anything.
I maintain my original point, I just don't believe this is a problem you cared about before yesterdays news cycle, and I don't believe it is something you would care about if your guy had similar conflict, I think this is something you have latched onto in looking for a reason to dislike Carney.
