PMJT: The First 100 Days

[Altair]

Priorities being acts of hatred being committed in Canada as opposed to acts of terror being committed internationally?

This is such a silly debate. Not like the guy can do much to keep every Canadian overseas safe. Domestic acts of hatred and racism, he can do something about that.

 

[George Wallace]

Priorities being acts of hatred being committed in Canada as opposed to acts of terror being committed internationally?

This is such a silly debate. Not like the guy can do much to keep every Canadian overseas safe. Domestic acts of hatred and racism, he can do something about that.

So?  With cases like this, what is he doing?

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/i-felt-helpless-ottawa-teen-relates-harrowing-story-of-sex-attack-at-bus-stop-to-court

 

[Kat Stevens]

Priorities being an act of hatred arson in which nobody was injured being committed in Canada as opposed to acts of terror resulting in the deaths of six Canadian citizens being committed internationally?

This is such a silly debate. Not like the guy can do much to keep every Canadian overseas safe. Domestic acts of hatred and racism, he can do something about that.

For clarity.

 

[Kirkhill]

 

[Altair]

For clarity.

*BREAKING NEWS*

Canadians are not safe...when they're in impoverished African countries.

Are we really going to try to pacify the entire planet with military power so that people who frown on the use of tripadvisor can safely go to whichever hell hole they feel like? I mean, surely you see the cynicism in only giving a **** about these countries that have been shitholes since the day before forever when a few western people get attacked there.

 

[daftandbarmy]

http://www.ottawasun.com/2016/01/18/trudeaus-mosque-visit-raises-questions

Trudeau’s mosque visit raises questions

By Anthony Furey, Postmedia Network
First posted: Monday, January 18, 2016 12:07 PM EST | Updated: Monday, January 18, 2016 12:24 PM EST

Shortly after six Canadians were killed by Islamist terrorists Prime Minister Justin Trudeau held a moment of silence for the deceased at a Peterborough mosque.

Either the PM doesn’t understand how awful the optics of this are or he doesn’t care. It’s hard to say which one is more worrisome.

Over the weekend, al-Qaida affiliates took hostages at a hotel in Burkina Faso, killing 28 people including six from Quebec.

They were friends and family travelling to build schools as part of a humanitarian effort.

It’s natural to assume this would garner a powerful response from our prime minister, who is our collective voice on the world stage.

But instead of political leadership, in a statement Trudeau said he was “condemning” what he called a “terrible crime” as well as being “deeply saddened by these senseless acts of violence on innocent civilians.”

This tells us how he feels as a person, but nothing about what he thinks as a leader.

If his soft statement wasn’t bad enough, the real tone deaf manoeuvre from Trudeau came Sunday morning.

The PM attended an open house at a Peterborough mosque that had been set ablaze by an arsonist back in November. Before the open house, according to his itinerary, he held a private meeting with the board members of the Kawartha Muslim Religious Association.

That’s quite the coup for the mosque - a private sit-down with the PM. And he came to them, no less.

When he later took to the podium to speak, his strongest words were not concerning the terror attack, in which six died just the day before, but for the mosque arson, in which nobody died and which took place months ago.

“I have not met a single Canadian who was not as profoundly disturbed as I was to see this kind of hate crime taking place,” he said. Back in November the PM called the mosque attack an act “of hatred and racism”.

These are far stronger words than those he used to condemn the terrorist attack. Besides, the arsonist has yet to be identified, so it’s unclear what the motives for that attack were and if Trudeau’s words were even correct.

By comparison, we know the Burkina Faso attack was an al-Qaida linked job. But Trudeau didn’t mention this in either his written statement or at the mosque.

All the six dead Canadians received on Sunday was Trudeau’s call for a moment of silence for those murdered in “a brutal attack of violent terrorism”. The lopsided optics of this whole affair certainly raise questions about the PM’s priorities.

He could have made two separate announcements. But instead he rolled them together, making the Burkina Faso statement a footnote to his pilgrimage to the mosque.

To complicate matters, the Peterborough mosque doesn’t appear to be a shining example of liberal values the PM and much of the media would have you believe.

In YouTube videos posted in 2009, entitled Marriage: Are You Ready? Shazim Khan, prior to holding his current post as imam of the Peterborough mosque, gave a lecture in which he explained it’s “a major sin” for a wife to not have sex whenever her husband wants and “there is no need for her to go out” if her husband provides for her, along with other sexist musings.

Did Trudeau and his staff know about these apparently misogynist statements?

The prime minister seems so blinded by political correctness, by a desire to appear tolerant in the eyes of the intolerant, that he has no problem visiting a mosque whose imam delivered a lecture that would likely receive an approving nod from the very people who killed Canadians only days before in the name of their religion.

Nicely summed up.... the Trudeau platform, in song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-xWhG4UU_Y

 

[Kat Stevens]

*BREAKING NEWS*

Canadians are not safe...when they're in impoverished African countries.

Are we really going to try to pacify the entire planet with military power so that people who frown on the use of tripadvisor can safely go to whichever hell hole they feel like? I mean, surely you see the cynicism in only giving a **** about these countries that have been shitholes since the day before forever when a few western people get attacked there.

MORE BREAKING NEWS
The optics of his anemic statement about SIX CANADIAN DEATHS as a mere footnote to his bleatings of moral outrage at what, pending investigation, is an act of arson, criminal but not tragic, are terrible.  You really think this is okay?  I realize he has to look out for his support base, but this goes beyond the pale, and quite frankly is callous.  "Oh by the way, 6 Canadians died and that sucks" is not what I would expect from the leader (Dear Leader?) of my country.

 

[Altair]

MORE BREAKING NEWS
The optics of his anemic statement about SIX CANADIAN DEATHS as a mere footnote to his bleatings of moral outrage at what, pending investigation, is an act of arson, criminal but not tragic, are terrible.  You really think this is okay?  I realize he has to look out for his support base, but this goes beyond the pale, and quite frankly is callous.  "Oh by the way, 6 Canadians died and that sucks" is not what I would expect from the leader (Dear Leader?) of my country.

I really think that in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.

If Harper were the dear leader, he wouldn't have been at the mosque, he would have been on TV with his outrage at the situation and at the end of the day done nothing.

Trudeau on the other hand, was at the mosque, made a simple statement on the attack, had a moment of silence and will do nothing.

At the end of the day, AQIM will go on doing what it does, Burkina Faso will continue to be a poor impoverished area of Africa and canada will continue to not do much there, and what we're talking about here is the superficial tone the leader has taken.

In short, what you're asking of Trudeau is to say things that make you feel warm and fuzzy about it.Nothing, but sound tough while doing nothing.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I really think that in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.

If Harper were the dear leader, he wouldn't have been at the mosque, he would have been on TV with his outrage at the situation and at the end of the day done nothing.

Trudeau on the other hand, was at the mosque, made a simple statement on the attack, had a moment of silence and will do nothing.

At the end of the day, AQIM will go on doing what it does, Burkina Faso will continue to be a poor impoverished area of Africa and canada will continue to not do much there, and what we're talking about here is the superficial tone the leader has taken.

In short, what you're asking of Trudeau is to say things that make you feel warm and fuzzy about it.Nothing, but sound tough while doing nothing.

Harold Macmillan, was asked by a young journalist after a long dinner what can most easily steer a government off course, he answered "Events, dear boy. Events".

We might see the tyranny of 'events' begin to intrude on the Trudeau reverie....

 

[Kirkhill]

Back on the financial front:

Because of comments made on the procurement threads (FWSAR, F-35, CSC et al) about the impact of exchange rates it got me to thinking about managing that volatility.  In the private sector it is generally done by buying futures, ie, if a project requires the purchase of foreign equipment then the vendors currency is purchased when the exchange rate is low so as to buy the stuff when the rate is high.  That way you lock in the price of the kit and make more money, or at least reduce your costs.

So that got me to wondering what the Canadian Government had been doing.  It doesn't buy futures per se.  It actually buys currency - foreign reserves.

It turns out that between 2008 and 2015 the Government's holdings in US Dollars increased from a low of 19.257 BUSD in 2007 to the current level of 48.229 BUSD, or a 150% increase.

Likewise the gold reserves were increased and the IMF position was strengthened.

What this means is that on purchases, like the F-35 for example the Government has the option of paying for those aircraft with US dollars laid down in 2008 when the Canadian dollar was trading above par.  Effectively taking that variability out of the discussion. 

In reality much of that money is actually used to pay off interest on foreign loans.  There are other demands on that money than just  the defence budget.

But.

It is as I was reading the Department of Finance table linked above that I discovered this curious fact.

In 2005, Paul Martin's last full year on the job Canada held gold reserves equivalent to 56 BUSD based on December 2015 valuations.

In 2006, Steven Harper immediately started building all foreign reserves, including gold.

That reached a high point of 181 BUSD in gold by 2012.

Since then the Government has been drawing down the gold account, presumably to offset the depreciating dollar.

At the time the Liberals took over the reins in November there was still 102 BUSD in that account, as of November 30th.

By December 30th that account had nosedived back to 58 BUSD, or the same level it had been at when Paul Martin was making the decisions - effectively wiping out all the additional reserves that Harper had squirreled away against a rainy day.

One month. US$ 44,000,000,000. 

Where did it go? What was it used for?  I am not suggesting anything nefarious.  Honest people can disagree on managing finances.

But what was the rationale?  And what does it say about how the Liberals plan to manage the books?

 

[Kirkhill]

I really think that in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.

If Harper were the dear leader, he wouldn't have been at the mosque, he would have been on TV with his outrage at the situation and at the end of the day done nothing.

Trudeau on the other hand, was at the mosque, made a simple statement on the attack, had a moment of silence and will do nothing.

At the end of the day, AQIM will go on doing what it does, Burkina Faso will continue to be a poor impoverished area of Africa and canada will continue to not do much there, and what we're talking about here is the superficial tone the leader has taken.

In short, what you're asking of Trudeau is to say things that make you feel warm and fuzzy about it.Nothing, but sound tough while doing nothing.

Actually, it is a fair bet that he would have been at the table in Paris discussing with the US, UK and Australia,  the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and France how to manage the campaign against ISIS.

Justin, on his first visit overseas and with the blood of 130 people still wet on the sidewalks of Paris, told the French he wasn't interested, just as he informed the Americans with his first phone call that he wasn't interested so he was pulling his fighters from the arena. 

John Manley worried that Canada had a reputation of getting up from the table when the bill was to be paid.  I don't think we need to worry about that anymore.  We aren't being invited to the table.

 

[PuckChaser]

Trudeau on the other hand, was at the mosque, made a simple statement on the attack, had a moment of silence and will do nothing.

Trudeau missed a big opportunity here, or more likely his handlers did. This was a preplanned event, but the tone needed to change. Seems like he just inserted the attacks in before going to the larger, canned speech. Had he taken the opportunity to help the Canadian Muslim community show it is just as appalled at the attacks, and that the rest of Canada is appalled at the arson, he'd have gone a long way to tone down the rhetoric.

Instead, he carried on with a canned event, regardless of external influences, which is starting to become a trend where keeping political promises regardless of consequences when the complex global and national situation changes. He's sticking to his party ideology, which is something Harper was decried for on a daily basis.

 

[Altair]

Actually, it is a fair bet that he would have been at the table in Paris discussing with the US, UK and Australia,  the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and France how to manage the campaign against ISIS.

Justin, on his first visit overseas and with the blood of 130 people still wet on the sidewalks of Paris, told the French he wasn't interested, just as he informed the Americans with his first phone call that he wasn't interested so he was pulling his fighters from the arena. 

John Manley worried that Canada had a reputation of getting up from the table when the bill was to be paid.  I don't think we need to worry about that anymore.  We aren't being invited to the table.

I fail to see how an attack in Burkina Faso by a ISIL rival in AQIM relates to the bombing of ISIL in the middle east.

George Bush logic there, attacked by militants funded by the Saudis, trained in Afghanistan, invade Iraq.

 

[Altair]

Trudeau missed a big opportunity here, or more likely his handlers did. This was a preplanned event, but the tone needed to change. Seems like he just inserted the attacks in before going to the larger, canned speech. Had he taken the opportunity to help the Canadian Muslim community show it is just as appalled at the attacks, and that the rest of Canada is appalled at the arson, he'd have gone a long way to tone down the rhetoric.

Instead, he carried on with a canned event, regardless of external influences, which is starting to become a trend where keeping political promises regardless of consequences when the complex global and national situation changes. He's sticking to his party ideology, which is something Harper was decried for on a daily basis.

As long as we all agree that were are arguing over a leaders tone and nothing of substance.

 

[George Wallace]

Instead, he carried on with a canned event, regardless of external influences, which is starting to become a trend where keeping political promises regardless of consequences when the complex global and national situation changes. He's sticking to his party ideology, which is something Harper was decried for on a daily basis.

An indication that he and his staff are incapable of adjusting to changing events/situations.  That would be OK in 1867 with no technology to transmit instant communication around the world; but in today's (This is 2016) world, that is not an acceptable method to govern. 

I would think that this is quite "substantial".

 

[Altair]

An indication that he and his staff are incapable of adjusting to changing events/situations.  That would be OK in 1867 with no technology to transmit instant communication around the world; but in today's (This is 2016) world, that is not an acceptable method to govern. 

If you don't think that this is "substantial", then please don't comment on governance in the 21st Century.

If I wasn't here, the only dissent voice would be Kilo_302. [lol:

 

[Kirkhill]

I fail to see how an attack in Burkina Faso by a ISIL rival in AQIM relates to the bombing of ISIL in the middle east.

George Bush logic there, attacked by militants funded by the Saudis, trained in Afghanistan, invade Iraq.

I understand your failure to see.

"me·tas·ta·size

məˈtastəˌsīz/Submit

verb MEDICINE

gerund or present participle: metastasizing

(of a cancer) spread to other sites in the body by metastasis.
"cancers that metastasize to the brain" "

 

[PuckChaser]

As long as we all agree that were are arguing over a leaders tone and nothing of substance.

A leader says a lot with their tone. Think back to some of the poor leaders you've had in your career, and you'll notice that tone and speaking ability can destroy the impact of even the greatest direction being passed. This is especially true at the head of state level, where tone can impact how a country's populace perceives a situation.

 

[Altair]

A leader says a lot with their tone. Think back to some of the poor leaders you've had in your career, and you'll notice that tone and speaking ability can destroy the impact of even the greatest direction being passed. This is especially true at the head of state level, where tone can impact how a country's populace perceives a situation.

Actions speak louder than words.

No matter who is at the helm of this country I would expect the same level of inaction.

 

[Altair]

I understand your failure to see.

Care to explain then oh wise one?