6 ms·

Duly noted but are you suggesting that this story is false? For your convenience, here are some others I just found: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/a

Duly noted but are you suggesting that this story is false? For your convenience, here are some others I just found: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canadian-companies-warn-conservative-motion-could-deter-domestic/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canadian-co... > Given that much of what has been released on the WE contract has contradicted what the prime minister has told Canadians publicly, the opposition are well within their rights to probe it and other spending, including the sole-source $237-million contract for ventilators made by former Liberal MP Frank Baylis’s company Baylis Medical https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/macdougall-trudeau-embraces-the-dark-side-of-the-parliamentary-force https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/macdougall-trudeau-embrace... https://alkhaleejtoday.co/international/5157524/Contract-to-a-former-MP-It%E2%80%99s-from-the-classic-Liberal-Party.html https://alkhaleejtoday.co/international/5157524/Contract-to-... https://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/news/companies-warn-tory-motion-could-deter-domestic-production-of-ppe-1.24226046 https://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/news/companies-warn-tory-mo...

mthoms 6y ago
>are you suggesting that this story is false? Did you read the first sentence of my comment? It starts with "I'm not saying your overall point is incorrect..."
- TravHatesMe 6y ago
  Yes you said "I'm not saying your overall point is incorrect" and then questioned a source for a specific point. That created some ambiguity in my head. Perhaps you disagreed with that specific point? Perhaps you were calling into question that specific point because the source is bad? That's why I asked for clarification. No ill will. Could be my interpretation. My apologies. No need to be snarky about it eh.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    I chose that wording because the gist of your comment was correct (there is indeed corruption) but the devil is in the details. For instance, WE Charity is NOT a "for-profit" charity[0] as you claim. I could go on, but I have no desire to engage on specifics when the overall assertion is mostly true. I only want the reader to be wary of claims (and the claimant) citing an obviously partisan source. A source that has been caught red-handed publishing disinformation provided by foreign state actors[1]. Although you sound well-intentioned, I'm just not interested in engaging when someone plays fast and loose with facts and sources. I'm just so incredibly tired of it. [0] https://www.charityintelligence.ca/charity-details/82-we-charity https://www.charityintelligence.ca/charity-details/82-we-cha... [1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/right-wing-media-outlets-duped-by-a-middle-east-propaganda-campaign https://www.thedailybeast.com/right-wing-media-outlets-duped...
    - busterarm 6y ago
      > For instance, WE Charity is NOT a "for-profit" charity[0] as you claim. I could go on, but I have no desire to engage on specifics when the overall assertion is mostly true. Actually your own cited source challenges this. You didn't dig far enough.[0,1] WE Charity transferred 7% of its revenue to Me to We, a for profit company that did the payouts to Trudeau's family. Charity Intelligence themselves found this very unusual. Unlike every other charity that they monitor, in fact. I guess it's okay for a not for profit to operate a for profit company to get around the rules then? This isn't even a partisan thing, this is on WE Charity's wikipedia page. [0]https://www.canadaland.com/we-charity-was-in-financial-trouble-before-covid-says-charity-watchdog/ https://www.canadaland.com/we-charity-was-in-financial-troub... [1]https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-july-13-2020-1.5647242 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-july-13-...
      - mthoms 6y ago
        >Actually your own cited source challenges this. No, my link does not challenge this. WE is a registered charity (as designated by CRA). It's public information, you can look it up. I initially chose not to bring this up precisely because it detracts from the fact that there is likely corruption (as you point out). I only brought it up when pressed for why I endorsed the gist of the parents comments, but not the stated details. You know, it is possible for someone to believe that corruption occurred but also believe that getting the surrounding facts correct is important. That's all I was advocating for. You've totally misinterpreted this entire thread.

mthoms 6y ago

>are you suggesting that this story is false? Did you read the first sentence of my comment? It starts with "I'm not saying your overall point is incorrect..."

TravHatesMe 6y ago
Yes you said "I'm not saying your overall point is incorrect" and then questioned a source for a specific point. That created some ambiguity in my head. Perhaps you disagreed with that specific point? Perhaps you were calling into question that specific point because the source is bad? That's why I asked for clarification. No ill will. Could be my interpretation. My apologies. No need to be snarky about it eh.
- mthoms 6y ago
  I chose that wording because the gist of your comment was correct (there is indeed corruption) but the devil is in the details. For instance, WE Charity is NOT a "for-profit" charity[0] as you claim. I could go on, but I have no desire to engage on specifics when the overall assertion is mostly true. I only want the reader to be wary of claims (and the claimant) citing an obviously partisan source. A source that has been caught red-handed publishing disinformation provided by foreign state actors[1]. Although you sound well-intentioned, I'm just not interested in engaging when someone plays fast and loose with facts and sources. I'm just so incredibly tired of it. [0] https://www.charityintelligence.ca/charity-details/82-we-charity https://www.charityintelligence.ca/charity-details/82-we-cha... [1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/right-wing-media-outlets-duped-by-a-middle-east-propaganda-campaign https://www.thedailybeast.com/right-wing-media-outlets-duped...
  - busterarm 6y ago
    > For instance, WE Charity is NOT a "for-profit" charity[0] as you claim. I could go on, but I have no desire to engage on specifics when the overall assertion is mostly true. Actually your own cited source challenges this. You didn't dig far enough.[0,1] WE Charity transferred 7% of its revenue to Me to We, a for profit company that did the payouts to Trudeau's family. Charity Intelligence themselves found this very unusual. Unlike every other charity that they monitor, in fact. I guess it's okay for a not for profit to operate a for profit company to get around the rules then? This isn't even a partisan thing, this is on WE Charity's wikipedia page. [0]https://www.canadaland.com/we-charity-was-in-financial-trouble-before-covid-says-charity-watchdog/ https://www.canadaland.com/we-charity-was-in-financial-troub... [1]https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-july-13-2020-1.5647242 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-july-13-...
    - mthoms 6y ago
      >Actually your own cited source challenges this. No, my link does not challenge this. WE is a registered charity (as designated by CRA). It's public information, you can look it up. I initially chose not to bring this up precisely because it detracts from the fact that there is likely corruption (as you point out). I only brought it up when pressed for why I endorsed the gist of the parents comments, but not the stated details. You know, it is possible for someone to believe that corruption occurred but also believe that getting the surrounding facts correct is important. That's all I was advocating for. You've totally misinterpreted this entire thread.