2024 Canadian Political Thread

[appleomac]

Shifting goal posts? Youve completely ignored everything i said.

Yes you are shifting goal posts. That's generally how you deal with people that can't stay on topic, ignore there attempts to move the goal posts. You presented evidence (the Bill from 2016) as evidence that the CPC is attempting to ban or limit abortions. I challenged you (based on the text of the bill) to present where said Bill bans or limits abortions. You cut and pasted some verbage from the Bill. I pointed out that said passage DOES NOT criminalize and/or otherwise restrict abortion. You seem to agree as you had nothing more to say on it, except to move the goal posts to, "well, it gives rights to a fetus."

It was a bill that assigns rights to the fetus. That is a shot at limiting abortion and you know it. As i stated the bill was not needed- the laws in question were already covered under the criminal codes ( could have just stiffened existing penalties) The only reason to introduce the bill was to assign right to the fetus. That is a shot at limiting abortion, and anything you say past it is you lying out all your orfices no matter what pile of shit words you try to bury it in. It was voted on near unaminously yea by the conservative party, including Pollieve, but stopped by the Liberals and the NDP members who voted nay. That was 8 years ago, not the distant past. Nothing has changed, they're still the same guys who want to impose their religeous beliefs on everyone.

How does it limit abortion? Abortion is legal in this country. C-225 did not attempt to limit or otherwise criminalize abortion, period. It proposed making it a crime to harm a fetus while committing a crime and proposed requiring a judge to consider the fetus as a mitigating factor during sentencing. Contrary to what you believe, punishing a criminal whom endangers a pregnant woman and their fetus (i.e. recognizing that fetus as a victim) DOES NOT limit or criminalize abortion. Contrary to the non-existent dots you are trying to connect - a judge recognizing the death of the fetus as a mitigating factor in sentencing IS NOT an attempt to ban or limit abortion. So again, you are shifting the goal posts and talking about secret agendas, made up terms like "backdoor limiter clause", etc. As I stated previously, you and people like you, scream bloody murder every time the word fetus, unborn, whatever, appears in a piece of legislation. Simply so that you can bring out the boogeyman card of abortion. C-225 did NOT attempt to ban or limit abortion and Conservative policy since Harper, and every leader since Harper has specifically stated, including the current leader of the CPC, that they will NOT legislate on abortion (i.e. they will not present legislation to ban and/or limit abortion). Your attempt to present C-225 as a ban on abortion is false. You ignore CPC policy (i..e not to legislate on abortion) and recent examples of a CPC government doing exactly that (i.e. 9 years of Harper and zero ban on abortions). And so you move the goal posts. That somehow, recognizing a fetus as a victim during a criminal offence is somehow akin to abortion. That is some special kind of mental gymnastics. And of course, after all your erroneous claims have been shown to be just that, erroneous. You go to...

the conservatives have undeclared adgendas

...which is yet another Liberal wedge trope talking point. Again, when Libs and ABC minded folk get desperate, they double down on the wedge talking points. Paul Martin got desperate back in the day and claimed that with Harper as PM we would see armed soldiers on our streets (or something to that effect), Libs back then talked about "secret conservative agendas", etc. Nothing but desperation due to poor polling numbers. I'll say it yet again (because you are demonstrating it over and over and over again), you are simply a meme of a desperate Lib/ABC individual.

 

[80watts]

The problem is Canada has too many laws and not enough common sense. With too many laws it becomes harder to choose a direction to go in. Common sense means don't make too many laws....

 

[LLLurkJ2]

The problem lies with your misbeliefs. Not everyone who votes for conservatives is a bible thumper. Look man, I’m an atheist/agnostic. LOL. I’ve stated before that I’m a centrist, yet for reasons unknown you went off on a tangent to discredit what I said and then made up your own assumptions about random bullshit. I’m very much pro-choice.

I appreciate your moderated discourse. It seems some folks have no self-control , but you seem rational at least.

The problem is, the people you're getting into bed with to are not pro-choice at all. This is the trade off you're willing to make to get a balanced budget. To me its too much.

In terms of a balanced bidget i ask you to consider my previous opines; none of the major economies have balanced budget, and our biggest has the largest military industrial complex in the world, that i would argue drives the major productivity gains we see with investments in new manufacturing technology regardless of costs at the public expense. Most of the European G7 are the same. For most countries in this group, military spending is *the* if not one of the headline expenditures. Canada lags here.

The point being - we could balance the budget but it seems to be something you have to do with the zietgiest in order to not be left in the dust relatively speaking. Some of the other econo-dorks here say that it shouldnt matter what others are doing , but i did point out its hypocritical to then bring up relative productivity by example.

I completely agree there is wasteful spending within all governemrnts. The whole 'spend it or loose the budget' has to hauled over. Lots of low hanging fruit that is not for people in true need, but is actually discretionary that can be cut, taxes and nimbisim that need to be thrown out. Lots of blue collar guys standing around watching others dig holes slowly on yhe government dime.

As for Trudeau, sure hes made bad policy descisions. Immigration policy is a shambles, but most crime is committed by native-born Canadians so calling out immigrant criminals is pandering to xenophobes imho.

How much of it is macro-economics with little to do with his policy though. I'd argue actual inflation rate is one - Canada generally follows the US fed by within a couple of basis points.The war in Ukraine and the embargo of Russia is another - major wheat, oil and potash producers shifting production levels and raising prices has alot of downstream effects. Housing prices where a worldwide phenomena before the spike in inflation, it may be because of the bust shadow due to the last housing collapse ( I remember they were tearing down houses in the inpand empire 8n California, meanwhile there are more empty houses than homeless in the US - price manipulation at its finest ).

I dont have the answers by any means, just alot of opinions that other people seem quite frightened by.

 

[overdone]

I appreciate your moderated discourse. It seems some folks have no self-control , but you seem rational at least.

The problem is, the people you're getting into bed with to are not pro-choice at all. This is the trade off you're willing to make to get a balanced budget. To me its too much.

In terms of a balanced bidget i ask you to consider my previous opines; none of the major economies have balanced budget, and our biggest has the largest military industrial complex in the world, that i would argue drives the major productivity gains we see with investments in new manufacturing technology regardless of costs at the public expense. Most of the European G7 are the same. For most countries in this group, military spending is *the* if not one of the headline expenditures. Canada lags here.

The point being - we could balance the budget but it seems to be something you have to do with the zietgiest in order to not be left in the dust relatively speaking. Some of the other econo-dorks here say that it shouldnt matter what others are doing , but i did point out its hypocritical to then bring up relative productivity by example.

I completely agree there is wasteful spending within all governemrnts. The whole 'spend it or loose the budget' has to hauled over. Lots of low hanging fruit that is not for people in true need, but is actually discretionary that can be cut, taxes and nimbisim that need to be thrown out. Lots of blue collar guys standing around watching others dig holes slowly on yhe government dime.

As for Trudeau, sure hes made bad policy descisions. Immigration policy is a shambles, but most crime is committed by native-born Canadians so calling out immigrant criminals is pandering to xenophobes imho.

How much of it is macro-economics with little to do with his policy though. I'd argue actual inflation rate is one - Canada generally follows the US fed by within a couple of basis points.The war in Ukraine and the embargo of Russia is another - major wheat, oil and potash producers shifting production levels and raising prices has alot of downstream effects. Housing prices where a worldwide phenomena before the spike in inflation, it may be because of the bust shadow due to the last housing collapse ( I remember they were tearing down houses in the inpand empire 8n California, meanwhile there are more empty houses than homeless in the US - price manipulation at its finest ).

I dont have the answers by any means, just alot of opinions that other people seem quite frightened by.

the abortion zealots in the Cons are a small minority, just like the Country, you're just parroting the left wing zealots

balanced budget, who do you know that can continue to run up their CC and survive? GREECE, that's the long run effect

go look at their per person income now

the Turd's Policy? haha, there is no policy

read this, below, go to the parts where others tell the truth about the Turd, pretty much repeating what Kenney said, paraphrasing, "he's a fucking moron" aka, Trump

read the part where a "liberal" talks about how uninformed the Turd is about important things, has no interest in them, how the control of the kids in his PMO are

really running the show, look at how well that's worked for Canada

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ivison-another-warning-about-trudeaus-absence-of-principles

our inflation/debt, should be far better, saying it's not his fault is bullshit, he's contributed in a major way with his stupidity, lack of action, basic action

our housing, again, not compared to others, our's is far worse, the worst actually, again, due to his stupidity

on immigration/PR/temp workers/students

go talk to the daycare workers/owners, complete fuck up, like it was going to work, it's been in Que for decades, never worked there, people on waitlists, never get the subsidy

why, cause communism doesn't work


just look at the most recent moronic announcement, welfare to another company, for something they can't even really make

cause we don't have the materials, China does, we do, but they're all in the ground and are 15 yrs away

so our idiot PM is setting them up for failure, cause China, our PM's favourite Dictatorship can dictate what they can do

but it's not Canada's fault the rest of the world is acting like idiots, it's being forced on us to waste billions for no gain

which is what the whole 8 yrs of the TURD HAS BEEN

WE'RE FARTHER BEHIND THAN IF WE JUST DID NOTHING BUT HELD STEADY FOR 8 YRS

TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH THE JONES

BASIC COMMON SENSE, QUIT LYING THAT WE'RE RICHER THAN WE ARE, WE'RE NOT, SPECIALLY SINCE WE GAVE THE CHEQUE BOOK TO A CHILD

 

[overdone]

also for Pierre, due to Harper's stupidity of not making Senate appts in his final days, is going to pay for that, almost all are now toadies of the Liberals, er, Indies, sure

it'll take 10 yrs to fix that due to our stupidity of not reforming the senate, which is a complete waste of money and time in the form it is now

there has also been interesting takes on what our dollar might drop to, again, cause of the Turd's stupidity when it comes to our finances

if that does happen, we're really going to pay for it

 

[licks2nite]

Thanks to LLLurkJ2 & appleomac for the interesting and informative exchange.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

Yes you are shifting goal posts. That's generally how you deal with people that can't stay on topic, ignore there attempts to move the goal posts. You presented evidence (the Bill from 2016) as evidence that the CPC is attempting to ban or limit abortions. I challenged you (based on the text of the bill) to present where said Bill bans or limits abortions. You cut and pasted some verbage from the Bill. I pointed out that said passage DOES NOT criminalize and/or otherwise restrict abortion. You seem to agree as you had nothing more to say on it, except to move the goal posts to, "well, it gives rights to a fetus."



How does it limit abortion? Abortion is legal in this country. C-225 did not attempt to limit or otherwise criminalize abortion, period. It proposed making it a crime to harm a fetus while committing a crime and proposed requiring a judge to consider the fetus as a mitigating factor during sentencing. Contrary to what you believe, punishing a criminal whom endangers a pregnant woman and their fetus (i.e. recognizing that fetus as a victim) DOES NOT limit or criminalize abortion. Contrary to the non-existent dots you are trying to connect - a judge recognizing the death of the fetus as a mitigating factor in sentencing IS NOT an attempt to ban or limit abortion. So again, you are shifting the goal posts and talking about secret agendas, made up terms like "backdoor limiter clause", etc. As I stated previously, you and people like you, scream bloody murder every time the word fetus, unborn, whatever, appears in a piece of legislation. Simply so that you can bring out the boogeyman card of abortion. C-225 did NOT attempt to ban or limit abortion and Conservative policy since Harper, and every leader since Harper has specifically stated, including the current leader of the CPC, that they will NOT legislate on abortion (i.e. they will not present legislation to ban and/or limit abortion). Your attempt to present C-225 as a ban on abortion is false. You ignore CPC policy (i..e not to legislate on abortion) and recent examples of a CPC government doing exactly that (i.e. 9 years of Harper and zero ban on abortions). And so you move the goal posts. That somehow, recognizing a fetus as a victim during a criminal offence is somehow akin to abortion. That is some special kind of mental gymnastics. And of course, after all your erroneous claims have been shown to be just that, erroneous. You go to...




...which is yet another Liberal wedge trope talking point. Again, when Libs and ABC minded folk get desperate, they double down on the wedge talking points. Paul Martin got desperate back in the day and claimed that with Harper as PM we would see armed soldiers on our streets (or something to that effect), Libs back then talked about "secret conservative agendas", etc. Nothing but desperation due to poor polling numbers. I'll say it yet again (because you are demonstrating it over and over and over again), you are simply a meme of a desperate Lib/ABC individual.

What are ABC folk? Is that something Cons bring up whenever they want to try to tar and feather a group without having to actualyl consider dissenting points of view, to try to invalidate them off the bat because they're fightrned little man children who dont like non white voices?

 

[LLLurkJ2]

DIAGOLON <-> PeePeeLePew

 

[appleomac]

What are ABC folk? Is that something Cons bring up whenever they want to try to tar and feather a group without having to actualyl consider dissenting points of view, to try to invalidate them off the bat because they're fightrned little man children who dont like non white voices?

ABC, anything/anyone but conservative. An acronym for the left minded folk that advocate as such with arguments such as "...x is bad, but cons would make it worse." It's a common well known acronym. But of course, you needed to ask a question just so you can bring up the race card. And of course, the thinly veiled racism claim would be yet another ABC/Lib wedge talking point trope. Yet again, demonstrating that you will go to any length to demonstrate that you are nothing more than a meme of a desperate ABC/Lib minded individual.

 

[thevalleydude]

I appreciate your moderated discourse. It seems some folks have no self-control , but you seem rational at least.

The problem is, the people you're getting into bed with to are not pro-choice at all. This is the trade off you're willing to make to get a balanced budget. To me its too much.

In terms of a balanced bidget i ask you to consider my previous opines; none of the major economies have balanced budget, and our biggest has the largest military industrial complex in the world, that i would argue drives the major productivity gains we see with investments in new manufacturing technology regardless of costs at the public expense. Most of the European G7 are the same. For most countries in this group, military spending is *the* if not one of the headline expenditures. Canada lags here.

The point being - we could balance the budget but it seems to be something you have to do with the zietgiest in order to not be left in the dust relatively speaking. Some of the other econo-dorks here say that it shouldnt matter what others are doing , but i did point out its hypocritical to then bring up relative productivity by example.

I completely agree there is wasteful spending within all governemrnts. The whole 'spend it or loose the budget' has to hauled over. Lots of low hanging fruit that is not for people in true need, but is actually discretionary that can be cut, taxes and nimbisim that need to be thrown out. Lots of blue collar guys standing around watching others dig holes slowly on yhe government dime.

As for Trudeau, sure hes made bad policy descisions. Immigration policy is a shambles, but most crime is committed by native-born Canadians so calling out immigrant criminals is pandering to xenophobes imho.

How much of it is macro-economics with little to do with his policy though. I'd argue actual inflation rate is one - Canada generally follows the US fed by within a couple of basis points.The war in Ukraine and the embargo of Russia is another - major wheat, oil and potash producers shifting production levels and raising prices has alot of downstream effects. Housing prices where a worldwide phenomena before the spike in inflation, it may be because of the bust shadow due to the last housing collapse ( I remember they were tearing down houses in the inpand empire 8n California, meanwhile there are more empty houses than homeless in the US - price manipulation at its finest ).

I dont have the answers by any means, just alot of opinions that other people seem quite frightened by.

You can relax ....no one is frightened by your opinions. Disagreeing with them does not equate to being frightened. You and your nemesis gave/are still giving a lot of posters an interesting discussion to follow so thanks for that. By the way even most Conservatives are pro choice given time restrictions equivalent to those in Europe of 14-16 weeks so there is no way that there will ever be an abortion ban that will pass.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

You can relax ....no one is frightened by your opinions. Disagreeing with them does not equate to being frightened. You and your nemesis gave/are still giving a lot of posters an interesting discussion to follow so thanks for that. By the way even most Conservatives are pro choice given time restrictions equivalent to those in Europe of 14-16 weeks so there is no way that there will ever be an abortion ban that will pass.

ABC, anything/anyone but conservative. An acronym for the left minded folk that advocate as such with arguments such as "...x is bad, but cons would make it worse." It's a common well known acronym. But of course, you needed to ask a question just so you can bring up the race card. And of course, the thinly veiled racism claim would be yet another ABC/Lib wedge talking point trope. Yet again, demonstrating that you will go to any length to demonstrate that you are nothing more than a meme of a desperate ABC/Lib minded individual.

Oh, misunderstood. In that case, yep Im fully ABC.

Still bring used as a prejoritive to stifle discussion and eliminate a group out of hand rather than deal with the issues like PeePee hanging out with the leader of white supramisits groups too court his followers votes.

 

[Drjohn]

Oh, misunderstood. In that case, yep Im fully ABC.

Still bring used as a prejoritive to stifle discussion and eliminate a group out of hand rather than deal with the issues like PeePee hanging out with the leader of white supramisits groups too court his followers votes.

I know a guy that said that his cousin's friend told him that he heard that someone said that Poilievre secretly wears a MAGA hat when he's in the shower.

You are hilarious.

Do you work for the CBC ?

 

[appleomac]

Still bring used as a prejoritive to stifle discussion and eliminate a group out of hand

Not being used as a pejorative at all. It's an acronym, it's literally being used as short hand for the simple purpose of not having to type out "anybody/anyone but conservative". Now of course, you would like to accuse and/or claim that I am using it as a pejorative so that you can try (yet again) to claim victimhood status - either your own perceived victimhood or some group's perceived victimhood. Once again, it would be humorous if it weren't so sad/pathetic, you being/acting constantly like the meme of a desperate ABC/Lib minded individual. At this point, you're clearly running plays from the playbook - when your "facts" have been shown to be false/erroneous and you have nothing more to say, you have pulled out the fascist card, the racisim card, accusing others of victimizing you and others, etc. The funny thing is, you somehow believe everyone can't see or doesn't know the plays in the playbook. But you keep on pulling out the wedge talking points from the old playbook everyone already has a copy of. And FYI, contrary to what you would like to believe, calling you out on your untruths/erroneous claims and statements isn't actually "stiffling discussion".

 

[LLLurkJ2]

You can relax ....no one is frightened by your opinions. Disagreeing with them does not equate to being frightened. You and your nemesis gave/are still giving a lot of posters an interesting discussion to follow so thanks for that. By the way even most Conservatives are pro choice given time restrictions equivalent to those in Europe of 14-16 weeks so there is no way that there will ever be an abortion ban that will pass.

Disagreeing is something i have no problem with, but telling me to shut up and I know nothing in an attempt to stifle discourse is fear imho.

And if Conservatives are not out to pass abortion laws, why do they keep trying to raise bills, petitions, commitees and stating it as their goals in some members cases (Peace River)?

 

[LLLurkJ2]

I know a guy that said that his cousin's friend told him that he heard that someone said that Poilievre secretly wears a MAGA hat when he's in the shower.

You are hilarious.

Do you work for the CBC ?

I hear his hat got knocked off while he was fellating rascists from Diagolon in the RV.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

Not being used as a pejorative at all. It's an acronym, it's literally being used as short hand for the simple purpose of not having to type out "anybody/anyone but conservative". Now of course, you would like to accuse and/or claim that I am using it as a pejorative so that you can try (yet again) to claim victimhood status - either your own perceived victimhood or some group's perceived victimhood. Once again, it would be humorous if it weren't so sad/pathetic, you being/acting constantly like the meme of a desperate ABC/Lib minded individual. At this point, you're clearly running plays from the playbook - when your "facts" have been shown to be false/erroneous and you have nothing more to say, you have pulled out the fascist card, the racisim card, accusing others of victimizing you and others, etc. The funny thing is, you somehow believe everyone can't see or doesn't know the plays in the playbook. But you keep on pulling out the wedge talking points from the old playbook everyone already has a copy of. And FYI, contrary to what you would like to believe, calling you out on your untruths/erroneous claims and statements isn't actually "stiffling discussion".

Countering facts, is that where i show you proof and you accuse me of moving goalposts?

 

[appleomac]

Countering facts, is that where i show you proof and you accuse me of moving goalposts?

No. Moving goal posts would be YOU not being able to counter facts about your original claim and therefore you claim/state something else.

Simple example....

You: CPC are going to ban abortions, Mulroney tried to legislate on abortion. (This would be you claim/statement of fact, CPC is going to ban abortion).
Me: Explaining to you why the 80's are different from 2024, and further pointing out CPC stated policy (since Harper) that they will not legislate on abortion. And further pointing out no abortion ban in the 9 years of Harper.
You: Bill C-225 is proof that CPC will ban abortion.
Me: Explains that said bill does not ban nor restrict abortion.
You: Makes statement about "backdoor choice limiter" (whatever that is)
Me: Challenged you, based on text of said bill, to provide evidence for your claim.
You: Copy and pasted some verbage from said Bill.
Me: Explained that you are ignoring some of the exact words you highlighted from said Bill. That is, (paraphrasing) "it is an offence to harm/kill a fetus WHILE COMMITTING AN OFFENCE", meaning during a crime, and abortion is NOT a crime in Canada.
You: Claim said bill gives rights to a fetus (this would be your new claim, i.e. shifting the goal post)

Your original claim and your adjusted claim are NOT the same. Again, I countered your original claim and then you changed your claim. That would be shifting the goal posts.

 

[Drjohn]

I hear his hat got knocked off while he was fellating rascists from Diagolon in the RV.

You've been drinking the Liberal Kool Aid again.

I can understand why you're upset.

It's not fun to be part of a fringe minority.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

No. Moving goal posts would be YOU not being able to counter facts about your original claim and therefore you claim/state something else.

Simple example....

You: CPC are going to ban abortions, Mulroney tried to legislate on abortion. (This would be you claim/statement of fact, CPC is going to ban abortion).
Me: Explaining to you why the 80's are different from 2024, and further pointing out CPC stated policy (since Harper) that they will not legislate on abortion. And further pointing out no abortion ban in the 9 years of Harper.
You: Bill C-225 is proof that CPC will ban abortion.
Me: Explains that said bill does not ban nor restrict abortion.
You: Makes statement about "backdoor choice limiter" (whatever that is)
Me: Challenged you, based on text of said bill, to provide evidence for your claim.
You: Copy and pasted some verbage from said Bill.
Me: Explained that you are ignoring some of the exact words you highlighted from said Bill. That is, (paraphrasing) "it is an offence to harm/kill a fetus WHILE COMMITTING AN OFFENCE", meaning during a crime, and abortion is NOT a crime in Canada.
You: Claim said bill gives rights to a fetus (this would be your new claim, i.e. shifting the goal post)

Your original claim and your adjusted claim are NOT the same. Again, I countered your original claim and then you changed your claim. That would be shifting the goal posts.

Actually tour timeline is flawed, no wonder you're having so much difficulty.

I presented bill C225 after you windged on and on about bills vs petitions etc saying there were no bills. Its also a means to show the continued intent of the party and why it is dangerous for PeePee LeSquinty to have open votes on the topic.

I still claim his government will try to further restrict abortion ( a ban in some circumstances , because i know you'll zero on my language) but neither you nor I will be able to prove it. I try to demonstrate intent, you state he said he wont because he made a position statement. I think all politicians tend to lie however.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

You've been drinking the Liberal Kool Aid again.

I can understand why you're upset.

It's not fun to be part of a fringe minority.

Tell that to anti-vaxxers