Trudeau how can he win the next election

Status
Not open for further replies.

overdone

Banned
Apr 26, 2007
1,826
442
83
Too bad it is all on tape
yes, it is too bad it's all on tape

Trudeau the corrupt

it was false, then he did, it just wasn't improper

it was about jobs, which has been proven false, they can't move the HQ, no proof except jobs blackmail

blame Harper, lol

she's an uppity bitch who you can't work with

she can't speak french

she doesn't understand the law

we moved her cause the gay guy quit

lol

all on tape



do you bathe in the kool-aid?
 

CanineCowboy

Active member
Feb 5, 2010
618
189
43
yes, it is too bad it's all on tape

Trudeau the corrupt

it was false, then he did, it just wasn't improper

it was about jobs, which has been proven false, they can't move the HQ, no proof except jobs blackmail

blame Harper, lol

she's an uppity bitch who you can't work with

she can't speak french

she doesn't understand the law

we moved her cause the gay guy quit

lol

all on tape



do you bathe in the kool-aid?
Everyone should read Neil Macdonald's piece 'Opposition is a caricature, and Scheer is a humid performer' - a fair description of what is going on. Political theater. Pretty hard to ignore all the hypocrisy especially from Lisa Raitt and Charlie Angus.
 

MissingOne

Don't just do something, sit there.
Jan 2, 2006
2,230
441
83
Everyone should read Neil Macdonald's piece 'Opposition is a caricature, and Scheer is a humid performer' - a fair description of what is going on. Political theater. Pretty hard to ignore all the hypocrisy especially from Lisa Raitt and Charlie Angus.
I read that article. The one thing I found odd about it was the use of "humid" to describe Scheer's performance. I've never before seen the word used to describe a person's performance.

From dictionary.com:
humid: containing a high amount of water or water vapor; noticeably moist

I've never seen Scheer in person, nor have I ever heard him speak. Macdonald presumably has. Maybe "humid" is the perfect description.
 

Lo-ki

Well-known member
Jul 18, 2011
4,022
2,654
113
Check your closet..:)
I heard a rumor that Trudeau may be calling for an election in May......
 

clu

Active member
Oct 3, 2010
1,268
14
38
Vancouver
I heard a rumor that Trudeau may be calling for an election in May......
I don't get the joke.

(It's a joke right? Canada's elections have been fixed for several cycles now. The ruling party doesn't get to decide when to call them anymore.)
 

MissingOne

Don't just do something, sit there.
Jan 2, 2006
2,230
441
83
I don't get the joke.

(It's a joke right? Canada's elections have been fixed for several cycles now. The ruling party doesn't get to decide when to call them anymore.)
Actually, I believe that the ruling party can still call an election whenever they like. After all, Harper did it, after he brought in the fixed election date law.
 

Hugh Jass

Banned
May 11, 2015
306
1
16
Cut and paste


Federal

The Constitution Act, 1867, fixes the maximum life of a federal parliament at five years following the return of the writs of election.[1] Section Five of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that there must be sittings of parliament and of each legislative assembly at least once in every twelve-month period. By constitutional convention, an election must be called by the governor general following the mandatory dissolution of parliament.

The 39th Canadian Parliament passed Bill C-16, An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act, which received Royal Assent on May 3, 2007.[2] It requires that each general election take place on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year after the previous poll, starting with October 19, 2009.[3][4][5] During the legislative process, the Liberal-dominated Senate added an amendment listing conditions under which an election date could be modified, in order to avoid clashes with religious holidays, municipal elections, and referenda, but the House of Commons, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives, rejected the amendment and the Senate did not pursue it.[6]

When introducing the legislation, Harper stated that "fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage. They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody."[7] However, despite the amendments to the legislation, the prime minister is still free to request an election at any time. As the Bill C-16 amendments to the Canada Elections Act clearly state "Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion", the change effectively altered only the maximum duration of a parliament by ensuring that it ends no later than October of the fourth calendar year after its commencement, while leaving the possibility of an earlier end unaffected.[4]

This situation was illustrated by the dissolution of parliament at PM Harper's request on September 7, 2008. This led Democracy Watch to initiate proceedings in federal court against the Crown-in-Council, the Prime Minister of Canada, and the Governor General of Canada, challenging the decision to call an election prior to the fixed election date. Judge Michel M.J. Shore dismissed the matter, saying the applicants who launched the suit "do not demonstrate a proper understanding of the separation of powers," since "[t]he remedy for the applicant's contention is not for the Federal Court to decide, but rather one of the count of the ballot box".[8] The court effectively found that the fixed election dates were not binding on the prime minister or legally enforceable by the courts.

With elections being held in October 2008 (after an early election call) and May 2011 (after a vote of non-confidence on a contempt of Parliament motion),[9][10][11] the 41st parliament was the first to reach its maximum life under the revised law.
 

CanineCowboy

Active member
Feb 5, 2010
618
189
43
Wow, more bad press for #scheerislamophobic.

Sucks to be the only leader of a major party to not condemn Islamophobia. Especially after speaking at an event with the white nationalist anti-Muslimist Faith Goldy. And even more especially, when some of the organizers of that rally, who you publicly wouldn't condemn even when challenged, post on facebook their celebration of the attack in NZ.

That is why the Liberals will form the next government.
 

rlock

Well-known member
May 20, 2015
2,281
1,360
113
Cut and paste




The 39th Canadian Parliament passed Bill C-16, An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act, which received Royal Assent on May 3, 2007.[2] It requires that each general election take place on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year after the previous poll, starting with October 19, 2009.[3][4][5] During the legislative process, the Liberal-dominated Senate added an amendment listing conditions under which an election date could be modified, in order to avoid clashes with religious holidays, municipal elections, and referenda, but the House of Commons, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives, rejected the amendment and the Senate did not pursue it.[6]

When introducing the legislation, Harper stated that "fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage. They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody."[7] However, despite the amendments to the legislation, the prime minister is still free to request an election at any time. As the Bill C-16 amendments to the Canada Elections Act clearly state "Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion", the change effectively altered only the maximum duration of a parliament by ensuring that it ends no later than October of the fourth calendar year after its commencement, while leaving the possibility of an earlier end unaffected.[4]

This situation was illustrated by the dissolution of parliament at PM Harper's request on September 7, 2008. This led Democracy Watch to initiate proceedings in federal court against the Crown-in-Council, the Prime Minister of Canada, and the Governor General of Canada, challenging the decision to call an election prior to the fixed election date. Judge Michel M.J. Shore dismissed the matter, saying the applicants who launched the suit "do not demonstrate a proper understanding of the separation of powers," since "[t]he remedy for the applicant's contention is not for the Federal Court to decide, but rather one of the count of the ballot box".[8] The court effectively found that the fixed election dates were not binding on the prime minister or legally enforceable by the courts.

With elections being held in October 2008 (after an early election call) and May 2011 (after a vote of non-confidence on a contempt of Parliament motion),[9][10][11] the 41st parliament was the first to reach its maximum life under the revised law.


Fixed election dates - every 4 years - were a terrible idea, brought in to make Canada more like the USA (of course, because the Cons were in charge). It is incompatible with a parliamentary system. Fixed 4 years might work for the yanks, but they have a presidency separate from the Senate and the House of Reps, and even in the US, plus they use primaries to determine who is even running for each party.

In Canada, having governments call elections at opportune times was never the sure-fire thing that Harper portrayed it to be. First of all, there was always the upper limit of 5 years between elections. Second,there is no predicting what the public will do on election day, especially if they feel irritated at the idea they're being taken for granted or manipulated - many a government went into an election fully expecting a sure win, only to end up defeated at some level.

More importantly, the thing the fixed date does in the real-life is really stretch out how much time the public is bombarded with campaigning - the 2015 election was officially one of the longest campaigns ever, but on top of that there was double or triple the amount of time wasted on unofficial campaigning. All the stupid bullshit ads from supposedly "non-partisan" groups that spring up like mushrooms, all the strange behavior and policies, designed to provoke or promote certain sectors of the electorate, and so on. It is sickening just how much pointless political noise there is, because they are out there either fundraising or pandering - the sleazy followed by the stupid.



Canada used to have more immunity against this nonsense, because elections could happen at any moment so political parties would just hoard their cash reserves and couldn't plan out their "narratives" years in advance. More work got done, and the politicians needed to rack up a record of actual accomplishments, even in opposition. There was little talk of an "election year" - election campaigns were maybe 1-2 months, and even if you counted the unofficial pre-campaign campaign with it, maybe 3 or 4 months at most.

Fixed election dates instead switched Canada into a system of what people call "the permanent campaign". Spin all the time. Fundraising all the time. (Let's face it: BULLSHIT ALL THE TIME.) The parties that can afford the longest most drawn-out period of bulshitting are the ones who, of course, have the richest coffers, the most high-rolling donors. And for every official donation to a party, twice as much goes from the big donors to various obviously partisan "concerned citizen" groups that somehow have the same playbook as the parties they don't officially represent.

They can create a permanent machine of political spin, and that shadowy unelected machine tends to dominate over elected MP's and cabinet ministers. The MP's obey the narrative, instead of the narrative obeying the MP's. Power is held more and more by those who work in the machine; your elected MP's are reduced to being sock puppets who just mouth whatever they are told to, and make decisions based on what is the best angle for fundraising.

You'll see it again this time, when you see how 2019 goes. Already late last year they were talking "election year", and concerning themselves too much with "optics". It is already a given that - barring a natural or man-made disaster, you'll see nothing but campaigning - and all the phony posturing, hysteria, and outright disinformation that the public has already gotten sick of.

No, the election hasn't officially started, but thanks to the fixed date, the unofficial campaign is already on. In fact, it never seems to go away anymore.
 

rlock

Well-known member
May 20, 2015
2,281
1,360
113
Wow, more bad press for #scheerislamophobic.

Sucks to be the only leader of a major party to not condemn Islamophobia. Especially after speaking at an event with the white nationalist anti-Muslimist Faith Goldy. And even more especially, when some of the organizers of that rally, who you publicly wouldn't condemn even when challenged, post on facebook their celebration of the attack in NZ.

That is why the Liberals will form the next government.

Scheers spin doctors had to re-write his tweeting later. Didn't pretend sympathy quite hard enough the first time.

Doesn't change the fact that they spend all their time milking this sort of sentiment - encouraging supporters to think like these extremists, [with a nudge and a wink] using the same words and ideas, then throwing them under the bus when they actually act on it.

"We meant for you to get mad and support our election campaigns, not actually go fight the race war we keep telling you is going on."



But I don't think this will mean too much for the election in Canada. Maybe if it happened here (again), it would have an effect. But the public just sees most things overseas and shrugs, without making the connection.
 

masterblaster

Well-known member
May 19, 2004
1,993
1,227
113
Wow, more bad press for #scheerislamophobic.

Sucks to be the only leader of a major party to not condemn Islamophobia. Especially after speaking at an event with the white nationalist anti-Muslimist Faith Goldy. And even more especially, when some of the organizers of that rally, who you publicly wouldn't condemn even when challenged, post on facebook their celebration of the attack in NZ.

That is why the Liberals will form the next government.
Too bad about the innocent muslims in NZ, but it doesn’t compare to hijacking airliners and flying them into the World Trade Center.
 

rlock

Well-known member
May 20, 2015
2,281
1,360
113
Too bad about the innocent muslims in NZ, but it doesn’t compare to hijacking airliners and flying them into the World Trade Center.
Nor even blowing up a US government building on Oklahoma City.

McVeigh changed the world, and unfortunately that's the world we live in now. What he believed is now fully part of the mainstream discourse, given legitimacy by political leaders who want to milk it for their own gain.

And that definitely includes Canada's political scene.
 
Last edited:

masterblaster

Well-known member
May 19, 2004
1,993
1,227
113
Nor even blowing up a US government building on Oklahoma City.

McVeigh changed the world, and unfortunately that's the world we live in now. What he believed is now fully part of the mainstream discourse, given legitimacy by political leaders who want to milk it for their own gain.

And that definitely includes Canada's political scene.
So far as I know mcveigh wasn’t a Muslim, so what that has to do with anything I’m not sure.
 

rlock

Well-known member
May 20, 2015
2,281
1,360
113
Come on, don't play games - you know that was a counter-counter-example. McVeigh: white supremacist militia movement, same ideology as this guy in NZ. Basic "history of terrorism" stuff.
 

nightswhisper

Member
Feb 20, 2016
785
9
18
All terrorism stem from ignorance.

But I don't think it's wrong to be -phobic against some sort of organized movement where terrorism is prevalent.
 

CanineCowboy

Active member
Feb 5, 2010
618
189
43
All terrorism stem from ignorance.

But I don't think it's wrong to be -phobic against some sort of organized movement where terrorism is prevalent.
Phobic by definition is 'an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something'. So a phobia by definition isn't reasonable.

And your use of 'prevalent' means 'widespread', which misrepresents the participation in terrorism within the Muslim population.

So your implication that it is reasonable to be Islamophobic is wrong.
 

nightswhisper

Member
Feb 20, 2016
785
9
18
Phobic by definition is 'an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something'. So a phobia by definition isn't reasonable.

And your use of 'prevalent' means 'widespread', which misrepresents the participation in terrorism within the Muslim population.

So your implication that it is reasonable to be Islamophobic is wrong.
I didn't say -phobias were reasonable. I said it wasn't wrong to have a -phobia. It's a natural self-preservation instinct.

I also didn't say participation in terrorism was prevalent amonst Muslims. I said certain organized movements where terrorism is prevalent, as in organizations whose goals are terrorism oriented. Their religious affliation wasn't defined.

I suggest you visit Somalia, Iran, Yemen, and other poor and extremist countries before you defend them. I also suggest you stop trying to champion causes you don't understand or haven't witnessed.

This morning, the Iranian theocracy sentenced a women's rights lawyer to 38 years in prison plus corporeal punishment for defending women from wearing hijabs. You should mount a rescue. It'll keep you busy enough so you stop twisting words to fit your diatribe.
 

Lo-ki

Well-known member
Jul 18, 2011
4,022
2,654
113
Check your closet..:)
"This morning, the Iranian theocracy sentenced a women's rights lawyer to 38 years in prison plus corporeal punishment for defending women from wearing hijabs. You should mount a rescue. It'll keep you busy enough so you stop twisting words to fit your diatribe."

This is what he was defending....

A Woman Under Sharia: 8 Reasons Why Islamic Law Endangers Women

1. Under Sharia, Wives Can Be Beaten.
2. Under Sharia, Females Enjoy Fewer Rights than Males.
3. Under Sharia, Marriage and Sexual Intercourse with Pre-Pubescent Girls is Permissible.
4. Under Sharia, Wives do not Share the Same Divorce Rights as Their Husbands.
5. Under Sharia, Female Rulers are Frowned Upon.
6. Under Sharia, Wives Should be Subservient to their Husbands.
7. Under Sharia, Women are Deemed Lacking in Faith and Intelligence.
8. Under Sharia, Raping Female Captives is Permissible.
 

nightswhisper

Member
Feb 20, 2016
785
9
18
"This morning, the Iranian theocracy sentenced a women's rights lawyer to 38 years in prison plus corporeal punishment for defending women from wearing hijabs. You should mount a rescue. It'll keep you busy enough so you stop twisting words to fit your diatribe."

This is what he was defending....

A Woman Under Sharia: 8 Reasons Why Islamic Law Endangers Women

1. Under Sharia, Wives Can Be Beaten.
2. Under Sharia, Females Enjoy Fewer Rights than Males.
3. Under Sharia, Marriage and Sexual Intercourse with Pre-Pubescent Girls is Permissible.
4. Under Sharia, Wives do not Share the Same Divorce Rights as Their Husbands.
5. Under Sharia, Female Rulers are Frowned Upon.
6. Under Sharia, Wives Should be Subservient to their Husbands.
7. Under Sharia, Women are Deemed Lacking in Faith and Intelligence.
8. Under Sharia, Raping Female Captives is Permissible.
Thank you.
 

Forthedevil

Banned
Jan 18, 2019
55
0
0
"This morning, the Iranian theocracy sentenced a women's rights lawyer to 38 years in prison plus corporeal punishment for defending women from wearing hijabs. You should mount a rescue. It'll keep you busy enough so you stop twisting words to fit your diatribe."

This is what he was defending....

A Woman Under Sharia: 8 Reasons Why Islamic Law Endangers Women

1. Under Sharia, Wives Can Be Beaten.
2. Under Sharia, Females Enjoy Fewer Rights than Males.
3. Under Sharia, Marriage and Sexual Intercourse with Pre-Pubescent Girls is Permissible.
4. Under Sharia, Wives do not Share the Same Divorce Rights as Their Husbands.
5. Under Sharia, Female Rulers are Frowned Upon.
6. Under Sharia, Wives Should be Subservient to their Husbands.
7. Under Sharia, Women are Deemed Lacking in Faith and Intelligence.
8. Under Sharia, Raping Female Captives is Permissible.
I’m curious of the source of your quote. It seems a bit simplistic to me that Sharia law can be summed up in 8 rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vancouver Escorts