Canadian Politics Redux

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

yeah, I'm confident all political parties will be self serving in that regard if they believe it will succeed in retaining power. And I'm also confident all political parties cry foul when the other does it. 

I would imagine there'd naturally be an increase in OIC's when the governing party is in the minority. There are ways of overturning those, so those don't concern me as much. Trump's EO's did concern me mainly because they were 99% asshole moves. 

They all do it so it’s no big deal it was done during a crisis? That’s when we MOST need a functioning democracy, not rule by edict with no oversight. But that’s the currently preferred method of governance for Canada’s Liberals.

Many people saw Trudeau’s excessive OICs as asshole moves, like his gun bans which have yet to be legislated and debated. He doubled Harper’s OICs which was who the article I read months ago compared Trudeau to. And lets not forget the stalemate the Liberals forced in Parliament prior to shuttering through prorogation. Why? Because the Liberals wouldn’t respect the will of the House and rulings against them by the Speaker. Yeah, business as usual in Canadian politics.

do we respect the courts or not?

OTTAWA — A federal judge has dismissed a legal challenge of Justin Trudeau’s move to prorogue Parliament, concluding the prime minister did not exceed the bounds of his authority.

You conveniently skip the part where the case was dismissed because the legislation around prorogation is incredibly poorly written and essentially allows for the closing of Parliament so that the Prime Minister can take a 6 month shit.

The courts are also constantly turning repeat offenders back into the streets to reoffend, is that acceptable? Legal isn’t always right, is it?

 I can only imagine the heads exploding here if a Conservative government had acted the same under identical circumstances, seriously.

HughFreakingDillon

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

yeah, I'm confident all political parties will be self serving in that regard if they believe it will succeed in retaining power. And I'm also confident all political parties cry foul when the other does it. 

I would imagine there'd naturally be an increase in OIC's when the governing party is in the minority. There are ways of overturning those, so those don't concern me as much. Trump's EO's did concern me mainly because they were 99% asshole moves. 

They all do it so it’s no big deal it was done during a crisis? That’s when we MOST need a functioning democracy, not rule by edict with no oversight. But that’s the currently preferred method of governance for Canada’s Liberals.

Many people saw Trudeau’s excessive OICs as asshole moves, like his gun bans which have yet to be legislated and debated. He doubled Harper’s OICs which was who the article I read months ago compared Trudeau to. And lets not forget the stalemate the Liberals forced in Parliament prior to shuttering through prorogation. Why? Because the Liberals wouldn’t respect the will of the House and rulings against them by the Speaker. Yeah, business as usual in Canadian politics.

do we respect the courts or not?

OTTAWA — A federal judge has dismissed a legal challenge of Justin Trudeau’s move to prorogue Parliament, concluding the prime minister did not exceed the bounds of his authority.

You conveniently skip the part where the case was dismissed because the legislation around prorogation is incredibly poorly written and essentially allows for the closing of Parliament so that the Prime Minister can take a 6 month shit.

The courts are also constantly turning repeat offenders back into the streets to reoffend, is that acceptable? Legal isn’t always right, is it?

 I can only imagine the heads exploding here if a Conservative government had acted the same under identical circumstances, seriously.

In a ruling made public late Thursday, Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton said the courts do have a role to play in reviewing the advice, and it is important that it be exercised to maintain public confidence in the institutions of government.

However, he concluded the applicants failed to demonstrate that Trudeau exceeded limits established by the written Constitution, unwritten constitutional principles or any other legal limits.

Crampton wrote in his ruling that he understood why MacKinnon and Lavranos might find the circumstances surrounding Trudeau’s decision to seek prorogation to be troubling.

He said this is particularly so in a broader context in which the executive branch has been increasingly drawing functions away from the legislative branch through concentration of power in the cabinet and the Prime Minister’s Office.

However, the applicants bore the burden of demonstrating that the prime minister’s decision, viewed in its entirety, exceeded the scope of his authority, Crampton wrote.

“They failed to meet that burden.”

Of course court decisions aren't always right, for the reason you pointed out. But I read the judgment above, and I agree with it. Am I legal or constitutional scholar? HAHA, nope. But I agree with it. 

Maybe some heads would explode. Not mine. 

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

yeah, I'm confident all political parties will be self serving in that regard if they believe it will succeed in retaining power. And I'm also confident all political parties cry foul when the other does it. 

I would imagine there'd naturally be an increase in OIC's when the governing party is in the minority. There are ways of overturning those, so those don't concern me as much. Trump's EO's did concern me mainly because they were 99% asshole moves. 

They all do it so it’s no big deal it was done during a crisis? That’s when we MOST need a functioning democracy, not rule by edict with no oversight. But that’s the currently preferred method of governance for Canada’s Liberals.

Many people saw Trudeau’s excessive OICs as asshole moves, like his gun bans which have yet to be legislated and debated. He doubled Harper’s OICs which was who the article I read months ago compared Trudeau to. And lets not forget the stalemate the Liberals forced in Parliament prior to shuttering through prorogation. Why? Because the Liberals wouldn’t respect the will of the House and rulings against them by the Speaker. Yeah, business as usual in Canadian politics.

do we respect the courts or not?

OTTAWA — A federal judge has dismissed a legal challenge of Justin Trudeau’s move to prorogue Parliament, concluding the prime minister did not exceed the bounds of his authority.

You conveniently skip the part where the case was dismissed because the legislation around prorogation is incredibly poorly written and essentially allows for the closing of Parliament so that the Prime Minister can take a 6 month shit.

The courts are also constantly turning repeat offenders back into the streets to reoffend, is that acceptable? Legal isn’t always right, is it?

 I can only imagine the heads exploding here if a Conservative government had acted the same under identical circumstances, seriously.

In a ruling made public late Thursday, Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton said the courts do have a role to play in reviewing the advice, and it is important that it be exercised to maintain public confidence in the institutions of government.

However, he concluded the applicants failed to demonstrate that Trudeau exceeded limits established by the written Constitution, unwritten constitutional principles or any other legal limits.

Crampton wrote in his ruling that he understood why MacKinnon and Lavranos might find the circumstances surrounding Trudeau’s decision to seek prorogation to be troubling.

He said this is particularly so in a broader context in which the executive branch has been increasingly drawing functions away from the legislative branch through concentration of power in the cabinet and the Prime Minister’s Office.

However, the applicants bore the burden of demonstrating that the prime minister’s decision, viewed in its entirety, exceeded the scope of his authority, Crampton wrote.

“They failed to meet that burden.”

Of course court decisions aren't always right, for the reason you pointed out. But I read the judgment above, and I agree with it. Am I legal or constitutional scholar? HAHA, nope. But I agree with it. 

Maybe some heads would explode. Not mine. 

Fine, you’re clearly going to excuse basically anything the Liberals do in order to give the finger to Conservatives, that’s the only conclusion I can draw after all this time.

 Legally Trudeau was covered. As a leader and our fucking Prime Minister it was a dereliction of duty. At least he got his farewell tour in before he had to give up the jet, the ecowarrior that he claims to be. Doing what he did certainly helped Trump fuck us over.

Wasn’t it nice for Carney to call the election the last day before Parliament was due to resume? Why not make an attempt at governing and face the House or why not call the election immediately after he fake-signed his bribe into law? He’s a coward on top of being a liar.

And based on the crickets clearly no one’s worried about Beijing (yet again) interfering in our elections, I can only assume because it fucks the Conservatives, since most here just vote to cockblock apparently.

HughFreakingDillon

well, I guess we're at one of those impasses again where we can't have a constructive discussion without you constantly cursing me out and making wild assumptions based on my lack of freaking out. 

again, I don't know enough about the election interference to comment. Every time someone doesn't respond to a specific post of yours you go apeshit. For me it's mostly cuz I don't like to speak about something I know nothing about. Yes, it's important if it's true. But I haven't researched it yet. And no one is obligated to respond to anything on this forum, fwiw. 

I don't get this "cock block" shit. I mean, in simpler times I weighed my options by all 4 parties. I didn't mean my vote was to "block" a PP vote. I meant I couldn't vote for him under any circumstances. But again, not sure why the intent behind a vote matters. My vote and my reasoning are my right. You're acting like you have the moral high ground on "why" some vote. I mean, you said a few days ago you couldn't vote for Carney. So isn't that a vote against the liberals?  Or is it a vote for PP in your case? Makes zero difference to me, as that is your prerogative, and ultimately means the same damn thing. 

Parksy

HughFreakingDillon said:

How insanely out of touch do you have to be to run an ad claiming “if you work hard you’ll be able to buy a nice home in a quiet neighborhood”. What an absolute slap in the face to low income households. Whoever approved that ad needs to lose their job. 

Disclaimer... yes they all suck.  That said...  every time I see PP's commercials.....  it's more bull shit promises from a populist con man. 

To a certain degree.. and I mean a very fine, thin layered degree... I want PP to win. 

And then I want to be here one year later to say that "would ya look at that! Nothing changed... crime still exists, housing costs are still high, homelessness is still a thing, etc."   The problem I had with O'Toole is that he sung a very familiar tune, just without the pizzazz and dooshiness of PP.  But while it all sounded amazing sunshine and rainbows... never did I see an actual plan as to how this miracle was going to happen.  I'm seeing the same thing from PP. 

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

well, I guess we're at one of those impasses again where we can't have a constructive discussion without you constantly cursing me out and making wild assumptions based on my lack of freaking out. 

again, I don't know enough about the election interference to comment. Every time someone doesn't respond to a specific post of yours you go apeshit. For me it's mostly cuz I don't like to speak about something I know nothing about. Yes, it's important if it's true. But I haven't researched it yet. And no one is obligated to respond to anything on this forum, fwiw. 

I don't get this "cock block" shit. I mean, in simpler times I weighed my options by all 4 parties. I didn't mean my vote was to "block" a PP vote. I meant I couldn't vote for him under any circumstances. But again, not sure why the intent behind a vote matters. My vote and my reasoning are my right. You're acting like you have the moral high ground on "why" some vote. I mean, you said a few days ago you couldn't vote for Carney. So isn't that a vote against the liberals?  Or is it a vote for PP in your case? Makes zero difference to me, as that is your prerogative, and ultimately means the same damn thing. 

I can’t vote for Carney, which doesn’t automatically mean that I’m voting against him. I don’t understand why that concept is difficult to grasp.

For me it’s quite simple: if you’re voting against a party, then you’re cockblocking someone else’s vote. Again, when this is your tactic, one needs to be more aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences. We all need to be on guard against that but if you’re deciding your vote based on being against something then I feel it incurs responsibility for one’s choice.

 I can only assume you and PJ Soul have the same visceral reaction to Carney’s claims that he’s going to fix everything that’s wrong with the country (after he spent 5 years helping break the country, but we aren’t talking about that for the obvious reason). What about the NDP ads?

 I honestly think I could claim that the sky is blue and that would be disputed. Because I have said that I lean to the right of the political spectrum.

Lerxst1992

HughFreakingDillon said:

well, I guess we're at one of those impasses again where we can't have a constructive discussion without you constantly cursing me out and making wild assumptions based on my lack of freaking out. 

again, I don't know enough about the election interference to comment. Every time someone doesn't respond to a specific post of yours you go apeshit. For me it's mostly cuz I don't like to speak about something I know nothing about. Yes, it's important if it's true. But I haven't researched it yet. And no one is obligated to respond to anything on this forum, fwiw. 

I don't get this "cock block" shit. I mean, in simpler times I weighed my options by all 4 parties. I didn't mean my vote was to "block" a PP vote. I meant I couldn't vote for him under any circumstances. But again, not sure why the intent behind a vote matters. My vote and my reasoning are my right. You're acting like you have the moral high ground on "why" some vote. I mean, you said a few days ago you couldn't vote for Carney. So isn't that a vote against the liberals?  Or is it a vote for PP in your case? Makes zero difference to me, as that is your prerogative, and ultimately means the same damn thing. 

Nah, couldn’t be.

erebus

So what is up with PP and the press.

no access to campaign planes or buses
limited to 4 questions only, no follow ups
could not ask attendees at his rallies questions
selective questions from “press” . I have seen some very softball and leading questions. PP: oh, that is an excellent question, wink wink

staffers pushing reporters and taking away mic’s, threatening taking away questions

where have I seen this playbook before?

between this and refusing a security clearance, he is not overly transparent 

Parksy

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

well, I guess we're at one of those impasses again where we can't have a constructive discussion without you constantly cursing me out and making wild assumptions based on my lack of freaking out. 

again, I don't know enough about the election interference to comment. Every time someone doesn't respond to a specific post of yours you go apeshit. For me it's mostly cuz I don't like to speak about something I know nothing about. Yes, it's important if it's true. But I haven't researched it yet. And no one is obligated to respond to anything on this forum, fwiw. 

I don't get this "cock block" shit. I mean, in simpler times I weighed my options by all 4 parties. I didn't mean my vote was to "block" a PP vote. I meant I couldn't vote for him under any circumstances. But again, not sure why the intent behind a vote matters. My vote and my reasoning are my right. You're acting like you have the moral high ground on "why" some vote. I mean, you said a few days ago you couldn't vote for Carney. So isn't that a vote against the liberals?  Or is it a vote for PP in your case? Makes zero difference to me, as that is your prerogative, and ultimately means the same damn thing. 

I can’t vote for Carney, which doesn’t automatically mean that I’m voting against him. I don’t understand why that concept is difficult to grasp.

For me it’s quite simple: if you’re voting against a party, then you’re cockblocking someone else’s vote. Again, when this is your tactic, one needs to be more aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences. We all need to be on guard against that but if you’re deciding your vote based on being against something then I feel it incurs responsibility for one’s choice.

 I can only assume you and PJ Soul have the same visceral reaction to Carney’s claims that he’s going to fix everything that’s wrong with the country (after he spent 5 years helping break the country, but we aren’t talking about that for the obvious reason). What about the NDP ads?

 I honestly think I could claim that the sky is blue and that would be disputed. Because I have said that I lean to the right of the political spectrum.

Interestingly, "cockblocking" someone else's vote is what I've done essentially the last few elections lol. 

With respect.. as to your warning that I 'need' to be on guard against that... my only reply is...  no, no I don't.  I also don't 'need' to be aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences. 

I don't particularly think I'm personally to blame for having to choose between the lesser of two or three evils. I blame those who in power who are irresponsible, greedy dooshes. 

DarthMaeglin

Parksy said:

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

well, I guess we're at one of those impasses again where we can't have a constructive discussion without you constantly cursing me out and making wild assumptions based on my lack of freaking out. 

again, I don't know enough about the election interference to comment. Every time someone doesn't respond to a specific post of yours you go apeshit. For me it's mostly cuz I don't like to speak about something I know nothing about. Yes, it's important if it's true. But I haven't researched it yet. And no one is obligated to respond to anything on this forum, fwiw. 

I don't get this "cock block" shit. I mean, in simpler times I weighed my options by all 4 parties. I didn't mean my vote was to "block" a PP vote. I meant I couldn't vote for him under any circumstances. But again, not sure why the intent behind a vote matters. My vote and my reasoning are my right. You're acting like you have the moral high ground on "why" some vote. I mean, you said a few days ago you couldn't vote for Carney. So isn't that a vote against the liberals?  Or is it a vote for PP in your case? Makes zero difference to me, as that is your prerogative, and ultimately means the same damn thing. 

I can’t vote for Carney, which doesn’t automatically mean that I’m voting against him. I don’t understand why that concept is difficult to grasp.

For me it’s quite simple: if you’re voting against a party, then you’re cockblocking someone else’s vote. Again, when this is your tactic, one needs to be more aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences. We all need to be on guard against that but if you’re deciding your vote based on being against something then I feel it incurs responsibility for one’s choice.

 I can only assume you and PJ Soul have the same visceral reaction to Carney’s claims that he’s going to fix everything that’s wrong with the country (after he spent 5 years helping break the country, but we aren’t talking about that for the obvious reason). What about the NDP ads?

 I honestly think I could claim that the sky is blue and that would be disputed. Because I have said that I lean to the right of the political spectrum.

Interestingly, "cockblocking" someone else's vote is what I've done essentially the last few elections lol. 

With respect.. as to your warning that I 'need' to be on guard against that... my only reply is...  no, no I don't.  I also don't 'need' to be aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences. 

I don't particularly think I'm personally to blame for having to choose between the lesser of two or three evils. I blame those who in power who are irresponsible, greedy dooshes. 

In my books choosing not to vote is a perfectly acceptable option, something I’ve done in several elections because I couldn’t vote for any of the candidates in good conscience. Clearly I don’t subscribe to the belief that not voting denies one the right to criticize their government.

As I said, it’s not just the cockblocking voters that need to be mindful of the Law of Unintended Consequences, everyone should do their best to analyze all the parties and their claims.

Parksy

DarthMaeglin said:

Parksy said:

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

well, I guess we're at one of those impasses again where we can't have a constructive discussion without you constantly cursing me out and making wild assumptions based on my lack of freaking out. 

again, I don't know enough about the election interference to comment. Every time someone doesn't respond to a specific post of yours you go apeshit. For me it's mostly cuz I don't like to speak about something I know nothing about. Yes, it's important if it's true. But I haven't researched it yet. And no one is obligated to respond to anything on this forum, fwiw. 

I don't get this "cock block" shit. I mean, in simpler times I weighed my options by all 4 parties. I didn't mean my vote was to "block" a PP vote. I meant I couldn't vote for him under any circumstances. But again, not sure why the intent behind a vote matters. My vote and my reasoning are my right. You're acting like you have the moral high ground on "why" some vote. I mean, you said a few days ago you couldn't vote for Carney. So isn't that a vote against the liberals?  Or is it a vote for PP in your case? Makes zero difference to me, as that is your prerogative, and ultimately means the same damn thing. 

I can’t vote for Carney, which doesn’t automatically mean that I’m voting against him. I don’t understand why that concept is difficult to grasp.

For me it’s quite simple: if you’re voting against a party, then you’re cockblocking someone else’s vote. Again, when this is your tactic, one needs to be more aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences. We all need to be on guard against that but if you’re deciding your vote based on being against something then I feel it incurs responsibility for one’s choice.

 I can only assume you and PJ Soul have the same visceral reaction to Carney’s claims that he’s going to fix everything that’s wrong with the country (after he spent 5 years helping break the country, but we aren’t talking about that for the obvious reason). What about the NDP ads?

 I honestly think I could claim that the sky is blue and that would be disputed. Because I have said that I lean to the right of the political spectrum.

Interestingly, "cockblocking" someone else's vote is what I've done essentially the last few elections lol. 

With respect.. as to your warning that I 'need' to be on guard against that... my only reply is...  no, no I don't.  I also don't 'need' to be aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences. 

I don't particularly think I'm personally to blame for having to choose between the lesser of two or three evils. I blame those who in power who are irresponsible, greedy dooshes. 

In my books choosing not to vote is a perfectly acceptable option, something I’ve done in several elections because I couldn’t vote for any of the candidates in good conscience. Clearly I don’t subscribe to the belief that not voting denies one the right to criticize their government.

As I said, it’s not just the cockblocking voters that need to be mindful of the Law of Unintended Consequences, everyone should do their best to analyze all the parties and their claims.

I do understand what you're getting at... but at the same time...  My view is that a vote 'against' someone can be just as good as a vote 'for' someone.  Case in point... Trump.  

If I was speaking to a hundred people who had various reasons not to like Harris or Clinton....  those people's votes simply to prevent Trump from getting power is a 100% win. 

That said... and I personally have no gripe with anyone not voting...  but I would be super curious about the rationale as to why a majority of people in Canada and US simply don't vote. 

We (and the media) spend a lot of time dissecting parties and voters, etc. but I would be interested if some polling and interviewing was done with folks who don't vote. Again I don't have any strong opinions about it... I'm just real curious why that's a thing. 

DarthMaeglin

Parksy said:

DarthMaeglin said:

Parksy said:

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

well, I guess we're at one of those impasses again where we can't have a constructive discussion without you constantly cursing me out and making wild assumptions based on my lack of freaking out. 

again, I don't know enough about the election interference to comment. Every time someone doesn't respond to a specific post of yours you go apeshit. For me it's mostly cuz I don't like to speak about something I know nothing about. Yes, it's important if it's true. But I haven't researched it yet. And no one is obligated to respond to anything on this forum, fwiw. 

I don't get this "cock block" shit. I mean, in simpler times I weighed my options by all 4 parties. I didn't mean my vote was to "block" a PP vote. I meant I couldn't vote for him under any circumstances. But again, not sure why the intent behind a vote matters. My vote and my reasoning are my right. You're acting like you have the moral high ground on "why" some vote. I mean, you said a few days ago you couldn't vote for Carney. So isn't that a vote against the liberals?  Or is it a vote for PP in your case? Makes zero difference to me, as that is your prerogative, and ultimately means the same damn thing. 

I can’t vote for Carney, which doesn’t automatically mean that I’m voting against him. I don’t understand why that concept is difficult to grasp.

For me it’s quite simple: if you’re voting against a party, then you’re cockblocking someone else’s vote. Again, when this is your tactic, one needs to be more aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences. We all need to be on guard against that but if you’re deciding your vote based on being against something then I feel it incurs responsibility for one’s choice.

 I can only assume you and PJ Soul have the same visceral reaction to Carney’s claims that he’s going to fix everything that’s wrong with the country (after he spent 5 years helping break the country, but we aren’t talking about that for the obvious reason). What about the NDP ads?

 I honestly think I could claim that the sky is blue and that would be disputed. Because I have said that I lean to the right of the political spectrum.

Interestingly, "cockblocking" someone else's vote is what I've done essentially the last few elections lol. 

With respect.. as to your warning that I 'need' to be on guard against that... my only reply is...  no, no I don't.  I also don't 'need' to be aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences. 

I don't particularly think I'm personally to blame for having to choose between the lesser of two or three evils. I blame those who in power who are irresponsible, greedy dooshes. 

In my books choosing not to vote is a perfectly acceptable option, something I’ve done in several elections because I couldn’t vote for any of the candidates in good conscience. Clearly I don’t subscribe to the belief that not voting denies one the right to criticize their government.

As I said, it’s not just the cockblocking voters that need to be mindful of the Law of Unintended Consequences, everyone should do their best to analyze all the parties and their claims.

I do understand what you're getting at... but at the same time...  My view is that a vote 'against' someone can be just as good as a vote 'for' someone.  Case in point... Trump.  

If I was speaking to a hundred people who had various reasons not to like Harris or Clinton....  those people's votes simply to prevent Trump from getting power is a 100% win. 

That said... and I personally have no gripe with anyone not voting...  but I would be super curious about the rationale as to why a majority of people in Canada and US simply don't vote. 

We (and the media) spend a lot of time dissecting parties and voters, etc. but I would be interested if some polling and interviewing was done with folks who don't vote. Again I don't have any strong opinions about it... I'm just real curious why that's a thing. 

The Trump elections are the perfect scenario where I wouldn’t have cast a vote for the President. I feel forced to allow that the Democratic candidates aren’t as bad as Trump on the surface but neither did I feel any confidence in all three of them. As I type this I honestly wonder if I could ever vote for any of the American Presidential candidates since Bush Sr..

As far as why most don’t vote I tend to agree with the theory that many don’t feel their vote actually matters, coupled with a general apathy about politics and distraction from busy lives (which there’s nothing wrong with obviously).

DE4173

I've been enjoying your discussions regarding Canadian politics. Thank you for your time in posting and responding. I know zero about the subject and it's been nice to read accounts of people that live it daily.

✌️

DarthMaeglin

I realize I’m in the minority here but the only way this tactic isn’t biased and unfair is if they targeted all the party leaders. I think this is fucking childish but I’m quite sure it will give some comfort and satisfaction to most here.

https://apple.news/AWCJ0O8zJQ2uuTGMTr5q2ng

dignin

DarthMaeglin said:

I realize I’m in the minority here but the only way this tactic isn’t biased and unfair is if they targeted all the party leaders. I think this is fucking childish but I’m quite sure it will give some comfort and satisfaction to most here.

https://apple.news/AWCJ0O8zJQ2uuTGMTr5q2ng

That's hilarious. 

Fuck PP

Parksy

DarthMaeglin said:

I realize I’m in the minority here but the only way this tactic isn’t biased and unfair is if they targeted all the party leaders. I think this is fucking childish but I’m quite sure it will give some comfort and satisfaction to most here.

https://apple.news/AWCJ0O8zJQ2uuTGMTr5q2ng

unfortunately the article is behind a paywall for me. 

DarthMaeglin

Parksy said:

DarthMaeglin said:

I realize I’m in the minority here but the only way this tactic isn’t biased and unfair is if they targeted all the party leaders. I think this is fucking childish but I’m quite sure it will give some comfort and satisfaction to most here.

https://apple.news/AWCJ0O8zJQ2uuTGMTr5q2ng

unfortunately the article is behind a paywall for me. 

Apologies, it’s a Globe & Mail article about how the Longest Ballot Protest has specifically targeted Poilievre’s riding, which adds a slant to their cause. If they’re going to target one party leader then they should have targeted all the party leaders in my opinion.

 Or they could have done as they seem to in the past and targeted a random riding (if they can show that they blindfolded someone, spun them around four times then the person threw a dart at a map of the nation’s ridings, or something similar, and they just happened to land on Poilievre’s riding then I’ll shut up about this).

erebus

I have seen these people before,  but cannot remember which election they bombarded last.

Smart on their part to go after one of the biggest candidates thus drawing maximum exposure to their cause.

oftenreading

DarthMaeglin

oftenreading said:

I’m glad they wanted to target Carney, but clearly they fell victim to his delaying in parachuting into the Nepean riding. Carney and the Liberals are quite adept at manipulation, especially in a crisis.