Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

It’s frustrating to see Canadians more and more often getting this riled up by politicians and news/social media without even knowing the full facts because of the strong message it sends to the powers that be which is that we can very easily be distracted and manipulated. That’s gonna cost us our country far quicker than anything else.

Prob because our government is becoming more and more opaque and won’t be honest with people / share information, actually. This government in particular has been the worst I can recall for that type of non-transparency. Harper’s gov was bad for it too. It’s a troubling trend.

So I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to assume the worst again, based on this federal governments track record.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Bringing up his name was actually completely unnecessary in the context of your response but I get it man, you clearly have an (unhealthy?) obsession with the guy. No judgement though, I was just poking fun

So let's see iggy_oi's train of thought here. Your initial statement:

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I mean seriously, I can’t comprehend what Singh would have to lose politically by spilling the beans publicly on this if the alleged actions were as serious as he claims

My responding (a completely legitimate answer) which named all party members.

Originally Posted by Firebot

Singh can literally go to jail for up to 14 years...

May, Singh, Poilievre, Blanchet cannot act on the information received from the unredacted report.

Likewise members of NSICOP also cannot divulge the information and would go to jail if they do.

The only one that can legitimately divulge the information is the governing party which is lead by Trudeau, or the RCMP if it's actually investigating and had the confidential info referred to them.

Your quite idiotic response back to this answer:

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Man for some reason I just had a sneaking suspicion when I started reading your post that Trudeau would get brought up.

Care to explain your reasons on how answering who can and cannot divulge classified information is partisan bias? My statements are factual. You have clear issues.

https://www.pm.gc.ca/en

Just in case you and the usuals forget who speaks on behalf of Canada. Just in case you forget who is meeting the other leaders in the G7 to represent Canada. Just in case you forget who got elected to represent Canada. Hint: It's not Poilievre. Have you actually sunk down to arguing who is the PM of Canada and who can do certain actions involving national security now...all to avoid conceding on something that could conflict with your insane bias?

The rest of your post you pretty much make completely unfounded assumptions about how law works and how it would work against leakers (despite Singh himself being a lawyer and despite the law being quite clear). A constitutional challenge in order to give immunity to MPs isn't going to occur quickly enough to get names divulged before an election. It's also ironic considering your position on the CSIS leak and how you argued CSIS should have detained Han Dong before the leak (even though they can't).

[PepsiFree]

“The usuals are trolling me with their insane blind bias! Apologists! Trudeau!!! 45!!!!!”

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

So let's see iggy_oi's train of thought here. Your initial statement:



My responding (a completely legitimate answer) which named all party members.



Your quite idiotic response back to this answer:

You misspelled cheeky.

Care to explain your reasons on how answering who can and cannot divulge classified information is partisan bias? My statements are factual. You have clear issues.

You’re the only one who keeps bringing up partisan bias. Now you’re trying to put words in my mouth(a shocking turn of events) and asking me to defend a statement I never made, while ironically continuing to avoid answering a simple yes or no question that I asked you.

https://www.pm.gc.ca/en

Just in case you and the usuals forget who speaks on behalf of Canada. Just in case you forget who is meeting the other leaders in the G7 to represent Canada. Just in case you forget who got elected to represent Canada. Hint: It's not Poilievre. Have you actually sunk down to arguing who is the PM of Canada and who can do certain actions involving national security now...all to avoid conceding on something that could conflict with your insane bias?

I’m starting to get the impression I may have struck a nerve with my comment about being unsure on whether you’re just delusional or paid to come up with all this mostly avoidant/unfounded rhetoric. So if you felt I wasn’t giving you enough credit and it helps make you feel better I just want to point that I’m starting to warm up to the idea that you may be both.

The rest of your post you pretty much make completely unfounded assumptions about how law works and how it would work against leakers (despite Singh himself being a lawyer and despite the law being quite clear). A constitutional challenge in order to give immunity to MPs isn't going to occur quickly enough to get names divulged before an election. It's also ironic considering your position on the CSIS leak and how you argued CSIS should have detained Han Dong before the leak (even though they can't).

Blah blah blah…avoid question…blah blah…twist words…blah blah…legal opinion even though I’m not a lawyer…blah blah blah…

Are you going to answer my very simple and straightforward question that I asked to you 3 posts ago or do you not get paid for that?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Prob because our government is becoming more and more opaque and won’t be honest with people / share information, actually. This government in particular has been the worst I can recall for that type of non-transparency. Harper’s gov was bad for it too. It’s a troubling trend.

How do you reconcile that theory with the fact that Canadians arguably have more access to information than they have ever had at any other point in history?

Are you sure people’s over the top alarmism is not more likely a result of social media and profit seeking news networks trying to make money while intentionally keeping people in a constant state of anger fuelled distraction that in many cases is not based on having been provided with unbiased fact-checking or complete information?

So I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to assume the worst again, based on this federal governments track record.

So to be clear, you don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to be(as you did) calling for charges and jail time without being presented with actual evidence to justify such actions? I’m not going to sugar coat that I find that position to be a little more than concerning, I’m hoping that you’ll take a moment to reflect on your assessment or provide clarification if I’ve misinterpreted what you’ve wrote.

[Ped]

Look there's no question that government led by PP would be absolutely terrifying - but there's no denying that Trudeau government has been terrible, especially when it comes to voting to not release information that makes them look bad, and covering up all sorts of ethics stuff. Both are allowed to be true. Not everything has to be partisan.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Ped

Look there's no question that government led by PP would be absolutely terrifying - but there's no denying that Trudeau government has been terrible, especially when it comes to voting to not release information that makes them look bad, and covering up all sorts of ethics stuff. Both are allowed to be true. Not everything has to be partisan.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting their record is anything to write home about despite one poster’s desperate attempts to convince people of the opposite.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Are you going to answer my very simple and straightforward question that I asked to you 3 posts ago or do you not get paid for that?

This one? Thought I did by saying your hypotheticals and assumptions don't matter?

Imagine hypothetically that there were very serious acts of treason committed(not just something that is treason by technicality) as he claims by one or a number of MPs and that he did give some details, do you really think he’s going to end up in jail? Yes or no?

Yes. The law states as such. That's why you don't have the names yet despite 10 MPs and senators of multiple parties including Liberal and Conservative MPs having seen the CSIS intel to create the report that states witting participants. That's why you don't have the names despite Trudeau, our PM, having the information and the latest report for over 3 months. Actually sorry, that last part is not true as he can totally reveal the names as PM similar to how he revealed the Indian assassination accusation. Not all are equal.

https://nsicop-cpsnr.ca/committee-me...comite-en.html

Much like how you aren't cheering for the CSIS leaker. In fact some posters here were more angry about the CSIS leak and CSIS's inactions than the foreign interference itself (hmm I wonder who those could be). Remember that Trudeau's government has requested an investigation into finding the CSIS leaker in order to prosecute him. I would most certainly expect the same from the Trudeau government if a leak of the names occurred to the press regardless of the source. This is a party that kicked out two of their MPs in Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpot for daring to speak out.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9560389/c...cy-commentary/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lib...ucus-1.5080880

Trudeau said it's wrong for any politician to secretly record a conversation, but called it "unconscionable" that an attorney general would tape a conversation with the country's top civil servant — a reference to Wilson-Raybould's release last week of a recording of a phone conversation she had with Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick in December.

Trudeau has since called in question the NSICOP report which was written by several of his own MPs, and Melanie Joly claims Singh is lying and there are no traitors in the Liberal caucus.

“We made clear some concerns we had with the way that NSICOP did, drew conclusions,” he said on Saturday. “I think that is an important part of the process.”

When I hear these loaded words, I feel that it's really hurting our democracy,” she said. “Because fundamentally, foreign interference is a real thing. It has been happening for years now. It’s more of an issue because of disinformation, misinformation online, but all democracies in the world are facing this.”

Considering that you likely voted for the NDP, do you think Singh is lying and just trying to score political points (which you stated he is) when he is saying the word traitors? Do you think he is wrong in saying that Han Dong shouldn't be allowed back in the Liberal caucus? Would you cheer for him if he took one for the team? I do believe him for the record and that it could include a Conservative MP at least semi-wittingly involved.

[iggy_oi]

It’s incredible how you can’t help but constantly bring parties(and usually Trudeau too) into discussions where it’s not necessary when you constantly complain about people being partisan.

“Yes I think Singh would go to jail, now let me bring up Trudeau, and then later I’ll try to make myself look non-partisan by saying conservatives might be bad too” - Firebot

To answer one of your numerous questions though, yes I would absolutely cheer on a politician who takes one for the team to help the country. How you could even feel the need to ask that is beyond me.

[Firebot]

I gave you an answer on who can and cannot divulge confidential info, and you couldn't accept it simply because it mentions the T word even when it was a neutral factual answer. Just say you fear his name or something it will be less cringy. It's ok.

You want a simple answer devoid of any elaboration: Yes. Singh likely goes to jail.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

I gave you an answer on who can and cannot divulge confidential info, and you couldn't accept it simply because it mentions the T word even when it was a neutral factual answer.

Lol. Okey dokey Firebot. Not sure where I said I don’t accept your answer but I guess making things up is your schtick at this point so I’ll just enjoy the free entertainment.

Just say you fear his name or something it will be less cringy. It's ok.

I think you’d benefit from looking up the definition of the word cringe. Chef’s kiss on the combo of ironies in that statement though. I’d bet a lot of people would pay to read more of this so in a roundabout way you are worth the money after all.

You want a simple answer devoid of any elaboration: Yes. Singh likely goes to jail.

I don’t know why you’re taking such issue with me asking for an answer to a simple question, I never told you that you couldn’t elaborate on your answer(see above about you making things up).

I disagree that Singh would ever serve a jail sentence if he were to expose serious acts of treason that significantly compromised our sovereignty. Just imagine it actually playing out the way you’re predicting. Canadians across the country would lose their #### and all MPs would be in a position where they would have to choose between either a)to support keeping treason a secret by going along with it quietly or b)show Canadians that they stand up for them first and foremost by supporting Singh’s actions and amending the flawed legislation to absolve him of wrongdoing

Do I see him doing it? No. Would I like to see him or anyone else in a position to do so do it if there are major treasonous acts that were unequivocally exposed in the report? Absolutely. Maybe not everybody would like to see that which I suppose is fair enough, but I tend to be a bit of a cage rattler at times and in that circumstance I’d say go for it. IMO we need more real leaders and less chicken ####s in positions of power in this country so it’d be refreshing to see.

[Azure]

lol, now May is saying there are MPs that helped foreign governments to the detriment of Canada and Canadians.

I guess she never read the report the first time because tldr?

What a joke.

[2Stonedbirds]

She thought she read the report, while it was actually the drink menu at White Spot.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

She thought she read the report, while it was actually the drink menu at White Spot.

"look. I see nothing here that should should worry Canadians. They don't even list doubles, and even the IPA is only 6.3%"

[Doctorfever]

That made me laugh 2 stone and SF.