Do you want to try and do the same thing? Your post that I quoted where I joked about how you always go over the top had almost nothing to do with Dong but you decided to get on your soapbox over what literally comes down to a difference of opinion between whether or not the CPC stood to gain something politically from the Michaels getting released.
Quote:
I mean I even bolded it for you. You couldn't ascertain how on earth the CPC could benefit from the Michaels being released early, and you still can't acknowledge when the CSIS summary has Han Dong giving the exact same conclusion I did.
So basically you’re saying my opinion is wrong because a liberal MP disagrees with me? Is the chatgpt server down today or are you just feeling under the weather? I maintain my position that I think it’s ridiculous for anyone to think the Michaels being released would have benefited the CPC more than the liberals politically.
Quote:
The summary states that Dong strongly insinuated that the release of the Michaels early would help the CPC, but even as the summary states this, you are going about 'well it still doesn't say to actually delay the Michaels release'.
Spin spin spin.
So you’re agreeing with me that it doesn’t say what you’re saying it does? Well that’s progress I guess.
Quote:
You already don't acknowledge CSIS's words
False
Quote:
as you continuously discredit them,
False (assuming you don’t work for CSIS )
Quote:
and even the summary of the source, which confirms the leaker source as legitimate, is not enough for you.
You really don’t know the meaning of hard evidence, do you? I’m sorry if my not being as quick as you are to jump to conclusions based on circumstantial evidence offends you. You must really have an axe to grind with the court system.
Quote:
If you want to hinge all hope on the transcript translations that's your hill to die on.
I’ll happily die on the hill of relying on facts rather than hypotheticals.
Quote:
There's a reason why Han Dong stated he doesn't recall what he said in a conversation, because he knows the transcripts exist, and his whole defense hinges on a mistranslation (of a transcript which is still confidential at this time but of which we have a summary no less).
Are you his lawyer or something? Where are you getting your inside scoop? He’s already stated that he always advocated for their release so I’m assuming(perhaps foolishly) that you must have something to substantiate your claims that’s he’s lied about that and aren’t just bull####ting here.
Quote:
You know what else was revealed in Han Dong's testimony and cross examination that I did not mention?
That conversation occurred in Feb 2021. What happened within a month after that conversation?
How convenient! Of course you will be right here to state this court date release is a pure coincidence and pure conjecture and spin it again.
You really seem to enjoy trying to put words in my mouth. Could it be related? Yes absolutely. Does it lend some credibility to your argument? Also yes. Is it the smoking gun that you’re trying to make it out to be? No.
Quote:
You want to continue this silly spin path?
I’m actually really enjoying the irony of you constantly accusing people of spinning things and being partisan so I’m gonna go with whatever keeps that going. I think everyone’s a winner that way.
Quote:
If anything it's only going to get worse as we get more info. The transcript exists, CSIS is aware of the info and what actually transpired (as does Dong). It being confidential does not exonerate Han Dong nor does it make you win an argument by default on the basis of 'no evidence'.
Until the actual evidence that proves wrongdoing is released it certainly helps me win the argument that there isn’t enough evidence available to prove the allegations. If the full transcript gets released and shows that Dong did explicitly take actions to delay their release I’ll happily acknowledge that he did what you’re saying he did. I’m not sure why you find that to be so unreasonable.
Quote:
What I don't understand is why you are even on such a staunch defense to begin with for any reason outside of blind partisanship.
That’s because you really seem to struggle with accepting the fact that people who disagree with you aren’t always politically motivated to do so, also people generally don’t appreciate when others try to put words in their mouth.
I mean it’s pretty silly for you to suggest that someone is being partisan by saying the evidence needed to make a determination hasn’t been released when you yourself have admitted that. If I was saying that there’s no way Dong did any of the stuff you’re accusing him of that’d be one thing, but I haven’t said that at all. Heck it’d even be something if I actually voted for the party you’re accusing me of being blindly partisan towards, but I didn’t do that either. Unfortunately as we’ve already already established many times over, you’re not a big fan of facts that don’t support your(ironically partisan) narratives.
Oh well.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to iggy_oi For This Useful Post:
Good job iggy, you’re now officially one of the “usual suspects.” You’ll be hearing from Firebot’s lawyer for giving him his second dose of deep embarrassment in a fortnight.
Good job iggy, you’re now officially one of the “usual suspects.” You’ll be hearing from Firebot’s lawyer for giving him his second dose of deep embarrassment in a fortnight.
Good job iggy, you’re now officially one of the “usual suspects.” You’ll be hearing from Firebot’s lawyer for giving him his second dose of deep embarrassment in a fortnight.
Liberals accuse Conservatives of using AI for amendments to jobs bill as votes loom
Conservatives put forward more than 200 amendments to the bill, which could lead to up to 15 hours of votes
Quote:
MacKinnon said the amendments didn't make "one single constructive suggestion" for the bill.
In late March, during a committee discussion about an unrelated topic, Stubbs denied the Bill C-50 amendments were computer generated.
"Let me just say for the record ... that those were not generated by AI," Stubbs said.
How do Conservatives expect to be elected when they behave the same as the obstructionist Republican morons down south? Is this really what you Conservative voters want?
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Still calling it the brigade just doesn’t feel right without FormerPres. RIP to a real one.
I low key love it when someone gets booted, and then we get to sit back and see which 'brand new' poster rolls in, with firm conclusions and confident writing style.
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
Canada to allow 30-year amortization for first-time buyers' mortgages on new homes
Some advocates are praising Ottawa's move to lengthen the amortization period on insured mortgages for certain homebuyers, but say expanding the policy to all Canadians would help make home ownership more affordable.
Why do you ignore people who tell you who they are? Pierre isn't going to moderate anything. he's been building towards this version for decades, how could you possibly convince yourself he would change?
He's already followed Smith's lead in saying he has no time for experts. If you want to see what a PP government looks like, check out Danielle. If you don't like Danielle, how could you possibly think PP is a good option? Unless you do like Danielle, in which case, well...you already know how I feel about that.
I just don't get how people think a politician will be what they want them to be, not what they are. Delusional, I guess.
I am sure you are smart enough to know that comparing how Smith or any conservative Premier in Alberta is not how you govern an entire country. Alberta is a conservative province and has been for a very very long time.
Pierre going and being a very strong, right leaning conversative and enacting those stronger right policies in droves probably does not buy you a long runway of political success in central Ontario, where he is currently doing quite well. The battleground is Ontario, and more specifically the GTA where Liberal support is really collapsing which is why they are in trouble.
It's not a surprise that housing costs, car thefts, crime, drug, homeless and encampments and overall a sense of safety and wellbeing is part of his platform. This is an issue that is hitting cities and towns across Canada but specifically hitting downtown major cities harder, just due to the numbers. Everybody is affected by this which is why it's being (smartly) pushed hard by the campaign team.
He isn't pushing small town, rural issues to the same degree. Heck, you can't even say the good old Calgary boy is REALLY pushing Alberta policies that benefit AB more than other provinces. The messaging is all about a lot of issues plaguing Canadians and a lot of voters in larger centers.
He has picked up the political $100 off the floor so to speak, wither he continues to do that and continues to go after issues that would get him voted in long term, I don't know. If he's smart and the campaign team continue to find issues, great. If not and they go ultra right and piss off people where the votes are, then he's an idiot and he's done. The opposite is happening now with the Liberals. They are trying to process why a lot of support is fleeing when we already know the answers.
On the ground here in Toronto, young people are loving Mayor Chow. She's seemingly able to care about the major issues Toronto has, has a watchful eye on the tax rate situation, manages Dougie and his band of muppets with tact, and is addressing the malaise left behind by the hugely ineffective conservative mayor John Tory. Trading the Gardiner for Ontario Place was a chefs kiss move.
Sure, there is debate about raising property taxes, but Toronto has among the lowest property taxes in the country and has always been something that has to be addressed - Tory, Chow, or otherwise.
She alone might actually push people to more NDP votes from the GTA. The outer limits of the GTA and rural areas are solidly blue.
I wouldn't call it a sure bet on the GTA 'collapsing' towards the Cons.
It's not about specific issues. It's that he is from the same school as Smith, brought up for the same type of pathetic politics that puts sticking it to your enemy above all else. But to also disavow the opinions of experts because you know best, is very Trumpian and something Smith has repeated.
Do you want our leaders to go with ideology over science and expert study? If you answer yes to that, well, you are part of the problem. If you answer no, then I gotta ask how you feel about the Conservative leader saying he isn't going to listen to experts.
It's not about specific issues. It's that he is from the same school as Smith, brought up for the same type of pathetic politics that puts sticking it to your enemy above all else. But to also disavow the opinions of experts because you know best, is very Trumpian and something Smith has repeated.
Do you want our leaders to go with ideology over science and expert study? If you answer yes to that, well, you are part of the problem. If you answer no, then I gotta ask how you feel about the Conservative leader saying he isn't going to listen to experts.
I fully agree with your post in this regard 100%. I don't think the Liberals are the party that listens more on science or experts or anything along those lines. Political parties of all stripes will listen to experts or look at the science a lot of the time if it suits their narrative, even if it's flawed. It's human nature, it's how we are wired. We look for validation to our own opinions and we get into our own silos of information.
I don't the NDP or the Conservatives are paying more or less attention to experts or science either. A lot of times if we did, we would have a much better country.
As for Pierre saying he won't listen to experts, I call baloney on that one. He isn't the master of everything just like the other leaders are not. They will make decisions based on their party, their base, the country, experts in different fields and what they think is a better overall direction of the country. It is the way things are always done by all parties. Political parties always forget about the people, stop listening, push to much policy that looks good on paper and then they get booted out of office. If everybody was listening to Canadians and experts and enacting policies, politicians would rarely lose. It's the same way in sports, if you plan a full 60 minute game and pay attention to the details and outwork/out play your opponent, you win more games than you lose.
On the ground here in Toronto, young people are loving Mayor Chow. She's seemingly able to care about the major issues Toronto has, has a watchful eye on the tax rate situation, manages Dougie and his band of muppets with tact, and is addressing the malaise left behind by the hugely ineffective conservative mayor John Tory. Trading the Gardiner for Ontario Place was a chefs kiss move.
Sure, there is debate about raising property taxes, but Toronto has among the lowest property taxes in the country and has always been something that has to be addressed - Tory, Chow, or otherwise.
She alone might actually push people to more NDP votes from the GTA. The outer limits of the GTA and rural areas are solidly blue.
I wouldn't call it a sure bet on the GTA 'collapsing' towards the Cons.
I should correct my thoughts on this. I don't think mass people are voting for the Conservatives in the GTA but a lot more people than before will be without a doubt. The NDP will for sure pick up some additional support as well as the Liberal are bleeding from polling, election night though is different.
The Liberals have won multiple majorities fortifying the GTA as a fortress, as that is where the votes are. They didn't care if they lost some seats here and there as the numbers just added up to a win if you can hold the GTA.
The Conservatives for a long time were playing to their western base and kept losing, having a platform that targets more people in cities and towns is also important. It's an easier sell which is why they are promoting those concerns as opposed to previous issues and lost.
Trudeau says he doesn't understand why NDP is pulling back from carbon price support
But this week, the party shifted its position, saying carbon pricing is not the "be-all, end-all" and encouraging premiers to come up with new ideas to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
Trudeau says he doesn't understand why NDP is pulling back from carbon price support
But this week, the party shifted its position, saying carbon pricing is not the "be-all, end-all" and encouraging premiers to come up with new ideas to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
lol.
We have to cut emissions.
But not if it means we lose political support.
Then we don't have to cut emissions.
Just shows what a joke the whole thing is to begin with.
Strangely enough if they would rebate small businesses like they promised and find ways to help families / businesses reduce emissions via financial grants, more people would support it.
You couldn't ascertain how on earth the CPC could benefit from the Michaels being released early, and you still can't acknowledge when the CSIS summary has Han Dong giving the exact same conclusion I did.
)
.
