Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebot
What do you find interesting? His hand waving in the air ranting about not putting Canada first? Or that "my poor mother has to get a security clearance to do food programs at the school."? Sounds like he just ranting about Poilievre and security clearance, something that Singh's predecessor, Tom Mulcair did not have as opposition leader when he was and fully agrees with Poilievre.
|
First you ignore everything (outside of misrepresenting the traitor comment) to focus on a comment Matt brought up to segue into his next question, then you ignore everything to focus on an anecdote Angus himself acknowledges as ridiculous. You’re a very dishonest actor.
What did I find interesting?
From JK:
- the “no traitors” conclusion is the wrong thing to focus on
- there is a significant amount of interference going on that may not meet that threshold, but from an operations perspective, is crucial to address
- the act of prime ministers wanting to hear only what they want to here is true of Trudeau, but also of every PM since Mulroney
- Canada does not take this seriously, and there is no sign that is changing any time soon
From Angus:
- the “no traitors” conclusion is the wrong thing to focus on
- Canada has a culture of political indifference towards protecting Canada over the interests of party
- the biggest threat to our democracy is online interference and disinformation
- local ridings are very susceptible to interference and undermining and we are not ready to deal with it
- Running for leader without security clearance and the ability to get briefed on security threats to our nation is not putting Canada first
- We’re seeing partisan interests over the interests of the nation, which Trudeau is guilty of
- Canadians are not being reassured that we have the steps in place to protect the integrity of our nation, and neither Elections Canada nor the government seem willing to address that
Tell me what, exactly, you disagree with. Point by point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebot
You literally quoted part of what I quoted. Michel Juneau-Katsuya says more investigation is needed to meet the legal threshold. But he fully believes they are traitors and that the report only sees it from a judge perspective. Not sure how that is hard for you to grasp. Instead you are quoting Angus talking about his mother.
|
Correct, I did, because you ignored JK’s comments that lead into what you quoted. JK’s comments and Angus’ comments regarding “traitor” are thematically the same: the focus is incorrectly on the fact that there are no “traitors,” a high bar for a judge to declare, but not.. as both JK and Angus point out, an indication that we are without major issues to address on the foreign interference threat.
I’m quoting Angus’ comments about foreign interference, the importance of security clearance, and him pointing out the absurdity of PP’s claims and his general summary that individuals, including both Trudeau and PP, are putting party before country.
But I understand why you want to pretend it’s just a segment about his mother.