Jagmeet is the most useless #### of all time. Seriously, it would be hilarious if he wasn't a major political figure in our country. He has set the NDP back at least a decade if not more.
Calm your tits.
I hate Jagmeet but he has prob done more for the NDP than any other leader in the past 50 years. Propping up blackface had it's advantages.
__________________ Peter12 "I'm no Trump fan but he is smarter than most if not everyone in this thread. ”
One of these is not like the other. Frankie drinking the koolaid hard again.
When Brian Mulroney resigned as PM while deeply unpopular and before Kim Campbell became leader, polls showed the PC party going from 18% to as high as 50%. In the end, once the dust settled, it was clear it was the same PC party and Canadian sentiment remained and PC ended with 16% of the vote. Recency bias is a thing, but we are not seeing anywhere close to the same effect with Liberals right now (except for EKOS).
Current polls are more in line with what they were back in November before the spectacular party blowup and still hold an extremely strong comfortable lead that would give them ~235 seats.
That being said, CPC / Poilievre would be foolish to not pay heed to the momentum change, and they have lost the momentum (I mean considering the past few months could not have gone better for them, right now Liberals are in the limelight with the leadership race, and Poilievre news has been negative).
Also the whole Trump turning US into Nazi America probably has a few folks spooked. At the moment, this is the immediate focus Canadians have.
who's drinking the koolaid if you think Yappydog moron PP is going to win 200+ seats.
Also you can't compare Kim Campbell to Turdeau. They just put in a 7% GST. Your party isn't coming back from that.
Also it's great that you acknowledge that PP will have Nazi like effects to Canada if elected.
__________________ Peter12 "I'm no Trump fan but he is smarter than most if not everyone in this thread. ”
Am I reading that right? He wants the House to come back immediately in order to pass a bill to support workers who could potentially be impacted in the future but havent so far, from something that hasn't occurred yet and might not actually happen?
So...he wants the Government to pay people just in case the Boogeyman actually shows up?
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
Am I reading that right? He wants the House to come back immediately in order to pass a bill to support workers who could potentially be impacted in the future but havent so far, from something that hasn't occurred yet and might not actually happen?
So...he wants the Government to pay people just in case the Boogeyman actually shows up?
No, he wants the government to have an approved support package for those impacted, should those tariffs come to pass, so they can deploy it as quickly as possible.
His comments had nothing to do with doling out money now “just in case.”
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Here's the transcript. Was Matt Galloway on the Current.
Quote:
MICHEL JUNEAU-KATSUYA: Well, we're dealing with a judge. A judge is usually sticking to the rules of law and the definition that the law gives to the word traitors. Traitors in the criminal code is defined very, very clearly. But certain actions, certain behaviour, certain accommodation that are certain that some elected officials and senators have done through the years are close enough to be a treason to this country.
Quote:
MG: But you're suggesting that that doesn't meet the legal threshold of treason.
MICHEL JUNEAU-KATSUYA: Here, that would need to be investigated much, much more. I come from the operational side. She comes from the judge or the legal justice system side. She comes also in a way that she was criticized right from the get go from being maybe too close to the Trudeau family. And already, we were predicting that it would be a sweet and sour report, and we had the sweet and sour report. Sweet in the sense that it finally acknowledged that foreign interference existed, but sour because it didn't go far enough. And it basically repeated the messages that Mr. Trudeau himself said in his announcement of the public inquiry that they would be focusing on two specific election, 2019, 2021, and specifically to look at if CSIS had made mistakes or had difficulties to communicate. And that's exactly what she said. CSIS had difficulties to communicate information. But wait a minute, let's go back to the testimonies that were given to us. The director, the former director of CSIS, Mr. Vigneault, himself testified twice and said, I spoke directly to the prime minister. I presented the evidence that we collected. And twice, I was told also to change the reports that we wrote as CSIS in order to accommodate the narrative that the Prime Minister wanted to hear. This is not a lack of communication. This is not a problem of communication. This is a problem of who wants to receive the information and who doesn't want to hear what it’s been said. That’s the problem.
Basically, he pans it as a report from a judge perspective without an intelligence perspective and having too many connections with Trudeau (nearly to the level of the David Johnston rapporteur farce)
You are welcome (I have top notch googlefu skills). This stuff tends to get scrubbed into the backpages and void if it doesn't fit a narrative. The focus has pretty much just been on Poilievre and the security clearance question instead of the traitor question, in which Singh himself stated there were traitors in parliament after reading the initial NSICOP report and set off the dominoes. So now Singh was stuck having to respond to questions about his comments last year (which I do believe was genuine).
We have what a number of reputable experts would classify as 'traitors' in parliament and senate, they are being protected, and it's being brushed aside.
Last edited by Firebot; 01-30-2025 at 10:48 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
Here's the transcript. Was Matt Galloway on the Current.
Basically, he pans it as a report from a judge perspective without an intelligence perspective and having too many connections with Trudeau (nearly to the level of the David Johnston rapporteur farce)
You are welcome (I have top notch googlefu skills). This stuff tends to get scrubbed into the backpages and void if it doesn't fit a narrative. The focus has pretty much just been on Poilievre and the security clearance question.
Top notch google-fu? It’s the first result if you search the guy’s name and “hogue.” Which is a pretty high result for a radio transcript scrubbed into the void. It’s also pretty prominent on The Current’s page, it can be listened to here: https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio...n-interference
But I’m not sure it’s what he’s talking about, and it’s the wrong reporter.
Regardless, some more interesting bits from the segment relevant to what we’ve been talking about:
Quote:
MG: What would you like to see change then? If it's not a flow of information, which that was pointed out in this report, that intelligence was failing to reach some senior decision makers. But you're suggesting that perhaps those decision makers didn't want to receive the intelligence in the first place or at the very least wanted to shape the narrative. What has to change? This matters because it's about the integrity of the democracy.
MICHEL JUNEAU-KATSUYA: You're totally right. You're absolutely right. And I would go even further. This has been going on since Mr. Mulroney and every single prime minister have received the information that we were confronted to foreign interference. Every prime minister either ignored or used it to its personal gain or political gain. So there's nothing new under the sun to a certain extent. And what this prime minister is blamed for has been done by others in the past. What needs to be changed in order to answer your question, we need to review basically the culture of national security culture, the culture of protecting this country. And what is important is what is at stake here. The problems of national security issues is much more profound than only foreign interference as we see. I think this is the tip of the iceberg that reveals to us that there is a huge iceberg that needs to be tackled and look at as we speak. And this is the problem with this report. Unfortunately, it reveals something without giving us necessarily all the tools to change it. And the problem that we're facing is the timing. The timing also sucks because currently, we're having the government is not even sitting in the house. When it will come back, it will call for election. The election will drag again for a full year before the other government, whoever it is, tackle this issue if they want to tackle this issue seriously. The problem is right from the get go. In 1984 when Mr. Pierre Eliot Trudeau created CSIS, it created by design the system that we're facing today. And by design, it failed as projected and expected. And this is the problem that we are currently facing, is that the message is controlled by the decision makers, and they take what they want and they leave aside what they want.
Quote:
MG: Thanks for being here. How satisfied are you with this report?
CHARLIE ANGUS: Well, I think what it shows is, is that Canada has a culture, a political culture of indifference when it comes to putting protecting Canada over party interests. It's a mediocrity of indifference. And I think what's unfortunate is a lot of attention is on the word traitor. So, you know, Justice Hogue said it didn't meet the test of traitor, just a lot of dimwits who are willing to be used, ethical lapses and questionable judgement. And we'll focus on that. But I think the big issue here with her statement was that she says, quote, The single biggest threat to democracy is online interference and disinformation. It is an existential threat. And so, Matt, I think the issue of, you know, trying to monkey wrench a local riding association meeting is kind of like stagecoach robbery when we're talking about 21st century methods of electoral interference and undermining. And that's the larger threat posed by the platforms like X, by Meta, and the ability of bots, deepfakes and AI. And we are simply not ready to deal with what's going to hit us in this coming election.
MG: Can I just ask you, before we talk about that, about something that you posted on another platform. This is on Bluesky, and it is about, maybe this speaks to what Michel was talking about when it comes to the culture of understanding interference. Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative Party, says that he will no longer receive security briefings from CSIS. You said this is a no brainer. Pierre Poilievre lives in a 19-room mansion funded by the taxpayer and refuses or can't get security clearance. Something stinks here. What are you suggesting?
CHARLIE ANGUS: Well, the question is, is who doesn't put Canada first?
MG: Are you suggesting he's not putting Canada first?
CHARLIE ANGUS: Absolutely. What kind of person is going to run for leader of the country and not get a security clearance and get briefed on threats to our nation? I mean, I know it's a bit of a ridiculous example, but I mean, my poor mother has to get a security clearance to do food programs at the school. We've got a man who's going to be prime minister, who's the story in the media now is he's not getting it. He's refusing to get it.
MG: He said that he's not getting it because he wouldn't be able to act on that information.
CHARLIE ANGUS: Well, that's ridiculous. How could he act on the information if he doesn't know what it is? So again, I think what, I think, Matt, that that's the issue and the bigger problem. And, you know, Mr. Trudeau certainly comes in for a lot of condemnation in Justice Hogue's report, is that we're seeing partisan interests over the nation. And Canadians are not being reassured that in the larger global threats, and we are in a very dark, dark time with everything from Russian bought information to a president who's threatening our sovereignty, that we have the steps in place to protect the integrity of our nation. And I don't see that. I don't see that with Elections Canada. I don't see that with the willingness of the government to step up at this time. And we may be barreling into an election very quickly. So I think we have to talk about this and raise some alarm bells.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
That makes more sense, maybe somebody actually did learn something from the COVID experience about preparedness.
Although I do still think the tariffs are a bluff.
Biden killed a pipeline on his first day, if the tariffs weren't a bluff, whats Drumpf waiting for?
It’s still worth questioning whether it’s necessary. Even if tariffs are implemented, it’s hard to tell the what, who, and how of the impacts right away, so any pre-emptive bill would seemingly have to be pretty wide in scope. Not sure that’s the most effective approach.
It’s not a ridiculous thing for Singh to push for, but does seem like politicking more than any practical desire to get something meaningful done.
Man I wish Charlie Angus was sticking around. He would have been 10x the leader than Jagmeet is.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
The Following User Says Thank You to belsarius For This Useful Post:
Charlie Angus deflecting on the word traitor (that his own party leader used) to play politics and focus on Poilievre's tax payer paid mansion is what you decided to quote?
Not exactly interesting unless you are an NDP partisan who spooges on populist rethoric like this. Singh (or Angus if he had decided to lead) could live there again if they cared about improving their party fortunes
Not exactly interesting unless you are an NDP partisan who spooges on populist rethoric like this.
I just quoted the whole block from the segment you expertly found as the first result in google.
Interesting that it’s the only comment you zeroed in on. Apologies if it upset your delicate, deeply partisan sensibilities. But it was Matt that brought up Charlie’s comment from another platform, not Charlie who brought it up in the interview.
I just quoted the whole block from the segment you expertly found as the first result in google.
Interesting that it’s the only comment you zeroed in on. Apologies if it upset your delicate, deeply partisan sensibilities.
You quoted it. Sounded important as you called it interesting. Note how I didn't quote a whole block of a transcript as I can filter down on the important parts.
May want to narrow down your quote down to what exactly you are deflecting on.
Quote:
But it was Matt that brought up Charlie’s comment from another platform, not Charlie who brought it up in the interview.
Ah, can't use your own quotes against you in an interview. Is that what you are whining about there?
Here's the transcript. Was Matt Galloway on the Current.
Basically, he pans it as a report from a judge perspective without an intelligence perspective and having too many connections with Trudeau (nearly to the level of the David Johnston rapporteur farce)
You are welcome (I have top notch googlefu skills). This stuff tends to get scrubbed into the backpages and void if it doesn't fit a narrative. The focus has pretty much just been on Poilievre and the security clearance question instead of the traitor question, in which Singh himself stated there were traitors in parliament after reading the initial NSICOP report and set off the dominoes. So now Singh was stuck having to respond to questions about his comments last year (which I do believe was genuine).
We have what a number of reputable experts would classify as 'traitors' in parliament and senate, they are being protected, and it's being brushed aside.
While this adds more information to the discussion. thats for sure not the interview I saw. It aired Tuesday January 28th at like 10:15 as I had just sat down for my appointment
Last edited by shotinthebacklund; 01-30-2025 at 11:20 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to shotinthebacklund For This Useful Post:
