Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

He can say what he wants.

What I am saying is that he would get more respect and people might actually listen and pay attention to him if not for the blackface scandals, amongst other things.

First off, you know if he could go back and not be in black face, he'd obviously choose that. Second, no ####ing way. You guys would always find some other reason to not treat him with respect. Get real. Third, being rebuffed by fascists is a feature, not a bug. If fascists start respecting you, it might be time to examine why.

[MRCboicgy]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Wow a page of a poster deflecting from showing support against Fascism.

What the #### is happening in this world.

Morons feel empowered that their regressive opinions equate to facts. :shrug:

[CaptainCrunch]

No public inquiry, the system works. The press is a source of disinformation.



No surprise.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

No public inquiry, the system works. The press is a source of disinformation.

No surprise.

Disgusting.

I just knew that Trudeau's buddy would come through for him in the end.

[Mr.Coffee]

Canada doing its best Sudan impression for corruption.

[Ironhorse]

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

First off, you know if he could go back and not be in black face, he'd obviously choose that. Second, no ####ing way. You guys would always find some other reason to not treat him with respect. Get real. Third, being rebuffed by fascists is a feature, not a bug. If fascists start respecting you, it might be time to examine why.

Come on man. It's not like it's hard. This is the same man that groped a female reporter and then said after “I'm sorry. If I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I never would have been so forward." He's a straight up bad dude that long ago decided that common folk rules and laws don't apply to him. I'm not exactly sure why anyone would even bother sticking their neck out for him.

[Locke]

See? Meloni has no idea what she's talking about!

Trudeau? A Buffoon? Look how many scandals he's gotten away with now!!

The man's a genius!

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

First off, you know if he could go back and not be in black face, he'd obviously choose that. Second, no ####ing way. You guys would always find some other reason to not treat him with respect. Get real. Third, being rebuffed by fascists is a feature, not a bug. If fascists start respecting you, it might be time to examine why.

I feel confident that you would never treat a political leader that way.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Come on man. It's not like it's hard. This is the same man that groped a female reporter and then said after “I'm sorry. If I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I never would have been so forward." He's a straight up bad dude that long ago decided that common folk rules and laws don't apply to him. I'm not exactly sure why anyone would even bother sticking their neck out for him.

Soo.. A politician? Politics = cesspool.

[CaptainCrunch]

Oh also there will be sort of public committees that Johston will oversee, but they can go behind closed doors.


Also to add on Johnston also threw CSIS under the bus.



Now spending a lot of time defending his relationship to Trudeau and the Foundation.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Come on man. It's not like it's hard. This is the same man that groped a female reporter and then said after “I'm sorry. If I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I never would have been so forward." He's a straight up bad dude that long ago decided that common folk rules and laws don't apply to him. I'm not exactly sure why anyone would even bother sticking their neck out for him.

Thanks for proving my point.


Do not in any way take this as a defence of Trudeau or what he has done. Just pointing it out. Pretending like he will be respected if only for...is a load if BS.

[opendoor]

Setting aside the public inquiry issue, the report actually has some interesting things in it. And some parts (if it's correct and credible) poke a fair number of holes in the reporting around this. A few examples (again, assuming the report is credible):

-the leaked memo about potential interference before the 2019 election was a preliminary draft that wasn't shared outside CSIS. The final version that was shared with the PMO had fairly different language and was more general in nature without any specific recommendations.

-the allegation that people were donating to campaigns favored by China, receiving tax refunds from the deductions, and then were reimbursed the difference was just a general tactic that China sometimes uses around the world. But CSIS has no evidence that this was actually occurring in Canada. [this was actually pretty obvious to me based on how it was written in the original article, which raises the question of why even include things that aren't actually being alleged without clarifying that?]

-there were irregularities in the Han Dong nomination process and CSIS suspected that they were tied to the PRC Consulate.

-the allegation that Dong advised the PRC Consulate to extend the detention of Kovrig and Spavor is false based on the intelligence provided by CSIS.

-PRC officials did take preliminary steps to gather information about Michael Chong's family and CSIS was aware of this. Trudeau claimed that this was not shared outside of CSIS, but that's not correct, as it shared with the National Security Advisor. So Trudeau was either misled or was lying.


Maybe the report is BS and full of misinformation, but I don't really find that to be all that plausible. The Liberals aren't going to be in government forever, so I'm kind of skeptical that Johnston would outright fabricate information when it could easily be uncovered in the near future.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Maybe the report is BS and full of misinformation, but I don't really find that to be all that plausible. The Liberals aren't going to be in government forever, so I'm kind of skeptical that Johnston would outright fabricate information when it could easily be uncovered in the near future.

https://erinotoole.substack.com/p/i-...medium=reader2

The same system that I believe failed to adequately brief and prepare the SITE Panel is now facilitating the review by David Johnston. Given the avalanche of intelligence leaks stemmed from a lack of confidence in the present system, it shows that the Terms of Reference for David Johnston were flawed and he conducted his review backward. He had his views reinforced before hearing perspectives that would allow him to challenge the status quo. In my view, Johnston was set up to fail because his review was facilitated by the system needing scrutiny. I say this not knowing whether he will recommend a national inquiry tomorrow or not. Politically, he cannot ignore the need for a national inquiry given the nature of the leaks and unanimity of the opposition parties, but practically, his terms of reference led him to conclude that everything is fine because the people running the system told him it is.

Enough said.

[opendoor]

I guess that depends how much credence you give to anonymous intelligence leakers. The fact that a couple of disgruntled people leaked (apparently) misleading, incomplete, and some (again, apparently) flat out incorrect intelligence doesn't mean that CSIS is incapable of analyzing the veracity of its own information through the proper channels. Unless there's evidence that CSIS leadership is somehow complicit in a cover up, I'm not sure why they wouldn't be providing Johnston with the proper information.

As the report says, there are clearly issues with how CSIS and the current government are handling information flow which resulted in the failures seen regarding Michael Chong. But unless there's other evidence, most of the reported claims don't seem to stand up to a whole lot of scrutiny.

Which wouldn't be all that surprising, to be honest. This whole thing reminds me of the Russian interference into the US election. It happened to some extent, but its effect, its importance, and the degree to which anyone benefited and was complicit in it was vastly overblown by media hype.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I guess that depends how much credence you give to anonymous intelligence leakers. The fact that a couple of disgruntled people leaked (apparently) misleading, incomplete, and some (again, apparently) flat out incorrect intelligence doesn't mean that CSIS is incapable of analyzing the veracity of its own information through the proper channels. Unless there's evidence that CSIS leadership is somehow complicit in a cover up, I'm not sure why they wouldn't be providing Johnston with the proper information.

As the report says, there are clearly issues with how CSIS and the current government are handling information flow which resulted in the failures seen regarding Michael Chong. But unless there's other evidence, most of the reported claims don't seem to stand up to a whole lot of scrutiny.

Which wouldn't be all that surprising, to be honest. This whole thing reminds me of the Russian interference into the US election. It happened to some extent, but its effect, its importance, and the degree to which anyone benefited and was complicit in it was vastly overblown by media hype.

Uh huh.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1661195496348688384

https://twitter.com/user/status/1661112103304847360

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Do not in any way take this as a defence of Trudeau or what he has done.

Clearly a centrist who just wants the facts!

[Yoho]

The paper tiger.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1661180927098200064

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

First off, you know if he could go back and not be in black face, he'd obviously choose that.

How many times did he go blackface? I thought there was documentation of multiple instances.