Pretty large audience, be interesting to see how many views the Bernier podcast gets compared to the debates.

Sure thx for info .
Let’s see how Peterson compassion will be
Hopefully Bernier is smart enough to not go in argumentation of what is true or not .

4 millions is worldwide , for good reason .

Seriously? I mean, you really can't think of a reason?? I already gave you one, in that post.

1) You have 5 leaders in a debate, but only 4 of them can become Prime Minister. And I don't mean as in they have no chance because they're a small party without enough support to do it this election, like the Greens. I mean it's basically impossible, by their own choice, because they only run candidates in one province. Unless you want to argue a scenario where the Bloc gets all 78 seats and the Liberals, Conservatives, and Conservatives all manage to reach into the 70s but not higher than 77 (while getting 0 seats in Quebec), and then the Greens, PPC and/or independents manage to pick up another 30-40. LOL. So the net effect is you have a debate with 4 people who are running for Prime Minister, and another guy that is running for a seat.

2) 78% of the Canadian population can't even vote for him or his party. Everyone can vote for the parties of the other 4.

Then at the same time, you have the PPC who are running across the country, but don't get to be in the debate. So yeah, I think a very good case can be made for the BQ not being in the debate.

Now, as I already said, I don't think they should be excluded from the debate, or at least not from all of them. I don't think it's smart to exclude someone who is a voice for 10-20% of our population. But don't pretend like there is no reason to exclude them - there most certainly is. You (and I) don't think the reasons are good enough.

The argument against has nothing to do with them having support from only a small area. It has to do with them only seeking support from a small area, to the exclusion of all else. It's not like a small regional party that has most of its support in one region and a very small amount in others - they have zero support in others, because they're running no candidates.

Me neither. Hopefully one day the BQ will think bigger.

Ok let’s take this view .
Like I said imo the representation of votes in politic is more important than geographical concern on how a territory is divided .
And if I’m correct , electoral county are « distributed » by the number of votes right ?

Combining the 6 lowest populated provinces ( PE, NFD, NB, NS, Saskatchewan, Manitoba) it represents only around 60% of the population of Quebec !
Still Quebec exceed over 3.5 millions of citizen those 6 provinces .

Ok i get it , bloc can never take power, but thinking Bloc Québécois could not have massive implication politically by its sheer representation of voters that exceed massively the smallest 6 provinces combined should have less legitimacy ?
It is not very hard to just simply put deputy with 0% chance of winning to distributed all across the country ….

To me what bring legitimacy to a party is what he can elect , not what deputy distribution with 0% chance of winning he can bring , shrug .

Let’s take a real example .
Green Party and Bloc Québécois both have all seats cover in Quebec to fight for the electorate vote (being all Canadians citizens..) right ?
It’s not like Green Party do not have the possibility of having deputy elected in Quebec right ?

Ok so like usual bloc will have lot of deputy elected while Green Party near to 0 .
Let’s say for argument sake , Green Party get 5% vote in Quebec and the bloc got 40% .

At the end of election , throughout Canada , (real results from 2029 election ) bloc end up with 7.6% total Canadian votes while Green Party finish with 6.6% Canadian votes .

Should we assume Bloc Québécois voters and his party should have less value than the Green Party voters just because they got a condense voting pool in 1 region even tho BQ have more citizens voting for them with a much bigger number of deputy elected in total ?

I do not agree with your view considering politics is about the votes and wishes of the people , not a game of territorial battle .

BQ by limiting its deputy base only hurt himself , not the other parties at all or the political process .
It’s actually the contrary .
I’m pretty sure all federal parties are happy Bloc Québécois is limiting itself to Quebec , increasing their own piece of the pie in the ROC for them ….

Oh.

As I said, twice now, I think the BQ should be in the debates. I thought you agreed with that, but apparently not?

But I must say, this part is rather amusing, given that the only party that makes politics a territorial battle is the BQ. That doesn't change my viewpoint; it's just an observation.

I think many of us see the Bloc as a separatist party. I personally think the Bloc and the PPC both deserve to be at the debate.
Though like I said earlier 75% of CDN's can not speak french yet we had two french debates which is crazy itself

Sadly we may be looking at another election in 18 months to 24 months unless the conservatives or liberals get a majority.

A great article from Jody Wilson-Raybould

As well she was quoted


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...bould-recalls/

Cringe worthy, not sure I can vote for any of these losers.

Jody seems a little too full of herself

Ahah yes

Who would have guessed that she moves up the original October date to get books in bookstores mid election? Still taking every action to exact maximum political revenge and pain against Trudeau. And from the coverage looks like exactly zero actual relevant new details not extensively release in committee 2.5 years ago and litigated in the last election. We just get a little echo most sensible people will ignore.

No its her and other cabinet ministers that prove Justin is a fake feminist . Lets include his failure to protect military women from sexual assault.

It was nice to vote today for a man with character over a trust fund phony


And it was litigated in the last election were a horrible conservative candidate picked up 21 seats and the fake feminist lost his majority

Reminder Donald Trump the guy that doesn't believe in climate change lowered his emissions . Oh yeah Justin could mot do it because its Harper's fault

Have you noticed the quality of your arguments have really, really gone downhill over this election? It's just repeating strings of the same talking points you've done over and over in this thread, with zero depth on any issue, no real attempts to construct an argument, just a slew of random **** throwing at Trudeau.

I'm sure Shifty will be shocked - shocked - that the man who is now charged with assaulting Trudeau with a weapon was a PPC riding president.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...deau-1.6172690

The PPC is a fascinating organization. By siphoning off the insane portion of the PC party, they've managed to let O'Toole run a more centralist campaign without internal blowback than any we've ever seen from a Conservative. Full credit goes to the country expecting government largesse from whoever is in office, but it will be interesting to see if the PCs are suddenly more palatable to moderate voters thanks to Bernier and his merry band of miscreants.

And lol to that question: throwing rocks at the PM is about the limit of most PPC's supporters debate skills. Shifty views that type of disobedience as the point of cheerleading for the PPC rather than an unfortunate side-effect.

Oh, and just in case any of you were wondering:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ions-1.6170453

The whole debacle of lobster fishing in NS continues to be just that. The fisheries minister continues to manage to avoid making any decision on the matter. I like this quote especially:

---

"No more seizure of lobster gear," Archibald said. "That is taking food from the mouths of our children. That has to end. Stop criminalizing treaty rights."

So your saying that bringing up countless promises broken, Fake feminist and a phony on climate are getting old. Well I could go with most ethics violations ............

Meh, he was dealt with and removed from the party. I must have missed your post condeming Bernier being egged. One thing I am not shocked about is the Liberals allowing Raj Saini to run while knowing about his allegations.

That's sort of my point. The only new thing to the "list" is just you throwing a couple words around with zero details, zero context, zero connection to the rest of the list, zero attempt to make it a persuasive argument about anything, but which you have ALSO talked about over and over and over again. It is just smorgasboard of random negative things. And the smorgasboard is getting moldy.

Well I could point something like this out were again his government fails to act and be decisive. You could look at the seniors residences were he promised to get involved and has done nothing. You could add compensation for people that had adverse reactions to covid shots his government has done nothing. You could as far back as the Tec mine were it passed all the environmental requirements and they refused to make a decision. The list goes on and on were they say they will do something and years pass of them doing nothing

https://betterdwelling.com/canadian-...a-record-rate/

People just need to wait until income tax time, once they get those rebates they'll be ok.

Lets not forget the fact the Liberals could not make a decision on Huawei as well though no issue awarding billion $ contracts to China

Really good West Block today

Erin O'Toole strong interview

18:00 minute mark Celina Caesar Chavannes strong statement

20:30 mark Calgary mayor great take on Quebec's Bill 21

20m30sec .
Biais and false question .

It is not certain religious symbols , it is ALL of them !


21m40sec false statements by the mayor , it is not 3 groups it is all groups .
It is not because other group do not complain they aren’t affected by the law they aren’t obliged to not wear them .….
Some have more predominant religious symbols and it is too bad unfortunately .

But who’s discriminate here ?
A law that treat everyone equally (bill 21) or religion that forced some of its members , not all of them ( inequality between man and woman without other obvious inequalities we won’t enumerates here ) to wear some ?

I ask you this lozen , some provinces (5-6) mandate white people to wear helmet while riding a motorcycle, Sikh’s aren obligated To wear them for religious beliefs …
Doesnt this discriminate the white man of forcing him to wear a helmet while others are not ?
Is there any evidences sikhs are more protected with their religion without a helmet ?
Is there any evidences of religious gods existing to force state law to abide to a « higher » order and laws of how state law should be dictate ?

Should beliefs in generals be exempt from state laws ?
If no , why religious beliefs would have a higher meaning and truth than others beliefs ?
Isn’t that discriminatory toward other groups that aren’t religious but beliefs in other « truth » that are obligated to respect the authority of the states ?


22m. Another lie from the mayor , no one are preventing anyone to becoming a judge .
But yes , if someone wish to pas his religion over everything else , like wearing a religious symbol , he won’t be able to become a judge .
But who’s fault is it ?
Would you really want someone judging you while the person can’t even put his religion beliefs aside to judge from a state law pov ?
Where is the Independency of the state towards religion when someone applying jobs representing the state can’t even take a reserve stance and put state law in front ???

A represent of state do not mean being a representative of some religious beliefs …
There is neutrality and appearance of neutrality absolutely essential here to preserve credibility of the state , especially for policemen and judges .
And that is actually what protect neutrality and freedom of everyone because EVERYONE is force to obliged to the state law !
Even those that are applying the laws .
Do you understand this point ?
It’s crucial .

Let’s take another example .
Is Quebec a discriminate province as well because it prevent sikhs to become construction workers by obligated them to wear a helmet during working hours on a construction site ?

It’s sad to say but religious beliefs are not over state law ! Period .
Especially when it’s about beliefs that are choice and not base on anything scientifically real.
Btw where is the line ?
Some Muslim need to pray 6 times a day right ?
Should we close the store for 30m because he needs to do his prayers during working hours .
Where does it end ?
There is over 4000 religions in the world , who decide at what point some deserve a pass and others not ?
Isn’t that discriminatory as well ?

I suggest people to see what is going in Europe ….

It’s pretty insane from my POV to treat bill 20 of discriminatory when it’s actually religion that put discriminatory doctrines in the first place …
Wtf .

People are free to do w.e they want in their private life but when your at work , well you get paid for work , not practicing your religion ffs .

Bill 21 would be discriminatory if for example Christian would have a pass but they aren’t !
Being All on the same footing is not discriminatory.
Do we need to get the dictionary?

I saw the interview and thought the same thing but I think he is saying it targets certain religions in the minds of many CDN's . Though he should be clear about that

I tried looking it up but its not clear. Does Quebec fund catholic education?

Hey I am an Atheist so on some levels I support the law

I do not get the change to the law as well Though I think its different as your making allowances for that religious belief.

You also say would you want someone to judge you if they cant put their religious beliefs aside. Just cause they wear a Turban does not imply that. The same could be said for a catholic.