Pierre is a horrible choice but they keep making horrible choices

Scheer over Maxime
Otoole over Peter Mckay

I was saying that the Liberals could win a majority with Freeland. My opinion is with Justin they do not get a majority even if its Pierre.

CDN politics could be stuck in a minority situation for a bit

I don't know about the others, but Trudeau has repeatedly and strongly opposed Bill 21. I don't think it is true and certainly not appropriate to say that "anyone that supports bill 21 is a racist". So no, I don't think he should say that. But he has completely correctly strongly condemned it.

This is yet another example where Trudeau does the thing you want, yet you give him zero credit for it.




Ah yes, Kenney did this as well. Politicizing the Ukraine crisis by using it as a puppet to continue to push typical Albertan oil politics. Sorry, I'm not playing that game. If your single comment on the Canadian angle of the Ukraine crisis is to push your oil agenda, I want no part of it. Not this week.

Well they have the liberals. But Trudeau social signals on the left, so the fact that his actual policies are consistently centre right seems to be forgotten.

No Trudeau says he is deeply opposed to Bill 21 and will not get involved in debate after the teacher was recently fired

Its his standard answer when he does nothing "were deeply concerned" " deeply troubled" and than does nothing . Its why he can no longer win a majority. He is always deeply concerned or troubled and than does nothing other than the Trucker Convoy

Who says I am pushing the Alberta agenda its just a fact that we are importing Russian oil and than using the SWIFT system to pay for that oil. Its just a reality like the USA .

If jt woud gtfo to give way to a « new » generation of liberals with Freeland vs carney , it would cripple the conservative for the next decade .

Sadly it won’t happen till jt lose , wasting 4 years .

So in one stance u angry of the « too centralize concept of liberals government » but are for it when it fits your narrative about bill 21 ?

Bill 21 -> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

Sadly forgetting already

Radicalism and extremist is areal thing .
A college teacher in montreal got arrested trying to radicalize his students not long ago …

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...eign-jihadists

« The latest arrests bring to 11 the number of students who since January have either left to join jihadi groups overseas or have been arrested on suspicion of planning to leave«

Here in Quebec we don’t find it funny or lightly at all .
Especially knowing how it can increase like our cousins in France …..

They has the same attitude as you previously and look today …
Radicalism in Europe is a thing !
Even in US with Protestant /Catolism trying to reopen abortion .
That to me is radicalization through means of religion beliefs .

We agree that government workers should have a neutral stance when providing services. However, I don't believe that wearing religious symbols while working violates that. It is, at its very worst, an extremely minor level of "promotion" of their cause. I'd oppose somebody that tried to proseltyze their religion or encourage others to join it while working as a school teacher, for instance, but that isn't the same as expressing their religion through things like a cross on a chain or a hijab. These are often deeply held religious beliefs and a lot of harm from banning the expression of that.

I also think it is discriminatory harm. Minority women, for instance, such as muslim women who wear the hijab, might find themselves in a place of forced to choose between ostracization in their community or not being able to enter the economy by getting a job. That is a horrid choice to impose on these women. As a feminist, I can't tolerate such a bill.

I don't know how much stronger than "deeply opposed" you can be. That is a pretty damned strong statement. YOU AND HIM AGREE. Isn't that what you wanted? For the PM to stand up and deeply oppose the bill? He has done that.

He didn't say he wouldn't debate it - he has done just that during Question Period. What you mean is that the federal government said it is not planning on suing the Quebec government until after the Quebec provincial court system dealt with the question. I get that you are #teamKenney and love making spurious lawsuits that are jurisdictionally problematic purely for political symbolism, but I think this is a reasonable tactical choice to hope it first gets thrown out judicially at the provincial level.

+1
The lack of pragmatism and the « win at all cost » concept in politics as destroyed the center .
So they sadly fall back with extremist instead of putting their stupidity in place .
Unfortunately the voice of every minorities , regardless being dumb , is rejected now .
Minorities has acquire the main narrative at the expense of the majorities .

See I might be onboard with Bill 21 if they would fire anyone that wears a cross around their neck or has a tattoo of a cross as well. Just because someone wears a goofy costume does not mean they are going to teach your children about their religion.
This bill targets a few select religions which is why I disagree with it

Why stop there why not just let Catholics immigrate to Canada ?

They aim at all religion ffs .
How hard is it to understand, even Catholics !

Didn’t u read the Supreme Court decision in my Earlier post about the mayor !
Abii ou their proof ?
Isn’t that enough clear ->

https://globalnews.ca/news/5475505/q...july-2019/amp/

« The controversial crucifix that hangs above the speaker’s chair in Quebec’s legislature has been removed after years of debate over secularism in the province.«


It’s all good to be leaning more to religion instead of secularism .
That is one clear distinction between Quebec and the rest of Canada ( example in Quebec we have the highest non marital couple with the highest divorce rates ) .
We never abide to praise the lord admire the queen or w.e is the moto .

If you think secularism equal racism , it’s fine by me .

I just have the common sense of thinking I’m not the smartest (me or Canada) in the world and think Europe are idiots .
They all have massive problems today about those issues , and because of it they had to enact more harsh laws because of it .
Hell even Muslim country for example had to vote law to restrict religion .

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-other-groups/

Just be glad we’re aren’t lock in yet with those problem and in Quebec , knowing personally are religion can be destructive ( revolution tranquille in the 1960 totally eradicated religion out of school and other public services for a reason ) .
Im happy for you and the rest of Canada that didn’t had to live under religious repression .
I actually always was jealous on how more liberty Protestant had compare to Catholic….

U think Canada is secular yet you have different law for religious people doing motorcycle and u can’t even see how discriminating it is ?????
In Quebec we believe in REAL secularism , no just for show !

You want to think religion is the most important thing for personal value , fine .
Im not a racist because I think religion should not be more special than any other Canadian value I have like equality of sex and all the rest …
Negating any little possibility restriction on religion while being able to do so with freedom of expresssion , politics , social value , etc at work and not calling this discriminatory to begin with is totally non sense to me .

I actually find it offensive !
We’re all equal and abide to the same laws or we aren’t !
Claiming bill 21 is racist or discriminatory while defending religions that are discriminatory at its core is insane .

None of this addresses what you're replying to. I didn't offer any kind of opinion on specific religious beliefs, so I'm not sure why you're asking "u think it’s ok". I have lots of issues with discriminatory beliefs of different religious sects. That has nothing to do with what I posted.

Zero effect? No, probably not zero. But I think it's a stretch to call that "promoting religion" or to think it will have a major impact. I think the positives outweigh the negatives on that, and it's not even close.

I ask how not allowing people in a handful of professions to wear religious symbols is going to impact crimes committed in the name of religion in any way, and your reply is to link me to an article that assesses how many countries are banning religious symbols. That doesn't answer my question. At all.

When we allow people to wear hijabs or turbans or crosses to their government jobs, what rights are we giving them that no one else gets? Please be specific.

I'm pretty sure it does ban wearing crosses. Not sure about tattoos.

I have a little sympathy for you on this one; I have mixed feelings about it. As I've mentioned before, there does need to be some limits on the rights to religious expression, and I could see people arguing this crosses said line. I don't get too wound up about it because they're basically only putting themselves at danger, but I do recognize there's a possibility of increased medical costs for everyone.

Poilievre's media team is....weird.

He just dropped this six minute video: https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/...2rDfICRaLF85Ng.

Firstly, tell me it is not me, but this seems really tone deaf, right? Like big picture the video is "Putin sucks, Ukraine war sucks, energy is super important geopolitically, ergo let's have less environmental regulations in Canada". Similar to my comment to lozen about Kenney, am I the only one thinking it is a really shitty ****ing move to using this insane crisis to toot your own horn about orthodox political objectives in Canada? I hate this political opportunism on display here.

I think the video was probably filmed sometime earlier last week as it is already way out of date, things like calling to kick out Russia from the Swift system. But it is weird in other ways too. Like this is bizarrely over-produced stuffed full of stock footage, probably way it was so delayed because the media team is putting the effort together. And like, it isn't that some of the basic geopolitics 101 lessons are necessarily wrong, but why are we getting this video essay style explainer about pipelines in europe from poilievre.

Contrasting this with the historic gravitas of Freeland's comments early today and I don't know, but I think you gotta fire the media relationships folks on his team.

I also don't like the opportunism, and don't think much of Poilievre after his nonsense encouraging the protestors because they were "making progress" after Ontario announced mandate changes, but I'm not so sure this won't land well. This might be good messaging for his Conservative base.

Now you sound like a GOP person when they say we just had a shooting now is not the time to talk about guns . Reality is with all the sanctions oil is funding Putin's regime. Now is a perfect time to talk about oil. Sadly folks like yourself think Russian Oil & Saudi Oil is better than Alberta & Sask Oil

As well if you want to talk about playing politics. Liberals announce they are banning the imports of Russian Oil. Most are going what a great move. When in reality they are banning unrefined oil which we have not imported since 2019. He is still importing refined oil. So now who is playing politics ?

Uke I have said many times the Conservatives will not win with Pierre and that Freeland would be a better leader for the liberals . Though if your speaking you do not want her behind you as she cant stand still .

That is the problem you message to that base. The problem is you can say you do not need to message to them as who are they going to vote for ? Trudeau , Singh, the green party. The problem is they have the Peoples Party but my guess is many have already gone there.

Sadly they have no hope under Pierre so chances are they will pick him though if Justin really cared about the liberals he would step down as well and let someone else lead the party as he will not win a majority either. How many kicks at the can do they give him?

uh....you guys get that the emergency order was lifted a week ago.....right? Why are you posting the old senate debate clips?

I'm sorry but "We should kick Russia out of the SWIFT system (they did that, video is out of date) and...uh....limit environmental regulations on a potential future LNG project" just seems wildly discordant. If you want to talk about things to do to stop russia now fine, then go listen to Freeland who has a far more sophisticated and expansive vision than the limited dribble from Poilievre who barely could come up with anything actually relevant to the moment. If you want to talk about long term, like decades long levels of oil geopolitics then sure fine, but this solves nothing today and besides it isn't like conservative politicians ever shut up about oil and this is some new talking point that just has to be said now.

Trudeau was pretty clear that Canada imports very little of this type of oil and that the move was mostly symbolic. He wasn't pretending or passing it off as something it wasn't. The sanctions regimes that Canada has put in place - and more importantly been advocating the rest of the world to put in place - have been pretty crippling. Great job Trudeau!

That guy has a ton of derpy alt-right Twitter stuff that he passively consumed that he needs to review and share, so he probably got a bit backlogged.

No we import no unrefined crude oil. So announcing that your going to stop importing something your not importing is nothing more than PR politics. Again your praising Justin for doing nothing. Yes praise is due for other sanctions

Lets be clear we will continue to import refined crude and will be paying for that with a SWIFT banking transaction as not all SWIFT transactions are blocked.

Maybe he should announce that we will stop importing Tequila from the USSR as well as a symbolic gesture

Indeed. And just to be clear: Trudeau was abundantly transparent about this. He noted in his address that while crude oil is a huge portion of Russia's revenues, there is very little from Canada. He was explicit that this specific aspect was about messaging. And that's totally fine. Basically the global response has had a large combination of actual biting things that really hurt and a bunch of things that are symbolic. Both are important. If Trudeau had pretended his symbolic action was one of the biting things, then I'd be mad. But he didn't. He was super clear they are doing a bunch of biting and a bunch of symbolic things and which was which.

As gross as the various politicizations of this tragedy are, Bernier takes the absolute cake

Yup. That's right, Trudeau is a fascist and Freeland is a nazi. This he says while an actual fascist is taking over a democratic country of over 40 million people.

This is the guy lozen think should have won over Scheer? This is the guy Shifty loves subtweeting on this forum?

Utterly ****ing disgusting.

No back than he was not rambling this stuff . Back than he was a more reasonable politician that was French CDN and had a better chance of winning than Scheer. Back than he was a better candidate than Scheer. Since he joined the PPC I have not supported him at all

Save your utterly disgusting for the current PM who when asked about Bill 21 that should have been his answer "Quebec's premier is Utterly disgusting for passing bill 21"

I am not sure why its OK to call Alberta Farmers Nazi's and racists but your upset when Maxime calls the PM and deputy that. Maybe you should be like me and be upset at both's rhetoric

Wow. In the context of the innocent civilians being indiscriminately slaughtered in Ukraine by an actual fascist, your WHATABOUTISM on Bernier’s accusations of fascism is probably the most disgusting thing I have ever heard you say ITT.

Sickening. There are political games and rhetoric, but this is a new low for you.