WestCanMan

You’re speculating that Harper, and I assume that meant Scheer the second time, would have pushed the snc scandal through the DPA route and you’re wrong in doing so. Harper actually created the law banning companies facing criminal charges from bidding on federal contracts for ten years. There was no DPA law at the time. Trudeau created that so that SNC could circumvent Harper’s law. Harper wouldn’t likely create a law just to weasel around it himself two years later. Conservatives aren’t “pretending” this is important. The real issue that’s at stake here is that our PM was acting like judge and jury here. You have to have a warm spot in your heart for dictatorships if you think that it’s ok for the PM himself (without even having a law degree) to have total oversight over the judicial processes of the country. I don’t care how slimesters in foreign countries operate. I’m not interested in helping them ensure that shithole countries never develop. That’s a Liberal policy. Canadian companies should never act like this: “SNC and its subsidiaries SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc. and SNC-Lavalin International Inc. are also alleged to have defrauded various Libyan public agencies of approximately $129.8 million.” They got caught and it’s up to actual crown prosecutors and judges to study the pertinent laws and legal precedents and to ensure that the correct penalties are meted out to the appropriate parties. It’s not something that just comes off of PM Selfie’s cuff. He doesn’t own the country.

Here's the trail of bread crumbs to help you refresh your memory on SNC before you vote: https://globalnews.ca/news/4954892/snc-lavalin-criminal-charges-montreal-bridge/?utm_expid=.kz0UD5JkQOCo6yMqxGqECg.0&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fglobalnews.ca%2Fnews%2F4954892%2Fsnc-lavalin-criminal-charges-montreal-bridge%2F SNC has a history of bribing officials both inside and outside the country to get what they want. As a taxpayer you should believe that your government is selecting the companies that will do the best job possible with a reasonable amount of YOUR tax dollars, and not just awarding lofty contracts to companies that are owned by their friends or that give them large bribes. If SNC was willing to pay $2.3M to bribe a politician for a $127M contract, how much would they be willing to pay for a slice of the $150 Billion that Trudeau's government has announced that they are spending on infrastructure? The $2.3M amounts to 1.8% of the $127M. If they even "win" bids on 10% of the $150B that was announced that's $15B, and 1.8% of that is $270,000,000.00. So they could potentially be willing to give out $270M worth of bribes if they can find a way to do it without getting caught. I'm not saying that Trudeau accepted a bribe, or that he was even offered a bribe, but shouldn't there at least be an investigation? There isn't. And yet he created the deferred Prosecution law SPECIFICALLY for engineering firms "like" SNC that are facing criminal charges, so that they can still bid on federal contracts. It wasn't a stand-alone law that was created out in the open, it was tucked away in Part 6, Division 20 of the 560-page omnibus Bill C-74. After he created that law, and I'm going out on a limb and saying that he did it specifically for SNC but you can believe what you want, he applied pressure on Judy Wilson-Raybould to allow the law to be applied to SNC's case when, as the Attorney General, it was her opinion that it wasn't the appropriate thing to do. He removed her from the AG position, and kicked her out of the caucus, and he did all that for SNC Lavalin. Now Trudeau is doing all he can to block a proper investigation: https://globalnews.ca/news/5887824/snc-lavalin-rcmp-inquiry-canada-election/?utm_expid=.kz0UD5JkQOCo6yMqxGqECg.0&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2F Even Raybould isn't allowed to speak freely. How can our PM move heaven and earth for a criminal entity like SNC Lavalin, when they have a lengthy history of giving bribes which come from the public coffer, and then effectively block an investigation: https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-rcmp-were-blocked-from-fully-investigating-trudeaus-office-on-snc-obstruction-claims and later... So how serious of an issue is this for you?

If May rides her anti-B21 stance like Secretariat she could actually cost Trudeau a lot of votes outside of Quebec. She's going straight after the idolatrous sycophant horde who can't get enough of his virtue-signalling. IE, his base. If she just had a selfie game she could probably double the number of seats that the Greens have lol.

Yep. They're desperate to be relevant. They're sick of sitting at the kiddy table. They want a seat with the big boys so that they can scream their platitudes with a megaphone instead of squeaking like mice. Unfortunately for the Greens they have the weakest, most insipid leader in the history of politics, right at the time when their age-old agenda is suddenly one of the hottest topics in politics. There are literally millions of people who care more about the environment than they care about the economy but the Greens can't cash in on it because E May is so grossly unfit for leadership. It's like it's raining dollar bills but they don't want a butterfly net, they're happy to use their dessert fork.

After the election. The country will already be screwed by then if Trudeau wins.

In the ME it is also an instrument for religious bigotry at the best of times, at it's worst it is an instrument for mass systemic rape. If you got a great deal on a house in Iran, Pakistan, or Iraq, let's say $10K Canadian for a 4 bedroom home, and you moved there, you would routinely face serious discrimination if you didn't wear one. You'd also get threats and possibly face jail time. You'd be deathly afraid to let your daughter go out in public without one. And that's at the best of times. In times of strife, like the partitioning of Pakistan, Bangladesh separation or when islamic state took over Syria, the lack of a hijab will, with 100% certainty, make you a target for rape and/or murder.

I don't doubt that a lot of people are xenophobic, but people who grow up in cities with a lot of diversity tend to outgrow that. Re: "shared values and beliefs", I have a non-religious, caucasian background, and yet I have a lot more in common with a lot of Indo-Canadians than with a lot of Trudeau's despised "old-stock Canadians". For example, I'm an Oiler fan. When I'm in Edmonton and i go to a hockey game I see lots of Sikhs there. The ones that have businesses of their own, or work hard and bring in decent incomes, won't typically be Liberal voters. Contrast that group with a room full of teachers from UVIC, who grew up being brainwashed in a Lib factory and are now union members. I'd avoid the second group like the plague, yet the guys who published this work would consider them my homeys. I was only here for a brief, shining moment.

If you've ever watched Fox News and CNN cover the same story you can see how easy it is for people with an agenda to dig up "stats", quotes, "supporting evidence", etc to come to whatever conclusion you want. I think this topic is as much of a non-starter as when Trudeau said "diversity is our greatest strength". Can't get into it.

In Syria Trump stepped back America’s stated goal of ousting Assad and the Syrians took that for a sign of weakness. They gassed some folks, Trump got a chance to use some shiny toys on them. Now Trump is showing the Taliban that he’s willing to negotiate with them. They’re stepping up attacks. I think this Taliban negotiation thing may be a ruse. It’s just to get another chance for Trump to use some big-ass toys.

So, some of their initial reports said that Alabama might get part of the storm, Trump tweeted that Alabama might get part of the storm, what's the problem? There was more than one report. There were dozens of them, it was being updated all the time. This isn't a scandal, it's a joke. I'll tell you straight up that I will never "just believe" anything that I see on CNN, and that's not because I am biased against them, it's because I've only known them to lie or spin or misrepresent or omit, etc. They don't ever try to tell the whole, honest truth. That's a fact whether you like to admit it or not.

If you care for the Green movement at all then I'd skip voting for them while May is their leader. They'll be way better off once they ditched her. Re: Trudeau, his anti-democracy ways are front and center. 1) He openly admires China's government's ability to just plow ahead and do whatever they want. 2) He openly stated that the policy of his Liberal Party is that Liberal MPs are not allowed to vote in a manner that represents the will of their constituents - they have to vote the way they are told to vote. If they feel like they need to vote against abortion then they aren't allowed in. His scandals aren't small, or maybe just conspiracy theories like Russian collusion or storm-mongering in the US, or "who paid back the $90K". They're huge and blatant. He was caught red-handed trying to use influence that's well outside of his authority as PM in order to protect a company that's been caught bribing other politicians ($2M for a single bridge contract. How much would they bribe someone for ten year's worth of bidding on federal contracts? Trudeau put $150B worth of infrastructure spending on the table. What's a chunk of that worth to SNC?) When he was caught he tried to bully and intimidate Raybould, even kicked her out of the caucus. She's still not allowed to speak. Were any witnesses against Trump or Harper forbidden to speak? And that's just one of his 5 ethics breaches. He's been found guilty twice. He gave the CBC $795M right after the 2015 election, and CBC gave him 3 years worth of Harper-bashing before the election to earn it. Now he's spending $600,000,000.00 more of our tax dollars to buy off more media for the next election. If Trump gave $1.4B to Fox the CBC would go apoplectic, and so would you. You know that what Trudeau did was a scandal, you just don't want to admit it and the media certainly isn't going to complain..

OMG are you still quoting CNN? How's that going for you, in general? I gotta admit, they were almost right that one time. They said that a Presidential candidate colluded with Russians and it was true, they just got the candidate wrong. They had a 50/50 chance, and that's much higher than their batting avg on every other topic.

The hurricane was originally projected to hit somewhere within a broad area and Alabama was part of the general area that could be hit, but it wasn't in the "cone of certainty". The info was outdated at the time Trump made his comment. It's correct to say that Alabama was not within the "cone of certainty" at any time, but it's not correct to say that Alabama was never in any projected paths of the hurricane. If it even matters. This is just like the "alternative facts" about the inauguration crowd size. Trump used the data from transit ridership and made an incorrect claim - not a lie. MSM is desperate to make Trump sound like a liar so they spin the narrative to make it seem like a lie. There's a difference between being wrong and lying but you can't tell that to a CNN toady.

I actually like your answer a lot, but I would have a hard time making the point that Sikhs can’t wear a turban for two reasons: 1) they wear them because they were originally subjected to actual laws/oppression/religious bigotry that basically said “our guys can wear this stuff but if you do it then we will kill you” and I would hate to in any way reinforce that original act of religious bigotry against them. (Although I guess you could make the point that it’s not bigotry if everyone was subjected to the same law). 2) they fought on our side in the WWs, and forsook the helmet and it’s protection because of their religious convictions. I’m a person who appreciates their incredible sacrifice and I also believe that all of our soldiers all fought for freedoms of one sort or other, and I think the Sikhs fully paid for the right to wear their turbans in this country with their own blood. I also think that this is a Christian country and wearing crosses should be allowed, and Sikhs fought for the right to wear their turbans, and first nations people should always be able to wear whatever items of religious significance they want, so how can we ban other items without being religious bigots? I think people should be allowed to wear what religious articles they feel they need to at work, but I could easily be convinced of banning them at schools. I dunno, tough call. I’m all over the place on this one lol.

“According to Ministry of Propaganda” lol

Give me a break Rue. Anyone who can go on the stage dozens of times per year in front of 50,000 or more people and give hour+ speeches, in addition to working 70+ hrs per week in one of the most stressful jobs on the planet, is holding their **it together pretty well. You've got 7 articles there, but there are probably 50,000 diehard leftist shrinks still running around the US crying their eyes out because Hillary lost. Not all of those shrinks are strong, independent thinkers, a lot of them are impressionable people who have devoted their lives to learning by rote and can therefor be easily brainwashed. Look at Blasey Ford - she's a professor of psychology at Palo Alto and a research psychologist at Stanford and yet she's still just a pathological liar and a fragile dimwit.

It's tough to say how strong Andrew Scheer is imo. He's trying to win an election, and he knows that Trudeau's only strength/path to victory is his awesome virtue-signalling campaign, so he's effectively disarming Trudeau by looking as dangerous as a beach ball while at the same time he's standing up for Canadian values & rule of law. It's like one of those guys who juggles a chainsaw with a teacup and a water balloon. Scheer knows that Trudeau going into a debate without a chance to make baseless accusations is like a swimmer going across the English Channel in plate armour. The crappy thing for the debate stage is that Trudeau can get his virtue-signalling in at Bernier's expense now. Bernier is literally screwing the country six ways from Sunday.

If it was a lie you’d know by now. It’s true, and FYI Fox doesn’t have the NYT or CNN’s track record for lying so you don’t have to worry about that.

Actually: Sorry soldiers - the stupid, divisive leftist politicians in the US can never let a good crisis go to waste so they’re doing everything they can to exacerbate problems along the border. Their toadies love them for it. The President is doing what he can to keep his promise to the American people.

To be honest, I’m hoping to not be a part of the same country as Quebec some day soon, one way or another, so there’s not much point in me debating that. Hopefully Quebec separates, or Alberta separates and I’ll move there. It’s not exactly a long shot at this point.

I hate E May, I think it’s a total insult to this country that she’s still the leader of a federal party. That being said, I have her back on this one. It has already been established that Sikhs can ride motorbikes without a helmet, and that’s a bigger deal than walking through a hallway with a piece of religious headwear. Bottom line is that Canada is a place that tolerates religions, and the last thing that I want to see is us starting to resemble a middle-eastern style country that’s enforcing a religious dress code. I draw an extremely hard line on people in a position of power over our children talking about their religious beliefs in public schools though. IMO they can wear what they want but if they tell the kids anything that resembles “this is what you can or can’t do because of my religion” or “this is what’s inferior about your belief system/country” that’s grounds for immediate dismissal. There are schools where they can indoctrinate young, impressionable kids with their parents’ approval, but there’s not one square inch of a public school for that.

Who are you to say that it’s merely an allegation Bubber? It walks like a duck, it sounds like a duck, but Bubber knows that it thinks it’s not a duck.... One of the first things Trudeau did after he got elected was give the CBC about $795,000,000.00. That’s the bunch that gave him headline coverage for 3 years to talk about “Duffygate”. Your bias has you believing things that a reasonable man would not.

Yes they're sycophants, but still only 2 out of 300 managed to laugh at his "joke". Maybe 30 had a reaction similar to a gasp? I dunno, it was a lot more than 2. Why do I need to tell you everything? Are you deaf? It's not a big deal, lots of people are.

They appeal to Conservatives just fine, but Bernier is muddying the waters.

I'm confident that voters are on a path to reject Trudeau, but Bernier is a real threat to the Conservatives. He can challenge Scheer for votes from the right and if Scheer fights back then he might lose swing voters to the Libs. He's making Scheer walk an extremely fine line.