blackbird

You're assuming he will be impeached. I don't think so. He can't be impeached just because democrats or others don't like him.

1. Doesn't matter if Scheer is from the west. Harper was too and was in for nine years. Poor french might not be the best but it is better than none. 2. There were a lot of Ontarians that voted for Harper during his nine years. Scheer is more of a populist who wants to do things that bring unity to the party. I would agree that a social conservative would not be very popular in Ontario but don't think Scheer is a strong social conservative except he opposes gay marriage; that doesn't mean much. Hopefully people are getting tired of that issue. It effects very few people. 3. A lot of people don't agree with a lot of what Trudeau has done. Lots of people oppose carbon taxes for example. I think lots oppose legalizing marijuana. 4. I will agree with you on that. The maritimes will be tough to win, but if the CPC get a lot of seats in the rest of Canada, they could still win the election.

The Bible is a spiritual book and can only be understood if one receives the gift to spiritually discern it as it says in the above verse. The natural mind cannot understand the Bible. (1 Corinthians ch2 vs 14 KIng Jame Bible 1611) I will pray that you may receive the spiritual gift

I don't think Chong has a chance because of his carbon tax. Don't know how Leitch is doing. She may be in the top three or four. The media are reporting Bernier is in the lead.

You are not aware of the fact the Bible is a supernatural book and a record of supernatural events that were done by God. Of course you can't apply human reasoning and look for earthly explanations for supernatural events. So Noah's flood, as well as other supernatural occurrences in the Bible, can only be understood as miraculous occurrences. Why did God choose to perform these supernatural events? "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness:" 1 Corinthians ch1: 19-23 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

Our politicians are scared to death by the PC crowd and leftists are ready to call anyone who disagrees with diversity and multi-culturalism racists. Any politician who opens his mouth against the Liberal agenda will be blackballed as racist. Look what happened to the senator who very mildly said everything done in residential schools wasn't bad. She was condemned and kicked out of the committee and dealt with swiftly.

I Bogus argument and not logical. All men do not claim to be followers of a holy book that tells men to rape women. That's where your argument falls flat. The fact that most Muslims do not use violence or terrorism does not negate the fact that the Quran holy book teaches violence and that a small percentage take it literally. If there are one billion Muslims in the world and a small percentage believe it literally, say for example 5% that would 5% of one billion people, which is a large number. That would be 50 million. If only 2% take it literally, that would be 20 million. Because of the large number of Muslims in the world, even a small percentage who believe jihad is a legitimate part of Islam it still a large number.

What might surprise you and Dialamah is moderate Muslims will say those terrorists are not Muslims and what they are doing is not Islamic. But what does the holy book Quran say? Some say there are over 100 verses in it extolling violence. This is a paradox.

Yes, as some have already said, a simple reason for keeping the Queen as head of state is if it works and ain't broken, don't fix it. It has worked well since Canada was formed in 1867. If the people don't like what the government is doing, they can throw them out in the next election.

The PM's power is somewhat limited by the fact the House of Commons can vote non-confidence in the government by a majority vote. But Parliament has to be sitting and there are only certain times during it's sitting that they can do this. It would require members of the governing party to support the motion to have a majority of MPs. Then an election might have to be called. Also, the PM's power is limited by what is in accordance with the Constitution if I understand it correctly. But maybe he issues executive orders through his ministers to do certain things using government departments. The PM can take actions that are in accordance with the powers he already has. I think we are kind of in the dark about what powers the PM actually has. Back around 1970 the PM declared the War Measures Act in order to use the Armed Forces to occupy Montreal and suspend freedoms until the crisis with the FLQ passed. The FLQ had kidnapped a British ambassador and murdered a Quebec Minister of the government.

Without the constitutional monarch, a dictatorial-minded PM could possibly dismiss the Governor General and refuse to call an election, on some pretext such as an invented national emergency or the threat of separatism. With the monarchy, that would be very difficult to pull off because the RCMP and Armed Forces have sworn allegiance to the Queen, not to an appointed figurehead in Ottawa. They would be able to arrest a would-be dictator who tries to set up a totalitarian system. I would be very suspicious of a politician who is not supportive of our constitutional monarchy.

From what I've read the constitutional monarchy has certain advantages to ensure the continued existence of our parliamentary democracy. Supposing we had a Prime Minister who decided he wanted to abolish our parliamentary democracy and set up a dictatorship with himself being the President. With our system of having a Queen and Governor General, it so happens that the armed forces and the RCMP have sworn allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. This means if someone attempted to seize power by abolishing parliament and perhaps dismissing the governor general, the RCMP and Canadian Forces would be immediately under the authority of the Queen and could arrest such a usurper. Other situations could arise for example, where there is a lack of confidence in the governing party in Parliament. If there were no Queen or Governor General with enough authority, the governing party could simply ignore the will of parliament and refuse to resign and call an election. These are just two examples where the Queen acts as a kind of protector to our Parliamentary system without having to do much. It also would be much more difficult for a governing party to bring in a clearly unconstitutional law because the Governor General acting on behalf of the Queen could refuse to sign a bill into law if he felt it was seriously contrary to the Constitution. Normally he doesn't refuse to sign a bill into law, but the fact it must be signed into law by the GG means he does have that residual authority and is not beholden to any political party in the same way MPs and senators might be. The other thing is the fact we have the Queen as head of state and head of the Commonwealth means we automatically have the other Commonwealth countries on our side in the event of an attack against Canada by some other country. In the same way when Britain went into war against Germany, and Canada was automatically in the war with Britain, I would think being part of the Commonwealth would mean Britain and other Commonwealth countries would almost automatically be on Canada's side in time of war.

It's all about what are the most strategic alliances for the U.S. to have. Contrary to what SJWs think, the U.S. has to act in it's own best interest in the world. That means weighing the good against the bad that having SA as an ally would mean. We don't see the whole picture sitting here on our computers, but there are lots of things to consider.

I think if SA was supporting terrorism to the extent you claim, the U.S. would know about it and there would be major friction between the U.S. and SA. Since that is not happening, I doubt SA is supporting Al Qaeda and terrorism to any significant degree. But like any country in the ME, there are probably some people in SA who fund terrorism. Perhaps this is without the SA government's knowledge. However, if SA was a major supporter of terrorism, as you say, I think the U.S. would be doing something about it. The U.S. has spent perhaps trillions of dollars on the war on terrorism so I don't think it would work politically if SA was officially supporting terrorist groups. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Also, I don't see SA oil being a major influence with the U.S. The U.S. gets a lot of oil from it's own wells, Venezuala, Canada, and possibly other places. I think Newfoundland even has half a dozen or so ocean drilling rigs. There are lots of alternatives to get oil for the U.S.

Interesting perspective. I don't know if it's a fact or not. How could I know? If what you're saying is a fact, why doesn't the U.S. know about it?

So you don't think Iran is a world's biggest state-sponsor of terrorism? You don't understand that SA is an ally of the U.S. in the fight against Islamic terrorism? What would you do differently?

There is a woman in Pakistan who was a Muslim but converted to christianity and has been sentenced to death for blasphemy. She has appealed it. There are Muslims calling for her execution.

Innocent until proven guilty!

The Iraq war wasn't a religious crusade. I don't believe you when you say Jesus told him to do it. Never heard that on the news once. Part of it was the U.S. thought there were weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be false. But part of it was also fighting against Al Qaeda. As it turned out there were Al Qaeda terrorists fighting in Iraq and a lot of suicide bombings, which killed a lot of bystanders (which are still going on). When the U.S. occupied Iraq, Al Qaeda terrorists migrated in droves to Iraq to join the battle against the Americans. The daily fighting in Iraq was against Al Qaeda terrorists, not the people of Iraq. You can't compare the Iraq war with terrorist attacks by jihadists in various countries and continents that have been going on long before the Iraq war. It's comparing apples and oranges.

Seems you haven't read the New Testament. Jesus wasn't involved in politics or political action.

The U.S. concentrates on the major things that could threaten the west and the U.S. They can't change a place like Saudi Arabia.

The west tries to stop Iran and N. Korea from getting nuclear weapons and missiles but even that is proving very difficult.

The world is an evil place under the influence of the devil. You can't stop that with politics.

Jesus was not involved in world politics. Remember the Roman Empire which ruled Israel in the time of Jesus on earth was not a respecter of human rights as you would think today. They did many bad things.

The west picks it's allies in the world from the lesser of the evils. You can choose to idealistic and say we shouldn't deal with this country or that, but then we would end up with no allies in an evil world.