Yzermandius19

Well said. Outlawing free speech isn't going to make anyone in Canada safer, especially in the long run. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin Not that Canada would understand, with all the free speech haters and gun grabbers we have up here.

I'm not interested in you projecting your feelings on Muslim extremists. If you think that such an exercise tells you anything, you are misguided. Not everyone would react the way that Islamic extremists do, even if you would in their place, that doesn't justify the reaction. The Islamic extremists attack the West because they hate the West, not because anyone would respond the way did if attacked by the West in a similar manner. Even Western nations that never attacked the Muslim's are getting attacked at similar rates to nations that did, retaliation for invasion isn't what is driving Islamic Extremists, that's just an excuse they use to sway people to their cause.

It is the same action, you are taking issues with tone and rhetoric, but you give Democrats a pass because they blow sunshine up your ass while doing the exact same thing. Actions speak louder than words, enough of the silly focus on what Trump says, and put more of an emphasis on what he does.

Democrat POTUS's enacted basically the same ban, yet no outcry of Islamophobia. The media is in the bag for the Democrats, over 80% of them are Democrats, and they only get outraged when a Republican does it. You know nothing Zeitgeist, simmer down.

There was no outcry when Democrat POTUS's did it, only when Republican POTUS's do it, then it's "dark" all of a sudden. Obvious double standard is obvious.

Trump's actions on immigration, aren't all that different from Obama's. Confusing tone and rhetoric with action, one guy blows sunshine up your ass, while the other guy rubs you the wrong way, that's the biggest difference.

Indeed. It's only Islamophobic when Trump does it, not Obama. Lulz, what a clown show.

Prove it. Your mind reading skills leave a lot to be desired.

It's not a Muslim ban, it's a ban on people from certain countries, that happen to be majority Muslim. People overreacting to that, is not Trump's fault.

Retaliation is not a sufficient explanation for Islamic Terrorist attacks. It's a culture thing that is causing the Islamic extremists to lash out the way they do, not simply that they are being attacked and anyone else attacked in such a way would respond just as they do, that is obvious bullshit.

Blaming America for the Islamic terrorists attacking the West, doesn't make any sense. America bombed the shit out of Japan, Germany and Vietnam, yet I don't see that many Japanese, German or Vietnamese extremist groups lashing out and committing terror attacks on those who attacked them, and certainly not on the scale of Muslim extremists, it's not even close. The Islamic terrorists aren't doing it because America attacked them, that's just an excuse they use to make their cause seem more righteous, but if it was the natural reaction to being attacked by a foreign power, as some posters here are suggesting, then the Vietnamese, Japanese and Germans would be committing most of the terrorist attacks against other western nations, yet they aren't, it's the Muslims.

You're not allowed to say what you want, if foreigners give you money, and you say something political. That is not free speech, that is infringement on free speech. Outlawing forms of speech that you don't like, is not free speech, the whole point of free speech, is to protect speech that people don't like. If it only protected speech that people like, then there would be no need for freedom of speech, because no one would object.

"I'm okay with them saying what they want, but I'm not okay with them saying what they want if foreigners fund them." That's not free speech dude, the juice from reducing foreign influence through the methods you advocate, is not worth the damage to free speech, not by a long shot.

The reason most environmentalists don't like nuclear, is that was the doomsday they feared before they moved on to climate change after the end of the Cold War. Same doomsday prophecy, they just moved the goalposts and jumped on the climate change bandwagon from the nuclear winter bandwagon.

You might be content with no free speech, but some us in Canada find that notion to be more unpleasant than "foreign influence". If a group wants to push a message you don't agree with, and they are funded with foreign money, and use that to promote speech that you don't like, too bad, free speech is more important than your feelz. Attacking the free speech of people who you don't agree with, just because some foreigners give them money, is really stupid.

If foreigners want to use their speech to influence Canadian elections, they have every right to do so. Just because they are pushing a message that you might not approve of doesn't mean they should be banned from doing so. Free speech haters obviously disagree, but they would disagree now wouldn't they?

Trump's approval rating is higher than Trudeau's, he faces re-election later, and the investigation is a nothing burger. Both will probably be re-elected, but Trump is more likely to be re-elected, of the two.

They might go with Biden, and if they do, they won't lose as badly as if they go with Harris or Sanders, but they'll still lose. If the Dems go with a center-left type, like Biden: They'll lose like Mondale did to Reagan in 1984. They'll lose like Dole did to Clinton in 1996. They'll lose like Kerry did to Bush in 2004. They'll lose like Romney did to Obama in 2012. If the Dems go with far left type, like Sanders or Harris: They'll lose like McGovern did to Nixon in 1972. How are The Democrats?

It's the Democrats whose antics aren't working anymore, yet they keep doubling down on those failed antics, which is a big reason Trump is such a lock in 2020. They learned no lessons from 2016 and will repeat the same mistakes in 2020, but on steroids this time. "We're Not Trump" is not a winning platform, who knew?

I thought he would win, I even bet on him to win at +260, cha-ching. I had my doubts that he would after the Access Hollywood tape, but in the end, I was right,. Republicans aren't prepared to beat Trump in 2020, they are prepared to support him in 2020 with no real challenge. Trump has some of the highest approval ratings among Republicans since Bush after 9/11. The Republicans have no one on the bench who could beat Trump in the 2020 primary, even if they wanted to, which they don't.

Incumbents rarely lose, and when they do, nine times out of ten, it's to someone who will serve at least two-terms as POTUS. The Democrats have no 2-term POTUS's waiting in the wings to save them from Trump, so they are screwed.

The Republicans want to win, Trump gives them the best chance of winning in 2020, just as he did in 2016. Except now he's an incumbent which makes his chances of winning more likely in 2020 than in 2016, especially when the Democrats have no one who could beat him.

Considering the competition that he's running against, his chances of chickening out are very slim.

No worries, The Clarity Act provides. Vive le Quebec libre!

The media creates their own reality, hence the over 90% negative coverage of Trump. The media is not as equally in the bag for Republicans as they are for the Democrats, they gave Obama the kid glove treatment as their media darling and it's non-stop negative Trump coverage 24/7. Not surprising though, as the media is over 80% Democrats, obvious left leaning bias is obvious.