TreeBeard

*putting on my tinfoil hat* These Chinese spies were working for Carney’s company. He smuggled them across the border in the trunk of his car.

Didn’t you already post this same article?

Don’t you like the free market? You’re more of a socialist than even Carney is!

Why would it matter if the idea is original? That just sounds whiny. The electorate don’t want someone who speaks and thinks like Trump. That seems really clear.

Libs projected to win seats in Alberta…. let that soak in. Can PP do anything to right the Con ship?

Why are you posting that like it’s a negative thing? Aren’t you a conservative?

Exactly right. He’s a conservative. Yet you Conservatives criticize him for doing conservative things that you’d have no issues with PP doing.

What, you don’t want 4,000 reasons to hate Mark Carney? 😂 (Most of them posted by conservatives regurgitating left-wing talking points about how Carney is too conservative)

Why do conservatives have an issue with this? Or is this just Conservatives regurgitating leftwing talking points? You’d think conservatives would consider this a positive in his favour….

338Canada updated. It’s a bloodbath in the polls…. PP needs to put forward ideas. What can he do to turn it around? To appeal to normal Canadians, and not anti-vax, WEF conspiracy loonies? Because, as much as those are popular with posters here, normal Canadians are turned off by those things.

Normal Canadians disagree with your assessment that the sky is falling. And they don’t see Poilievre as an effective leader with effective policies that could take on Trump. Probably because Poilievre’s rhetoric in opposition has been very pro Maple MAGA. Normal Canadians like vaccines. Normal people don’t believe the silly conspiracies about walkable cities being gulags. So when Poilievre cozies up to the fringe, normal Canadians will look for another viable option. The exact reasons you like Poilievre (and Trump) are the exact reasons normal Canadians would prefer to vote for someone other than Poilievre.

Sounds like reasonable positions to me. Climate change is a problem we need to try and mitigate.

All from people angry with him about Brexit.

5, eh? Thats really tragic and should never happen in a country like ours. 5 is really bad. From Google AI: While it's difficult to pinpoint an exact number of deaths in US hospital waiting rooms, a 2023 study by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) estimated that almost 14,000 excess deaths were associated with waits of 12 hours or longer in emergency departments, according to RCEM.

Americans don’t think there are misdiagnoses and delayed treatments in their country? 😂 Finding sensational and sad outliers is not the flex you think it is if there are also sensational and sad outliers in the USofA system.

Why do you like climate change and pollution so much?

The biggest gripe from these clowns was his opposition to Brexit. Thats who is coming from under their rocks to criticize him. Brexit was awful, as Carney predicted.

Just like Carney said it would due to Brexit. An economist and head of the national bank, whether in the UK or here, doesn’t control the economy. They can steer it somewhat with policy, but even that is limited. You make it out like he single-handedly pulled the levers of the UK economy. As the Brits would say…. Bollocks. https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/canadas-new-prime-minister-bears-the-battle-scars-of-brexit/

The odds favour a Lib majority right now. When I said he promotes bad policy? Read a bit more carefully. I don’t believe there’s such a thing as a wasted vote. Why do you think I support the NDP?

All that matters is legal mumbo jumbo by international law experts. Your opinion has zero importance on international law. It’s a British group. You didn’t read it at all. It had nothing to do with the state of Canada/USA affairs. You have issues with critical thinking.

I will go by the legal experts opinion on the definition, rather than your whacky assertions. For the purpose of Article 51, an armed attack includes not only an attack against the territory of the State, including its airspace and territorial sea, but also attacks directed against emanations of the State, such as its armed forces or embassies abroad. An armed attack may also include, in certain circumstances, attacks against private citizens abroad or civil ships and airliners. An ‘armed attack’ therefore is an intentional intervention in or against another state without that state’s consent or subsequent acquiescence, which is not legally justified. An armed attack involves the use of armed force and not mere economic damage. Economic damage, for example, by way of trade suspension, or by use of a computer virus designed to paralyse the financial operations of a state’s stock exchange or to disable the technology used to control water resources, may have a devastating impact on the victim state but the principles governing the right to use force in self-defence are confined to a military attack. A purely ‘economic’ attack might however give rise to the right of self-defence if it were the precursor to an imminent armed attack. An armed attack means any use of armed force, and does not need to cross some threshold of intensity. Any requirement that a use of force must attain a certain gravity and that frontier incidents, for example, are excluded is relevant only in so far as the minor nature of an attack is prima facie evidence of absence of intention to attack or honest mistake. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/International Law/ilpforce.doc#:~:text=For the purpose of Article,armed forces or embassies abroad.

When he is Prime Minister with a majority government and PP is ousted as leader due to the epic meltdown of support, do you think he’ll worry about if the remaining Conservative partisans are screeching on Repolitics that he stole his ideas from PP? where did you get that I support the Liberal Party?

So how can international law experts define it in a paper? You think they’re just making it up, or do you think there is International Court of Justice precedent? Hint: there’s precedent. Read the article I linked. You’re the one who said PP meant departments are underfunded and understaffed when he said everything in Canada is broken.

So nowhere in international law is “armed attack” defined? This is another asinine assertion by yourself. Now the pigeon has shit on the board! Then why is there an entire paper written by international legal experts on this subject that goes into what specifically it means? PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ON THE USE OF FORCE BY STATES IN SELF-DEFENCE. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/International Law/ilpforce.doc#:~:text=For the purpose of Article,armed forces or embassies abroad.

The pigeon has knocked over the pieces and is strutting about declaring victory! Article 51 doesn’t say what you said it does and an armed attack is not defined how you say it is. Please link to the legal definition of an armed attack then. I linked to one above.