CdnFox

I accept your admission of defeat This was definitely a loss for Carney but like I said not exactly a decisive one. But it makes him look bad and it makes it clear to everybody that his cabinet is fractured

He said beer, not bud light.

It's an excellent question and I think we all know the answer. The problem with the CDC isn't just its extremely biased reporting, It's also that it under reports or fails to report anything about stories that would be embarrassing to the government. Or stories that would be beneficial to the conservatives. So all day long all year long all they do is feed the public a steady stream of positive stories about the government and negative stories about the conservatives with the bare minimum of the opposite thrown in to make it look sort of like maybe possibly they're not biased. The CBC can't be defunded fast enough

Complete losers just consider the source. It's their way of saying I can't argue against this so the best I can do is a straw man attack Yep. Still less biased than the CBC And if you follow along you find out this was based on testimony that was given at a committee hearing. Unless you're now going to argue that the federal government is biased in favor of the conservatives So if you're done looking stupid, was there anything you wanted to actually add to this or....

And liberal supporters will just eat this up. It's like they don't realize if you hire someone who is this corrupt he is going to stab you in the back which is exactly what happened with Justin Trudeau and exactly what's going to happen with carney. The difference is that Trudeau inherited a healthy economy with low debt and strong country and before long absolutely trashed it to the point where it was a new low well at the same time coming close to tripling its debt Carney is now inheriting that crippled country that's already on the ropes and by the time he's done and sinks it just as bad as Justin did it will be unrecoverable. Justin went from good to bad carney is going to go from bad to worst.

Zero times had husband run across tarmack to threatene and cajole chief justice to dump case

That has all been tested and proven to be false according to the courts. In the one case of a handful of people even then it said that due process was offered but fell short of what the law requires and instructed them to do better next time. It wasn't that they were denied due process. That happens all the time. but in general, the Trump Administration is harming the rule of law in these broad categories: First off again most of those are your opinion. And some of them are just a joke, like eroding long-standing institutional norms. That's about as much bullshit as you can possibly muster And the rest of it is just your opinion. It has no real basis in fact it's not objective it's subjective. Not to mention most of it is stuff that every government has done including Biden and Obama There is not a single thing in there that I can't point to many other governments do it in the united states history in fact most of them I could point to the last two administrations and show them all as being fairly common. So again this is your opinion and emotion it's not based in fact. If those things were an erosion of democracy or america then America would already be well eroded long before trump came along Oh you mean like he's been telling people they're not allowed to talk about Hunter Biden's notebook on pain of legal recourse, or instructing social media to deliberately repress conservative voices? Oh no wait, that wasn't him who was that again......?

Against administration is not encouraging them to act illegally nor have any charges of illegal activity been brought against them that I'm aware of. If an ice officer behaves illegally then they can be charged. The problem is you quote things out of context. Yes, arresting an ice officer or interfering with him while he's conducting his duties would indeed be illegal. But that doesn't mean you can't bring charges against them after And not only does miller not have the ability or authority to prevent any prosecutions against, he has no way of actually stopping charges from being brought against anyone. Yet here we are And you don't know what they're spurred on by, you're just making that up because that's what you want to be true. The situation might be right for abuse but if it's abused then there is a process. And if there was rampant abuse we would be seeing that process used constantly and we are not. It would appear that they are acting for the most part within the law Also for inexplicable reasons you point out that the supreme court justice has determined that some of what they're doing is specifically legal. Which shoots your argument in the foot And you, a non-expert who has an obvious hatred for ice and for trump are simply not qualified to determine what does or does not represent needless traumatization. Restricting people's movements keeps them safe during times when they may be tempted to act dangerously. What if a child out of fear were to bolt and run out into the street? IF they got hit and killed you'd be screaming demanding to know why Ice "Let a child be killed". What if the 14-year-old decided they were going to "Save their siblings" And break free and grab a knife? Now that you either have to shoot her or hope they can disarm her somehow without injury. There's no doubt that being taken into custody is going to be traumatic for them, that's unavoidable. But you can control their actions so that they don't do something sudden and inappropriate and get killed. Literally everything you're saying here is an appeal to emotion and that is a logical fallacy that simply can't be defended. You say they are breaking the law but can't provide any evidence and nobody is actually using the process that they would if they were breaking the law. You say that the officers are being manipulated but that's just your feeling there's no evidence of that. You say things are right for abuse and in your opinion this shouldn't happen or that shouldn't happen but none of that is factual or demonstrates that they're stepping outside the law . So let's cut to the chase. What you're saying is you don't like what's happening. That's a perfectly valid position and you can take that position and argue as to why you don't think it should be that way. But you cannot take the fact that you dislike it and somehow pretend that that's evidence that what trump is doing is evil or wrong inherently or illegal in any way. Trump's actions are illegal when a judge says so. The agents actions are illegal when a judge says so. Give a specific agent steps outside the law they should be charged and prosecuted just like any police officer. But you haven't really made that case, all you've done is suggest that in your opinion what's happening is undesirable. Fair enough but that's not the same as trump is committing a crime

Are you saying 27 percent DO? Holy SHIT that's a high percent!

I accept your Admission of defeat It's the feds. They're the ones in charge of working with the first nations. IF they didn't have a plan to make them happy then they deliberately chose to fail. My "leadres" have been clear on the issue of tanker bans for decades. You're wrong Considering the bs exists only in your mind, i agree it would be unreasonable for anyone else to see it

So evidence but not proof. I mean, that's fair enough and not an outrageous thing to say but i don't know why you want to pick a fight over the term 'evidence' when you clearly believe it's evidence. Evidence isn't "proof", it's just an indication. I know that dictionary definitions of words confound and upset you Well you'd have to make an argument as to why it's troubling in your opinion then. It seems like it's a little out of the usual for a president, is that the troubling part? I feel like trump is definitely outside the usual mold for a president whether you approve of him or don't. I think that was kind of his appeal to people, especially in his first term. I could see if you felt it was evidence of cognative decline that this would be concerning but you seem to be saying that's not the case? Maybe? I don't know, it's weird but trump is weird, i think you'd need to make a clearer argument as to why someone should be particularly concerned about it if that's your position.

Carney caught meeting Brookfield execs despite ethics warnings He has millions and millions of dollars in share futures with Brooksfield, he's almost certain to go back to working for Brooksfield when he leaves politics, and now we find out he's still meeting with executives from brookfields While he still has the ability to pass laws which will directly impact their success All of which was against the ethics Commissioners warnings Just like Trudeau he didn't manage to go 6 months without breaking the ethics rules and displaying corruption

If the government is acting outside the law then these people have recourse. They can file lawsuits and make lots of money. But there have only been a few lawsuits in the findings aren't terribly damning. With all of these examples if credible you would think that there would be hundreds of lawsuits if not thousands demanding reparations against illegal Behavior. As it is I didn't take the time to read the report, you haven't actually really mentioned much from the report and I'm not prepared to read the whole thing to try and figure out what part you're talking about. But I do know that the vast majority of the writers of this report come from California politics and it leads me to believe there is a strong possibility of bias in the interpretation of the law and trump's actions. If there's a specific incident that you're referring to than by all means put it forward. The only one you seem to have mentioned was the fact that Two children and an adolescent were restrained. Frankly I don't see a big problem with that, especially the adolescent. Restraining the children given the circumstances may very well have been for their own security and safety. But if there was wrong doing there it was wrong doing on the part of the police conducting the raid and police policy and behavior should be examined if in that case it's inappropriate. It doesn't speak to trump

The local indigenous leaders in bc say "no freaking way is this ever going to happen". Looks like you're wrong again And carney knew that. As i said from the beginning he's deliberately made sure that he's poisoned the well so that no pipeline will ever be built while pretending to build a pipeline. And now the liberals just proved it. Voted against it because their caucus is entirely divided. Carney has been whispering to his people "Don't worry, it'll never be built, just go along with this", but now they've nailed their colours to the mast and it's obvious it was all a sham. This isn't going to change the needle much politically, but it does show how utterly useless carney is at his job and this kind of thing piles up in the public's mind and erodes confidence. True, but it's not the SADDEST thing about you so we forgive it They say 'never' First Nations chiefs vote unanimously to reject any changes to B.C.’s oil tanker ban | Globalnews.ca

Yeah, it looks really bad on Carney. The CPC maneuvered them really well.

Ah! More "Not angry" from you So no argument, or any kind of rebuttal, just "No You Dumb". Make an argument then. I would say that trump is not so much of a con man as he is a great performer. He has a way of charming people and getting people on board with his ideas and they believe in him. That's not a con man, that's just being charismatic and possibly populist. In many ways Justin Trudeau was very similar So you would have to make an argument as to why trump is a con man rather than just a populist or popular figure. I would argue that carney is more of a con man and trump is more of a circus performer or personality

This is about 90 percent of his arguments. When he paints himself into a corner he'll try to turn the conversation into a debate about the meaning or definition of a word and focus on that, hoping everyone will forget what they were really talking about. LIke I said, he'll claim "I never said evidence, what i said was it's apperen from the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Yeah, that's the definition of evidence. And he'll argue that for 10 pages because now you're not talking about what he knew he was wrong about before.

In other words what you're saying is his behavior is evidence of mental decline. You just lying and trying to dance around the meaning of your words to try and play games and avoid the fact that he caught you out. "I'm not saying it's EVIDENCE, i'm just saying it's the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid!!!"Yeah, that's the definition of evidence you twat.

Yep, definitely no hatred and anger there LOL

Possibly, but then again since the beginning of man, women have been convinced to make bad decisions by snakes if we believe the legends

Is the topic description puppies? No? LOLOL just bound and determined to derail the thread. Well, that's certainly very "you"

You'll see the following argument made frequently about virtually ANY tax cut that's not specifically targeted at lower income earners only: "BUT - THIS IS A TAX CUT FOR ALL SO A RICH PERSON WILL SAVE 100,000 DOLLARS IN TAXES WHILE THE POOR ONLY SAVE 1,000, THAT'S NOT FAIR WHY ARE THE RICH GETTING A BIGGER TAX CUT!?!?!" The short answer is the rich pay vastly more taxes. If an 'average' person pays 20,000 in taxes and a rich person pays 2 million in taxes, of course any tax break is going to give the rich person more actual cash. They will claim this is unfair, but they think it's just fine the rich person pays the vast majority of the taxes But what they often miss is that while the tax break is more savings to the rich, it usually represents LESS Of their disposable income. the rich tend to be able to shelter their money better, it's worth it for them to make the effort to do so. So a 10 percent savings to them really isn't that much in comparison to their total income. Whereas it's a huge amount for the average person paying regular tax rates. There's nothing wrong with the rich getting a tax break but the left does not care for it.

LOL sure kid. So let me guess, you're someone who got punted off of here in the past, or who ran off in shame, and now you're back under another name and reliving your butthurt from the past? So many people have quit crying their eyes out after scrapping with me in the past, wouldn't even want to guess which one you are At the end of the day the truth sounds the same no matter who says it. @User is correct in his claims, as am I, the truth is bound to sound a little similar. So lets see if you can address the points or if you're just going to have an emotional break down and cry.

It's also worth noting that you can't take any one element of the system in exclusion of the others. The presidential vote is not 'direct' democracy which would be one person one vote and highest tally wins, that's true. But it is in fact democratic. BUT - it's ALSO just one part of the people's representation. Then you ALSO have a representative for the house, which is democratically elected in your local district and you have MUCH more direct input into with no voices from outside your district. And then you've got the senate which is also elected by the specific state. So you've got THREE representatives federally that protect the interest of the individual, and each are elected using slightly different models and blend different levels of democracy. So the over all effect is that people actually do have a great deal of overall democratic representation and a great deal of say in their governance even if ONE element doesn't incorporate direct democracy precisely. You have to look at the whole system, not just one element like the president's office.

You can't just make that statement. Progressive or regressive are just words that the far left uses to make something sound good or bad but it doesn't actually have any real palpable meaning. It's more of an opinion Eliminating property tax can significantly reduce the barriers to entry for less wealthy people into ownership. And while the top earners would get a significant tax cut, the biggest tax cut would actually be to the middle and lower classes. Not to mention the fact that it would make rents cheaper. When you think about it renters are the ones that have to pay that tax for the owner The idea of getting rid of property taxes but quite frankly it is an idea that has some merit and would be worth exploring. @Shady does have some good points there and income, consumption and user taxes and fees might actually be a much fairer method of collecting taxes. The problem for the cities is they don't have the power to tax many things, property taxes and the insane fees and permit costs for building homes is their primary revenue. THat would have to be addressed.