CdnFox
-
Posts
26,752 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
281
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by CdnFox
-
-
1 hour ago, herbie said:
First of all they'd have to see if they could even invoke it. The notwithstanding clause was designed for Provinces to use in exceptional cases that go against the Charter of Rights. not Parliament itself.
Ahhhh - no.
-
1 hour ago, Legato said:
What? Digital Chinese Lanterns?
With bluetooth!
-
1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:
I think anyone supporting Hamas' vision of a "free Palestine", which essentially would involve the wiping of Israel off of the map, should be forced to sit through some of those videos.
Too many of them would demand popcorn.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, robosmith said:
Nope. 2 ballots is NOT "ballot harvesting." It is completely legal to deposit ballots for household members. Duh
Not in that state. Swing and a miss.
and i notice you're kind of dodging the judge ordering a new election thing
And if you keep drooling we'll have to get you a bib
QuoteYour cite does not say "strong evidence." Duh
The judge ruled for a new election. You think he did that with no evidence?
QuoteNope, I am PWNING YOU. LMAO
ROFLMAO - kiddo you aren't even "PWNING" the voices in your head, never mind anyone else
Also, 2001 called, they want their slang back
-
2 hours ago, I am Groot said:
American conservatives aren't really conservative and only care about hot button issues involving sex, guns and abortion.
Sounds like a helluva weekend tho.
-
5 minutes ago, robosmith said:
"Obviously" the video ONLY shows 2 "ballots" being deposited. Duh
Still illegal.
And the judge DID require a new election in the other case, so it's pretty obvious there was strong evidence it happened.
And thinking about two things at once seems to have been to much for you - not only were you wrong, you're drooling again
-
3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:
I am unclear how you came to that overriding conclusion.
The Supreme Court was ruling on a very specific case and made a ruling on that.
The supreme court dealt with two cases actually, and struck down the law for ALL future cases. It was not confined to a single case or even two cases, they've said that law is unenforceable ever.
And this is happening more and more. And the problem is that they're not really basing their decision on "law", they're basing it on judicial opinion. A judge says "It's cruel to lock someone up with no chance of parole". So that law gets struck down - but who are they to say it's "cruel'? It's arguably far MORE cruel to the families of the victims to have this guy walking around at some point or to force them to go give victim impact statments again and again for life to prevent it,
THen the next judge lowers the bar even further. Then the next lowers it further and so on and so on.
And now people luring children are to be protected - can't have them facing 6 whole months in jail. That's mean.
At MOST there should be a mechansim to kick it back to the parliament and say "this seems cruel to us - are you SURE this is necessary" and have them either reaffirm it or if they agree with the judge then change the law.
But as it is judges do more to make law in this country than our elected legislators and that's not ok.
-
5 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:
Just like the American system that has worked so well?
The american system is nothing like ours. They elect their judges - nobody's proposing that. In fact, the american system is more along the extremes of what we're seeing right now, with bias and personal opinion at the judicial level counting for as much or more as lawmaker's intent.
It'd be great if you learned about what you're discussing before offering an opinion.
-
6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
The short sightedness of using the notwithstanding clause to undercut the courts is obvious to many. It's a terrible idea.
Wait until the people get elected who want to eliminate religion get in... you'll have given them a powerful tool.
Yes - because religion and pedophilia are pretty much the same thing.
We can judge those politicians on their actons. And the notwithstanding clauses have to be renewed every 5 years so if people disagree then future gov'ts don't even need to do anything to put an end to it.
But right now the courts make up the law arbitrarily. They- not the people and not the lawmakers - decide what is 'unusual' or cruel. They decide what is 'reasonable' for puinishment and whether to follow a law or simply ignore it.That's not ok. And MOST people recognize that they have gone too far and that the rights and safety of the public has to be taken into account as well.
-
Truth be told, unlike some i don't believe there was widespread massive voter fraud in the 2020 election sufficient to actually sway the end results of the election.
But I often hear the lefty nutbars screaming how there was NEVER ANY election fraud at ALL. And that there is NO indication that there was ANY PROBLEMS with mail in ballots or illegal ballot harvesting.
Clearly that's not true. There is a vulnerability there, it does happen, it DOES skew the vote whether it's enough to change an election or not, and clearly in the case of this mayoral race it appears as tho it might well have been.
The people who say there's "no" voter fraud are as delusional and dishonest as they claim the trump 'stolen election' people are.
-
A state judge has taken the unusual step of ordering a new Democratic mayoral primary in Connecticut’s largest city to be held after the Nov. 7 general election is completed. The decision comes after surveillance videos showed a woman stuffing what appeared to be absentee ballots into an outdoor ballot box days before the original primary.
Also internet sleuths managed to dig up a similar video that was aired on CNN and it’s from 2020 elections.
CNN’s news cameras caught a masked woman in Ohio stuffing a ballot box on live TV during the 2020 Presidential Election, which CNN and other corporate media outlets claim was “safe and secure” and not riddled with unprecedented levels of fraud from both government officials and paid political hacks.
CNN’s cameras were set up beside “the only ballot drop box in Cuyahoga County, Ohio” during early voting in the 2020 election, and captured a lone woman dumping a heaping handful of ballots that obviously belonged to a large group of people. There’s at least one massive problem with this entire situation, considering that ballot harvesting is ILLEGAL in Ohio.
-
https://tnc.news/2023/11/03/mandatory-minimum-child-luring-unconstitutional/
The court ruled that in both cases, mandatory minimum sentences of one year for an indictment and six months for a summary offence violated of Section 12 of the Charter, which states that “everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.”
Apparently at this point according to the legal system ANY PUNISHMENT for serious offenses is 'cruel and unusual'.
Basically when the conservatives get in they just need to repass every law the courts have shot down with the notwithstanding clause built in and a message to courts - "Legislators make laws, not judges" .
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Hodad said:
Of all the ridiculous alternative reality shit conservatives convince themselves of, this is near the top.?
Sure, Blacks break heavily Democrat because of the secret plot to feed hungry children. Not because Republicans have been on the wrong side of every civil rights issue for the last 50 years. Not because they sent Strom Thurmond to the Senate into this century. Not because they gerrymander Black districts into irrelevance or force Black voters to wait in line hours to vote. Not because they cozy up to white nationalists and wave confederate flags at rallies to save the statues of confederate "heroes." And on and on. None of that stuff. Definitely not the decades of persistent--and sometimes open--hostility. They've just been tricked by feeding hungry children.
Talk about delusions.
Obama specifically intended to create an 'intersectional coalition'. That's not 'conspiracy' talk, that was their stated strategy. And it was all about pushing race and scaring so called 'marginalized' groups and frightening them about what the evil republicans would do. (none of which actually happened when the republicans were in). The dems did nothing for black people or anyone else - which is why the coalition fell apart on him. "yes we can" became "No we didn't."
Many black communities push the dems because the dems lie to them and sell them on the idea that THEY really care about them and THEY"LL really do something for them and if they had a son, he'd look like Treyvon Martin
But it's just smoke and mirrors. THe dems don't actually do a thing to make black lives better or any other marginalized lives better.
You have to be seven different kinds of stupid to believe it's got anything at all to do with 'feeding hungry children'.
-
1
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:
That is all true, but the NDP has already made their bed. Their fortunes are already baked in, so they will hang in there as long as possible. There is always the chance that the grits will totally implode and bleed support to the NDP. Highly unlikely, but both the NDP and the Liberals are reduced to living in hope that the CPC blows up.
I've noted before that i honestly believe their hail mary hope is that trump will win in the states and they can leverage that to scare canadians into voting to the left in order to offset it. And in honesty there are people who think like that So trump wins in 2024, gets sworn in early 2025 - spring election.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
If they were only fighting the federal govt that might make sense but they are not. There’s increasing competition within provinces to be the most shrill voice.
No there isn't. Sask and alberta gain points standing up to the feds but that's it really other than quebec which is it's own special case. The rest will stand p to the feds on specific issues but generally their populations look for harmonious relations if possible
When the feds stay out of provincial affairs and the provinces run their shows seperation anxiety absolutely plummets. That is the key to a successful canada.
We are about 15 to 20 years away from some of the western provinces being truly viable on their own and as that approaches seperation becomes more and more likely. Especially with a higher percent of immigrants as part of the population who don't have that same inherited sense of 'canada' being one big nation.
-
3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
The day China achieves a critical technological advantage over the rest of world, watch out. It won’t matter where or who are you are, you will be personally affected.
You and I will both be dead and in the ground and i doubt we'll care as much as you seem to think.
-
3 hours ago, August1991 said:
We Canadians get along. Been there, done that.
=====
Survive? No, we get along.
no we don't, and apparently some of us are prepared to lie about it
-
3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:
Why would the NDP want an election? They will likely not gain any seats. The longer they support the grits, the more they can try to squeeze out of them. When the writs drop, the party is over. They would like to postpone a CPC majority government as long as possible. So would the Bloc.
That's true.... BUT....
If the coalition lasts till the next election the ndp will basically be tied at the hip to the libs and will most likley suffer horribly at the polls. The junior partner in ways and means agreements like this usually do.
Some people will say 'might as well vote liberal directly seeing as it's pretty much the same thing' ,and some won't vote at all or will vote cpc to get rid of justin for the same reasons - no point voting ndp they'll just do what the libs say.
A coalition gov't does NOT end well for the ndp at the next election. So - at SOME point before the next election they'll likely look for some reason to sever ties. Something they can point at and say "we are different form the libs - we can no longer support them in good concience while they blah blah blah".
That doesnt' mean there will automatically be an election. You STILL need to have a vote in the house and those don't come along every day. And just becasue they end the agreement doesnt' mean they have to instantly vote against the libs to bring down the liberal gov't.
-
3 hours ago, Caswell Thomas said:
Climate denial will not stop it changing.
Neither will a carbon tax but we're doing THAT... so..
-
Not ONLY do you have to feed them, but apperently WHAT you feed them is a big deal as well. That was never mentioned. Now i'm out $10.50 for a box of rat poison and i'm STILL going to hell apperently. Yeash - you gotta read the fine print with EVERYTHING these days.
-
2 hours ago, Gaétan said:
Anything that looks like: 'Israel has the right to defend itself or Hamas are terrorists' spread by the media or said by politicians should be investigated by the police. Nothing can serve as an excuse or encouragement for the murder of a single person, let alone thousands.
Did you mention that to gaza and it's people? Seems to me they may have murdered a few people. Are you saying the people of gaza should be rounded up by the police and charged with murder?
-
3 hours ago, August1991 said:
The BQ will vote with the federal Liberals. This vote is meaningless.
=====
Soon, the NDP and BQ will vote against the federal Liberals. Take note!
well we'll see. there's nothing in it for them to support it but they have to know the cpc will be the next gov't and it already doesn't owe quebec much. A few brownie points could go a long way.
-
Doesn't that mean Canada is going to get rich?
-
53 minutes ago, herbie said:
Exactly, it's not like a budget failing to pass.It's not like you can avoid heating your home, so in the overall scheme of CO2 reduction doesn't need immediate drastic action.It could be a problem solved by already existing market pricing and change out incentives.
Well then why did they put it on in the first place? And why didnt' the liberals exempt all home heating? And why are the enviro types so upset about it? And why just three years, why not just remove it permanently?
LOL - this was votebuying. And the only reason that cutting the carbon tax on heating doesn't matter is that the carbon tax never mattered in the first place at all, it does nothing,.
QuoteIt's also a populist idea that's not overly harmful to the overall objective like the current simplistic 'scrap the tax" being pushed. People were up in arms about their car's gas tank and never even considered this before.
It's not harmful because the tax wasn't doing anything anyway. But it's going to be VERY harmful to justin's pocket book.
The problem for the libs is that justin just killed the carbon tax. The excuses hes' given are the same for everything - not everyone can afford an electric car so why not give time for people to adjust? We can't afford groceries so why not give a break till things have time to adjust? It hurts the costs of housing so why not pause till we get housing under control? etc etc.
He's basically said it's not really necessary and people will seize on that. And that's his signature environmental policy shot, his cash cow dead, and PP is going to look the hero for spearheading it. Someone really needs to tell justin that with you hold the PIN in your teeth and throw the GRENADE, not the other way around
Biden Obviously Let The Loonies Out Of The Bin
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
Y2K?