BlahTheCanuck

As expected. Maple MAGA Carney caved to Trump.

Why is what the Bible says relevant? Biblical Israel is not the same as modern Israel - the country's territory and borders are not even the same. The basis for Israel is 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence. The basis for the two-state solution is UN Partition Plan for Palestine 1947 - the only proposed alternative to this is a mixed Jewish-Arab state (not realistic in current circumstances). The population of West Bank and Gaza are mostly Arabic-speaking Palestinian Muslims - how can these areas become a permanent territory of Israel if Israelis and Palestinians have conflicting nationalist aspirations?

Carney technically did not lie regarding his stance on retaliatory tariffs - he said back in April 2025 that he was mostly opposed to them. With that said, he did mislead the public in terms of his supposed willingness to stand up to Trump, given he was far more conciliatory in his phone call & recent meeting with Trump than he suggested he would be on the campaign trail.

It's not a civil war. Ukraine and Russia have been separate countries for 35 years. Putin has no right to demand regime change in a separate country that is not a threat to Russia. Ukraine is an independent country and has the right to determine its own future.

Carney's initial decision not to release a budget when the country is in dire economic circumstances is outrageous, notwithstanding today's reversal due to public backlash.

Carney might be similar to Ignatieff in terms of 'vibes', but he is significantly worse in terms of policy and has been much more vague in his campaign about what he will do.

Why are the Liberals linking PP to Trump when Trump himself endorsed Maple MAGA Carney?

I agree with you, and this is why the Conservatives are my preferred option. A lot of Carney's purported promises seem too Justin Trudeau 2015 esque to be believable.

Maybe it's best not to feed the trolls then.

This is the number one reason why electing Carney/LPC is a very bad idea, IMO.

Why do you always go on weird tangents when you're repeatedly proven wrong? And yes, many of the protesters were not doing anything illegal, those people weren't the issue. The issue were the people who honked horns, blocked roads, blocked the Canada-US border, etc. Those things happened at the convoy protests, even if it was by some individuals. IIRC there were also people arrested for illegal possession of weapons at the Coutts blockade in Alberta, but I'd have to go back and look that up (since they were arrested I imagine that an injunction would not really have been necessary there). Basically injunctions were used in some cases when there was illegal activity going on, but like I said in my original post a decentralized/diverse movement so not everyone was like that. It would be a violation of the Charter to remove a protest completely if the people removed didn't violate any laws. (Yes they can ban them from streets/certain places but they can't prevent them from protesting altogether)

Directly from the article re: the horns; 'The hearing came as an interim 10-day injunction to silence the horns was about to expire. The injunction was brought by a private citizen, 21-year-old Zexi Li, who said the sound of constantly blaring horns was unbearable. Initially, the injunction worked with the truck horns falling silent soon after the court order was issued. Within days, however, the horns started up again. Lawyer Paul Champ, who represented Li at the hearing, promised to take additional steps to ensure the order was enforced.' Obviously the injunction wasn't about the protest per se - you can't have an injunction against protests because act of protesting is completely legal in Canada (as it should be). The injuctions were about specific actions being committed by the protesters that were illegal - the honking was one of them, as was blocking the Ambassador Bridge. As I mentioned, there was injunction recieved by a government, the city of Windsor. You argument is literally 'it happened somewhere else so it doesn't count'. The blockade at the Ambassador Bridge was also a part of the convoy protests, as were the events in Ottawa.

If there was an injunction issued doesn't that prove there was illegal activity going on? Firstly, the injunction regarding the horns had to be extended from 10 to 60 days of length because it wasn't being complied with. Secondly, like I said, governments did seek injunctions as well, such as the city of Windsor where the Canada-US border was being blocked and that injunction was granted.

I mean, of course there's not going to be an injunction shutting down an entire protest, because it's not illegal to protest - there are going to be injunctions against specific actions by protesters that violate laws, which is what I was referring to.

There were injunctions issued by judges.