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.

Beware of governments in general that would take away your individual freedom and rights if they had the chance, whether left or right - violating people's freedoms is not exclusive to left-liberals or any other ideology. Eg, The Trump admin's recent crackdown on the Palestinian activist in the US, or Doug Ford's pandemic-era expanded police powers.

I'm not sure that the convoy in its entirety was 'violent' or 'extremist', given it was a decentralized movement that included people with a variety of motivations for being there - but the behaviour of the protesters was stupid, deranged, childish, dangerous, retarded and violated multiple laws. The Emergencies Act crackdown and freezing of bank accounts was definitely unjustified, but that doesn't make the behaviour of the protesters right.

I wish.

I fear Trump will eventually try to take steps to annex Canada that go beyond the current tarriffs. He's a psycho with a grandiose sense of entitlement and complete disregard for the rights of others.

It's really hard to tell because it's unclear how Carney will govern. Canada's economy has already been struggling for a decade as far as productivity per hour worked is concerned and I'm not sure if Carney will do much differently from the previous Liberal government. If a prospective Carney gov't cuts some red tape, facilitates investment in research & development, reduces the housing crunch, maybe makes the tax system more competitive, the country's economic prospects could improve. If he does not do those things, the situation may remain the same or get worse.

Not when you're bringing in large amounts of people every year, which drive up demand for nearly everything, including housing. You're achieving lower wages at the cost of excess demand for goods and services of which there is a shortage, which means that prices don't go down. Not to mention that importing low-wage labour also has a negative effect on productivity, since low-skilled immigrants tend to disincentivize the kind of investment in workers needed to foster productivity growth.

Nearly everyone who follows politics is a 'low information voter' in some issues and a 'high information voter' in others - it's impossible to know everything and have an in-depth grasp on every issue. Post-secondary education (college, university, etc.) isn't the only type of knowledge or information, which is why the fact that left-leaning voters are more university-educated is meaningless. Just as an example, farmers know more about running a farm than someone with a PhD who's never worked on a farm. Business owners know more about running a business than someone with a PhD who has never run a business. If people who spend their entire lives in academia were considered the most knowledgeable about everything, the things we would achieve as a society would be very limited. That's not to say post-secondary education isn't valuable - it definitely is in certain areas, to achieve success. But there are many other areas in life where you don't need a post-secondary education to achieve success.

I did not deny this anywhere in my post. You asked where the idea came from that the Palestinians did not have a claim of independence over the territory in 1948. I explained that the Israelis had an official declaration of independence, while the Palestinians didn't. It has nothing to do with the amount of people living there at the time.

Sure, but the whole problem is, who decides when the courts are right and when they are wrong? Yes the purpose of the clause was to get the provinces to sign on to the constitution, but there is a reason why provinces argued in favour of such a clause. Peter Lougheed, who proposed the notwithstanding clause is quoted as saying that it 'allows effective political action on the part of legislators to curb an errant court'.

I am concerned about crime as well, but as CdnFox mentioned in a previous post, I would caution against comparing violent crime rates between Canada and the United States - the two countries define certain crimes differently, so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. The better comparison is whether crime in Canada has increased or decreased over a given amount of years and it has clearly increased in most categories.