Moonbox

You're the one quoting the dictionary. Go ask the chat bot what the difference is between indication and evidence. There lies the answer to your confusion. Okay, but you often can't help keep your feelings out of a debate. They're just not very relevant. Since obsessive behavior is a mental health red-flag in and of itself, I must thank you for making my argument for me.👍

It's good for an opposition leader to point these things out. Nobody is saying it isn't. The point of contention here is that wanting strong borders, lower crime and a better economy etc. isn't a noteworthy or unique position. That's what everyone wants. The amount a politician focuses on these issues, and whether the policies are helpful, harmful or forgettable, is a better question. When someone asks what's wrong with Poilievre wanting strong borders and to lower crime, the answer is nothing, but it was a dumb question. That has nothing to do with why a large majority of Canada can't stand him.

Then maybe you could provide the citation I'm now asking a third time for this claim: Because if you can't, and this is just the latest in a long tradition of junk you've scraped off your social media feed, immediately believed and then tried to share with us here, then you may not be the best judge of competence yourself. 🙃

I'm saying that they probably thought a focus on things beyond simple punishment (like reform and rehabilitation or underlying causes of crime) would yield better results. Okay, but since we were talking about intent that seems pretty silly. Since intending to destroy Canada is a ridiculous notion in the first place, the second option makes more sense, doesn't it? In case you missed it the first time (I added it in as an edit), do you have a source for this beyond social media posts you scraped off your feed?

Agreed, but when the question is literally one of intent, then intent does matter. If you're asking what's wrong with Poilievre wanting to lower crime, or how that makes him right-wing, the implication is that his opponent doesn't, which is absurd. Do you have a credible source for this, or was this yet another thing you've scraped off your social media feed? 🤨

No, you're mistaking results for intent.

Karen's been doing her own research again...on Facebook.

This is trash logic and implies that Poilievre's opponents want weak borders, higher crime rates and to prevent getting resources to the market. It also ignores the absurd amount of time and energy he's spent peddling conspiracy theories about the "global elite", endlessly screeching about culture-war bullshit, and squawking juvenile three-word slogans...just like the Orange Clown to the south. The fact that he continued doing all of the above during a campaign where anti-Trump sentiment became a central part of the election also shows how poor his judgment is. Not thank you. Bye. I said back in 2022 or whenever he was elected party leader that he was the Liberal's best chance of getting re-elected. He did not disappoint, and he clearly continues to be a gift to the Liberal party.

Perhaps, but as I said we rarely get a full view of the circumstances or situation. Since this is only the latest of 3 recent MP's who've crossed the floor or resigned in the last month or so, it's worth speculating whether there may be problems within the Party (or its leadership). Regardless of the optics, anything that gives individual MPs more agency and weakens the consolidation of party power within the leadership is helpful in its own way.

Having concerns about something isn't the same thing as saying it's evidence's of that. For example, if you coughed and spat out blood, I'd have concerns about your physical health for pretty obvious reasons that shouldn't need explaining. It could be evidence of internal hemorrhaging or any number of other very bad things, but then you could also have just bit your tongue. Regardless, I wasn't talking to you or picking a fight with you. These comments were for User. Litigating word meanings and phrasing along with hair-trigger accusations of lying are standard amongst his very small repertoire of debate tactics, so I thought it was important to hold him to the standards he sets for his opponents. 🙃 I think that argument has already been made. That sort of behavior would be concerning in a teenager, whose parents would at best worry about his emotional health and lack of better and more productive uses of his time. This is the sort of behavior that puts you on a watch-list. It'd be more concerning in an adult with a fully-developed brain and adult responsibilities, even more so when that adult is 79 years old (where cognitive decline is very common). When it's the President of the United States, who you'd expect has much more important and worthy uses of his time and who you'd hope holds himself to a higher standard of self-control and dignity, it's downright absurd. They're all the same thing, donkey.

Yeah the idea that floor crossing is somehow anti democratic demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of our system of government. That being said, I do think that floor crossing can sometimes be questionable and opportunistic. The devil is in the details, to which we are often not privy. A floor crossing in a swing riding where both parties are competitive feels a lot different than floor crossing in an entrenched riding where the candidate would never have won against the previous riding party.

This is just the petulant and delusional coping mechanism you employ ad nauseum whenever anyone criticizes Trump. I've shown that: 1) Trump has deliberately lied on multiple occasions to Russia's benefit. 2) Trump continues to push a hopeless and defeatist narrative for Ukraine, and to bully Zelensky into accepting comically Russian-tilted peace terms. 3) Trump has drastically reduced US material support for Ukraine Only in sycophantic MAGA clownworld would all of the above facts somehow paint a picture that Donald Trump is committed to supporting Ukraine, rather than the exact opposite appearing to be true. Were you talking about how the US (under Biden) went from being the largest supplier of military aid to Ukraine (the orange) to paying for almost nothing as soon as Trump was inaugurated? Wow wow wow. Look how much Donald Trump has done for Ukraine since getting re-elected. This is exactly what the Ukrainians needed! 🤡🤡🤡

I'm saying it could be, just like saying a blister could be evidence of a skin allergy, or a radiation burn. I know this sort of nuance is beyond your ability to process, so let me simplify the argument for you: Whatever the underlying cause or motivation, this sort of behavior is troubling.

This was from Nanos on April 13th. The advantage in the younger demographic wasn't huge and wasn't sweeping, whereas for the older demo it was a blowout. Regardless, we still recent polling to show what the younger generations actually think of PP: Imagine what the Conservatives could do if they didn't have an unlikeable, buffoonish shrill as their leader.

It wasn't a slip. It was intentional, just like it was intentional for Trump to lie on behalf of the Kremlin: Unless you can provide an explanation on how parroting the Kremlin's propaganda was helpful to Ukraine, rather than the Kremlin, you've clowned yourself again! 🤡 Feel free to provide an explanation for why Trump would lie like this, but we already know you'll just run away! Are you referring to all the praise he's heaped on Putin, and the criticism on Zelensky? Or are you talking about how since his second term he's overseen an observable and enormous decrease in material support for Ukraine, how he's attempted to bully Zelensky towards comically Russian-tilted peace plans, or how he's continued to spread a message of hopelessness and defeatism for Ukraine, and about Russia's inevitable victory? What part of the above has been helpful to Ukraine, rather than Russia, exactly? 🤣

You mean that the only demo that favored Poilievre was 18-34, and that every other demographic, from older millennials to Gen X, to Baby Boomers and the elderly, voted against him. Regardless, I just posted a recent survey that shows what that age group actually thinks about little PP, and it ain't pretty.

Because they were more than just stupid comments. 🤣 This debate is about Donald Trump's intentions for Ukraine. When he tells deliberate, disgraceful and obvious lies on the Kremlin's behalf, in what clownworld reality do you figure that signals support for Ukraine? I've asked you about a dozen times now to provide some sort of reasoning or explanation for why he would do such a thing, and you've ran away just as many times. So the Kremlin lies and spins "anything", and spends billions annually on Ukraine war propaganda. Why do you think they do that? For funsies? 🤡

Meanwhile... I'm sure these are just the young men who don't have access to the internet though, right? 🤣

Except you didn't quote me. You made up a useless strawman, and now you're just playing dumb about it. When you can quote me saying you denied what Trump said as you suggested, let me know. Until then, this was just another useless smoke screen you've thrown up to confuse the debate. Other than the Kremlin taking clips of Trump deliberately lying on their behalf on global television, and blasting it on repeat for months? No consequences there, alright. Nope nope nope! 🤡

This was a phenomenon first described almost 2000 years ago by the Roman poet Juvenal. It's called, "Bread and Circuses".

Hardly. I said concerns about his mental health (or declining thereof) are perfectly reasonable given this sort of ridiculous behavior, especially combined with all of his other equally ridiculous behavior. I'd argue, at the very least, that a 79 year old rage-posting for 5 hours straight on social media like a mal-adjusted 14 year old is unworthy behavior for the President of the United States. It seems you disagree. 🙃

Can you show me where I said that, or even anything resembling that? Of course you can't. You're just making shit up again - shamelessly and openly lying. I'm the one ignoring points!? 🤣 This, coming from the guy who immediately runs back his attempt to sweep Trump's deliberate, Kremlin-friendly lying under the rug as "stupid comments" of little consequence, immediately after being ridiculed for doing exactly that. No, I'm not ignoring your points. I'm using them as evidence of your intellectual bankruptcy and you're comical Trump sycophancy.

As usual, you don't really have a point. I'm okay with the AI calling me judgmental though. 👍 It doesn't somehow diminish how ridiculous it is for someone to be constantly projecting obsession, frustration, emotionality and loser-status on others when 37,000 posts in under 34 months is an objective observation of how he spends his time. It's nice that you're here for emotional support though. He needs it. 🫂

Are you this dishonest? I never said you denied the words were spoken. I'm mocking your characterization of them. Rather than Trump deliberately telling blatant and disgraceful lies and parroting Kremlin propaganda on a global stage (which is exactly what happened), the most you can bring yourself to say about them was that he said some "stupid things", or "offhand comments". As "criticism" goes, warm marshmallows would be sharper. Rather than it being genuine criticism, you're just trying to sweep the issue under the rug and defend your comically corrupt clown President, as you always do, on virtually every issue. 🤡

Nono, we're playing your game now. I didn't insist it was evidence of a mental issue. I said the behavior raises concerns about his mental health. These are too different things. Just admit that you were being dishonest and mischaracterized what I said. Stop being a coward.