Moonbox

Coming from the guy who wastes his life screeching at and insulting strangers on the internet. 37,000 posts in less than three years is a cry for help. I'd feel bad for you if you weren't such a belligerent clown, but alas. Go touch grass.

This thread aged like milk. 😆

Harry is a tool as well, and he was a tool long before he met the Meg.

There's a difference, of course, but it's clearly not an objective standard you're too concerned with considering how okay you are with Emerson crossing the floor to the Conservatives in 2006 immediately after the election. That he apparently had "skills that were needed" is about as vague and subjective a rationalization as you could provide, so thanks for proving my point. The fact that Emerson's riding hasn't elected a Conservative candidate since the 1950's, and the fact that the Conservatives placed a distant 3rd place in the 2006 election is what makes his floor-crossing particularly slimy. Where Etremont or Alleslev at least represent constituencies with strong support either way, Emerson went directly against the voters in his riding. I can't explain your points are relevant because they aren't. You call me a Liberal shill, but that's hilarious coming from PP's resident fluffer. All I'm doing is pointing out your goofy double-standards and shitty logic. I don't actually have a problem with floor-crossing in general, except maybe in cases like Emerson's. An MP's duty is to his constituents above all. Duty to the party or to volunteers who helped you get elected take a very distant back seat to that. That's a standard that I'm happy to apply either way. Your standards, as always, depend on the Party being discussed. 🙃

I already addressed your "points". You provided no objective standards nor qualifications to the goofy distinctions you tried to draw, so as I said, it was literally nothing more than a boring, "Yes but it's different when my guys do it because _____" Nobody is afraid of engaging with you. Normal people have standards when it comes to how they spend their time. Declining to waste it on a miserable no-life who spends his entire day, every day, insulting strangers on the internet at the drop of a hat is part of being a functioning human. 🙃

I don't hold much hope that you're actually capable of this sort of reflection. This is right out of the partisan playbook - criticizing or being outraged by something, but when confronted by the same behavior from "your side", you have a cheap "yes but this is different" explanation for why it's okay going the other way. 🥱

But think of the millions it's saved from autism and mind-control microchips.

I failed to point out that they happily accept floor crossers, by referencing their accepted floor crossers? That's some interesting logic there buddy boy. 🥱

You weren't alone. PP is a shrill little worm and has long been one of the least likeable members of Parliament, and that was the case 15 years ago and even more so today.

I brought her up to shut down the goofy notion that the Conservatives are reluctant to accept floor-crossers. Whether or not you or she or anyone else feels they can rationalize it isn't important.

Yeah they were super reluctant to accept Leona Alleslev back in 2018, weren't they? 🙄

Never say never. Poilievre is a clown and a walking three-word slogan, but don’t underestimate the Liberals’ potential for also scoring on their own net.

Yes, but there's one thing that you fail to account for. Trump lies about almost everything. 🙄

Even if all of this coping and rationalizing were valid, you still have to deal with the fact that Trump knew he was deeply unpopular in Canada and that his endorsement or praise of a candidate would do the opposite of help them. This was a child's effort at reverse psychology, and nobody fell for it. I'm embarrassed for you that you're trying to argue otherwise.

I was just just agreeing with Chrissy on how ridiculous your source was. If 2+ years of me directly calling out your belligerent foolishness was too passive aggressive for you, I'm not sure what universe you live in anymore. I stopped engaging with you seriously a long time ago for the same reason I don't bother conversing with the screaming homeless guy in the subway. It doesn't matter what the topic is or who you're debating against. You will derail the thread and make it all about you. You will carry on and spam the same collection of useless insults and project your emotionality on others, and you will continue to do so as long as you continue to get reactions. You're just a noisy, lonely dude looking for attention. Touch grass. 🫡

I know what you mean. I'm saying that it makes no sense and that you're coping. 🙃

What does that say about Poilievre then, if Carney was able to "deal" with him? This is just deranged coping on your part. 👌

This makes so much sense. You've seen through my devious subterfuge. I'm responding to you indirectly, but trying to avoid responding to you, by mocking you almost directly underneath your last post. 🤡👍

Damn, you've uncovered my subterfuge. I totally thought that mocking the noisy internet no-life almost directly under his last post was going to go unnoticed. Alas, nothing gets past you here. 🤡

This sort of batshit coping logic is majestic to behold. Trump thought to himself: "Knowing how unpopular I am in Canada, I should publicly endorse Mark Carney, because I sure would hate for the Conservative candidate who mimics my slogans and shares my politics to win the election. That would just be the WORST!"

If I was scared I wouldn't respond to you, would I? I don't need to add much though when Chrissy has already dunked on you with a one-liner. If you wanted to have an intelligent, nuanced discussion about Canada losing ground on productivity and standard of living, that'd be neat, and we'd probably actually agree on a lot of things. Instead, you're just regurgitating the click-bait the algorithm feeds you. Citing numbeo...ffs. Maybe you have some wikipedia sources to add? 🤣

Yes Chrissy, because it supports his narrative. Anonymous crowd-sourced survey answers with no verification checks are problematic for a number of reasons, and nobody should be quoting numbeo statistics for any sort of even semi-serious debate. According to numbeo, Chicago is roughly on par with Tijuana for crime index, despite a homicide rate for the former being 1/5th to 1/6th that of the latter. All this really tells you is that there are more online Karens and Andies sharing their opinions on one place over the other. It's about as reliable as user-reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.

Jail not bail. Axe the Tax Drain the Swamp Stop the Steal Three words GOOOD. More words BAAAD.

Guys just look do a search for .

Are you comparing someone who works with garbage all day and operates heavy machinery to someone who drives a little van or walks around delivering mostly junk mail and flyers? Really?