Jump to content

More Hate Mongering From Trudeau


Recommended Posts

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/hit-and-run-trucker-convoy-winnipeg-manitoba-police-1.6340990
 

Trudeau’s hate mongering may have paid off, as an SUV plowed over 4 protesters in Wpg. 
 

According to CBC he wasn’t political: 

-"Some comments were made by the accused that tends to suggest this was not specifically about the [vaccine] mandates," Carver said. "He wasn't for or against any of the general views that are floating around this country."-

Also according to CBC, the protesters are vile scum. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/hit-and-run-trucker-convoy-winnipeg-manitoba-police-1.6340990
 

Trudeau’s hate mongering may have paid off, as an SUV plowed over 4 protesters in Wpg. 
 

According to CBC he wasn’t political: 

-"Some comments were made by the accused that tends to suggest this was not specifically about the [vaccine] mandates," Carver said. "He wasn't for or against any of the general views that are floating around this country."-

Also according to CBC, the protesters are vile scum. 
 

 

Aren’t the police saying this had nothing to do with the views on the mandates?  What makes you thinkk Trudeau is responsible for a hit&run?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Aren’t the police saying this had nothing to do with the views on the mandates?  

Yes they are. So? 

Did you ever hear about the "Random Murders in Waukesha"?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/22/us/wisconsin-christmas-parade-suv-into-crowd-what-we-know/index.html

The guy wrote a song about the injustice of the Rittenhouse verdict just days before. He used his vehicle as a weapon just days before. Then he attacked a Christmas parade less than an hour from where Rittenhouse's incident took place. But it was somehow 'unintentional'?

"Dude, I just kept running people over 'cuz my brakes failed."

Yeah, ok.

They called it terrorism when a guy ran over a girl in Charlottesville, he was speeding away 1 second after having a baseball bat smashed against his driver window, but that's not an excuse. Then in Waukesha, a guy drives several blocks away from a 'domestic disturbance', through a barricade, and then runs over nearly 50 people, but that's not terrorism?

Every time a white guy hits someone with a car they're instantly convicted of being a terrorist by the MSM. How can they instantly know that this guy's not a terrorist? 

Quote

What makes you thinkk Trudeau is responsible for a hit&run?

Trudeau was hate mongering against the people in the crowd. It works.

Just like the Obamas and BLM hyped up hate against the police and caused a wave of ambush-style cop-killings, our PM is whipping up hatred against the trucker convoy. That guy felt ok about driving over them because he thinks that he's doing Trudeau's bidding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

What makes you thinkk Trudeau is responsible for a hit&run?

Because Trudeau said that they're conspiracy theorists boo hoo... such hate.

But ignore the organizers making statements about Muslims invading Canada, or mocking Chinese surnames those are just 'opinions'.

What a mob of hypocrites.  I pity the Conservative leaders that will have to deal with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2022 at 6:44 PM, Moonbox said:

/yawn

Yes yes, it's always the main stream media and big pharma and authoritarians working together to suppress the "truth".  When you always have that tired old rag of an argument to toss into the ring, you're not really worth talking to.  

Greed corruption and lust for power are common human traits. No need for complex theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So says today's ... conservative ???

There's no dichotomy between being conservative and believing in fairness, equality and fundamental human rights. All conservative Canadians know this of course.

Therefore I question your credentials, Sir.

;)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

There's no dichotomy between being conservative and believing in fairness, equality and fundamental human rights. All conservative Canadians know this of course.

Therefore I question your credentials, Sir.

;)

 

Well ok, so do you think we should do away with corporations then? ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well ok, so do you think we should do away with corporations then? ?

No, not do away with. The rights of the individual need to protected from corporations however, and governments must play a role in that. Democratically elected government shoud be calling the shots and shielded from corporate influence. Not some self-appointed board of directors.

But I'm sorry I don't want to talk about this either, in deference to the thread - More hate-mongering from Mr. Trudeua.   ;)

 

Edited by OftenWrong
confirmed all spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

No, not do away with. The rights of the individual need to protected from corporations however, and governments must play a role in that. Democratically elected government shoud be calling the shots and shielded from corporate influence. Not some self-appointed board of directors.

But I'm sorry I don't want to talk about this....

If you have no intention of actually doing anything about this would you at least please stop channeling me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2022 at 8:13 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. Meh - none of what he said is non-factual. 

People have been telling you to grow up.

What age are you anyways?

(checking to see if you stand a chance)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, cougar said:

1. People have been telling you to grow up. What age are you anyways?

2. (checking to see if you stand a chance)

1. I have a lot of people on mute.  You quoted me as saying 'none of what he said is non-factual'.  That's a statement of opinion on what he said, not sure why someone would tell me to grow up for saying that.
2. I don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. The rights of the individual need to protected from corporations however, and governments must play a role in that.

2. Democratically elected government shoud be calling the shots and shielded from corporate influence. Not some self-appointed board of directors.

3. I don't want to talk about this either 

 

1. How so ?  What would you want to see happen ?
2. We do a lot better than the US in this regard, but eyeball has some good suggestions
3. Ok, moving on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It doesn't seem to me you're being very honest with yourself so I have little reason to believe that.

No need to believe me. Believe in yourself, I say.

But if you do then you’re actually believing me, because you said so. 

You’ll get over it when you realize what Canadians are/ is: were. That means finding tolerance and making room for others, despite political differences. These values transcend politics in Canada. Or at least should. Maybe you people dont get that.

 

That’s why what Mr. Trudeau said was fundamentally hate speech against an identifiable group.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Because Trudeau said that they're conspiracy theorists boo hoo... such hate.

But ignore the organizers making statements about Muslims invading Canada, or mocking Chinese surnames those are just 'opinions'.

1) When you want to seem younger, just start talking.

2) You actually need cites to say things like that, your opinion doesn't cut it. 

Quote

What a mob of hypocrites.  I pity the Conservative leaders that will have to deal with this.

LOL. Now you're talking about hypocrites and political leaders, and yet you're Trudeau's biggest fanboy. Glass houses much?

Trudeau: "I don't support the truckers because maybe at one point one person in that group of 100,000+ said something accurate that I don't appreciate, but BLM is an excellent example of a group that I do support. They just do some chants about murdering cops, they loot & burn down buildings, they kidnap and torture the occasional retard, or they kill the occasional pig or innocent bystander."

Just kidding, Trudeau would never say that: he pretends not to know about all of the kidnapping, torture, assaults, death-chants, and murders. His dolt horde will never figure it out though, so I guess it's ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

The rights of the individual need to protected from corporations however, and governments must play a role in that.

So, are you saying that we shouldn't all be forced to take the Pfizer and Moderno jabs? And @eyeball agreed? OMG this site is turning into tinder v2.0. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. How so ?  What would you want to see happen ?
2. We do a lot better than the US in this regard, 

1) The government shouldn't be acting as Moderna/Pfizer's grovelling lackeys. The unholy union of lobbyists and greedy politicians needs to be curtailed.

If Trudeau has earned even $1 from big pharma, or received any gifts or benefits from them, then suddenly his ardent support takes on a new meaning which goes directly against Canadians' best interests. I'm talking about jail time. 

2) No we don't. Trudeau wiped SNC's asses with the constitution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

2) You actually need cites to say things like that, your opinion doesn't cut it. 

No, as you said yourself just the other day it's your job to be up to speed on a topic that you're weighing in on.  

 

 

 

Edited by eyeball
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

No, as you said yourself just the other day it's your job to be up to speed on a topic that you're weighing in on.  

And I was correct in saying it.

CNN's overarching theme is well-known to everyone in North America who follows politics, and you should have known too. They jumped on every hateful bandwagon that came along for all those years and they fanned the flames of racial division and rioting every chance they got, then they did a complete about-face on Jan 6th - the one day that rioting affected their leaders in DC personally. (Am I wrong? Can you name another riot in the past 8 years that directly affected the Dems, aside from the one that they FUURRRREAKED out about?) The fact is that you wanted to feign total ignorance and I just didn't have time for it.

MH isn't talking about the facts of the trucker convoy that we've seen on video, he's referring to a hatemongering leftist talking point as if it's a proven entity, when it has never been established as fact anywhere. 

If you had some facts or a cite then you could have easily used them to make an actual point for once, but instead you just staged another hapless ad hominem attack. Why is your go-to move always just to avoid the topic at hand and get snotty? Just show up with some facts for once. Blow us all away. Maybe you'll start to like facts. Careful though, if you get addicted to them you'll end up being a conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

And I was correct in saying it.

No you weren't. Not even close. You're %100 wrong.

Quote

you just staged another hapless ad hominem attack.

No I didn't. I'm not aware of any evidence you even know what ad hominem means.

Quote

Why is your go-to move always just to avoid the topic at hand and get snotty?

Thye topic at hand as usual is the debating style and forum etiquette in use or not.

Quote

Just show up with some facts for once. 

I did, it's a fact you have the audacity to snottily refuse to supply cites when asked and then impatiently snap your fingers when demanding them of others.   That's called being a hypocrite and you responded to MH's comment about a mob of hypocrites so....yeah, I'm definitely on topic. 

Edited by eyeball
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

No you weren't. Not even close. You're %100 wrong.

You clearly don't understand the conventions of normal debate. 

You don't get to refer to blueanon talking points as if they're common knowledge, you need to provide links if you think they're actual facts. 

You can refer to the moon without providing a link, but he said, she said from Lisa LaFlamme is only considered gospel among her acolytes.

Quote

No I didn't. I'm not aware of any evidence you even know what ad hominem means.

Discuss facts instead of making snotty, misguided accusations eyeball, and google 'ad hominem'. 

Quote
Quote

Thye topic at hand as usual is the debating style and forum etiquette in use or not.

So learn about etiquette then. That would be a blessing for all of us. 

Quote

I did, it's a fact you have the audacity to snottily refuse to supply cites when asked and then impatiently snap your fingers when demanding them of others.   That's called being a hypocrite and you responded to MH's comment about a mob of hypocrites so....yeah, I'm definitely on topic. 

I provide links to verified facts constantly eyeball, several per day, but I don't recall ever seeing a link to anything factual in nature from you. You're a blueanon guy. You accept 'the word' from CNN and CTV and you expect people to just believe it from you in the same way. Not happening. 

And still, no one has provided a link to back up MH's accusations. Why is that? Since when is it ok to slander people without ever showing any proof of your accusations?

That's disgusting.

This is about an ad hominem argument against people from the freedom convoy, which required a link, but you didn't provide one, you just threw down another ad hominem argument against me instead.

Learn the language. Learn the etiquette. Stop making snotty insults. Grow up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...