Don Martin: The Trudeau tipping point is within sight

[Dougie93]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

As mentioned the british can throw out the leader of their party while they're still PM.  Sooooo - how does that work in Canada? What's the mechansim there? What law allows that? I mean - you disagreed when i said that it was different in canada than the uk so by all means - educate us all and tell us how that works. How could chretien have been 'voted out' of leadership?

it's exactly the same in Canada

you only remain Prime Minister so long as you have the confidence of the House

your own MP's can vote you out and replace you with another MP as the leader of the party

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

it's exactly the same in Canada

Oh look, dougie has arrived to prove how little he knows

8 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

you only remain Prime Minister so long as you have the confidence of the House

But you remain leader of the party regardless. Sigh. 

8 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

your own MP's can vote you out and replace you with another MP as the leader of the party

No they can not LOL - what provision allows for that? Which line in the constitution says that's ok or which party constitution does? Sure as hell isn't the liberals.

There is NO POSSIBLE WAY for the liberals right now to force justin trudeau out of the leadership. They can try to convince him to step down, they can threaten to force an election if the doesn't step down (which he could win) , etc but they cannot force him to step down.

If they vote against the confidence of the house then there's an election. And if trudeau were to win that election he'd still be leader and there'd still be no way to get rid of him. He has to lose an election first If he loses the election then they can vote to have a leadershio review and vote on him then, but then they're out of power.

It is entirely different.

For god's sake, why even open your mouth and make yourself look like a dolt when you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

[Nefarious Banana]

17 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Nobody believes in the Progressive Conservatives of Canada, everybody knows they are a fake opposition

You're wrong on that Dougie . . . . many believe in the PCC and are willing to give Pierre Poilievre  a chance.

[Dougie93]

4 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

You're wrong on that Dougie . . . . many believe in the PCC and are willing to give Pierre Poilievre  a chance.

oh I sincerely hope I am wrong

but Stephen Harper too came in as a Western populist conservative firebrand

I was inspired by Stephen Harper, I voted for Stephen Harper, I very much like Stephen Harper personally

Stephen Harper now after the fact is indicting the left as being fundamentally Marxist

but after the big promises of conservative reform, it never actually happened

the Liberals have no compunction about imposing a radical leftist agenda, they make huge sweeping changes

then the Conservatives come in for a brief interval, merely to tinker around the margins

then the Liberals are back in no time, making huge sweeping changes

I've been through this cycle too many times now

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

but after the big promises of conservative reform, it never actually happened

Really. I suspect this isn't actually what you believe but i'll bite:   What did he promise he would do that he deliberately didn't do?

[Dougie93]

22 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Really. I suspect this isn't actually what you believe but i'll bite:   What did he promise he would do that he deliberately didn't do?

 he promised to reform gun control to prevent prohibition & confiscation

then all he did was impose minimum sentences for minor gun infractions, which the Liberals have repealed

then at the very end, he said Canadians needed guns to defend themselves

after nine years in office doing absolutely nothing about that

now the Liberals are declaring that we don't even have the fundamental human right of self defence 

while they are confiscating guns arbitrarily

[Dougie93]

35 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Really. I suspect this isn't actually what you believe but i'll bite:   What did he promise he would do that he deliberately didn't do?

he promised to recapitalize the miltary

to include vitally needed Close Combat Vehicles in Afghanistan

to include the F-35 to replace the CF-18's

but then he actually cut the defence budget, cancelled both CCV & F-35

what the military actually got, was only what Liberals had already ordered

and now it's Justin Trudeau who is going to buy F-35 & even P-8 to replace the CP-140's

[CdnFox]

43 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

 he promised to reform gun control to prevent prohibition & confiscation

He did no such thing. At all. He promised to get rid of the gun registry and he did And even that was only possible with a majority gov't.

Show me ANYWHERE he promised to make it so they couldn't prohibit or confiscate guns. That wouldn't even be possible wihtout a constitutional amendment.

43 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

then all he did was impose minimum sentences for minor gun infractions, which the Liberals have repealed

And get rid of the gun registry. which in fact makes confiscation HARDER by far.

43 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

then at the very end, he said Canadians needed guns to defend themselves

He said it in the middle too, but whatever.

43 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

after nine years in office doing absolutely nothing about that

Except get rid of the gun registry, repeal the backstabbing RCMP's attempts to ban green rifles etc, and that's mostly with a minority gov't.

43 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

now the Liberals are declaring that we don't even have the fundamental human right of self defence 

while they are confiscating guns arbitrarily

Yeah - and they're ALWAYS going to do that and there's nothing any other gov't can do about that. Other than amend the constitution which will never happen.  The moral there is not  "harper was a leftie", the moral there is 'don't vote liberal'.

[Dougie93]

33 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah - and they're ALWAYS going to do that and there's nothing any other gov't can do about that. Other than amend the constitution which will never happen. 

actually, the right to self defence and the right against unreasonable seizure are already in the constitution

Section 7 & Section 8

the Canadian judiciary simply fails to uphold the constitution

[Contrarian]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

actually, the right to self defence and the right against unreasonable seizure are already in the constitution

Section 7 & Section 8

the Canadian judiciary simply fails to uphold the constitution

While it's true that Section 7 and Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee the right to self-defense and protection against unreasonable search and seizure, it's important to note that the interpretation and application of these rights can be complex and subject to legal interpretation. 

can you expand on that, no mockery, will like to hear your view?!

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

can you expand on that, no mockery, will like to hear your view?!

the arbitrary nature of gun seizure in Canada is blatantly unreasonable

it's not based on anything other than feelings

a twelve gauge slide action shotgun is not safer than an automatic rifle

a handgun is not more dangerous than a bolt action rifle

breed bans are inherently illogical

it's not about the gun, it's all about the shooter

Edited March 7 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

18 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

can you expand on that, no mockery, will like to hear your view?!

conversely, the American National Firearms Act is reasonable and logical

because it doesn't ban breeds of guns

what it prohibits is : indiscriminate weapons

it's not that a belt fed machine gun is prohibited because it shoots fast and is scary

it's prohibited because it is an area weapon, you don't aim it, you use a machine gun like a fire hose

this is why hand grenades and nuclear weapons are also not 2nd amendment protected : indiscriminate

the key element in 2nd amendment protected weapons

is that you have to be able to aim them at a specific target and know what you are shooting at

Edited March 7 by Dougie93

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

actually, the right to self defence and the right against unreasonable seizure are already in the constitution

Section 7 & Section 8

the Canadian judiciary simply fails to uphold the constitution

Well that's not the problem at all is it.  The problem is what is considered 'reasonable' , and the charter says any removal of property is reasonable if it is first passed in law.

in other words it's 100 percent constitutional for them to pass a law that says 'everything dougie owns belongs to the gov't.  Or to me for that matter. Whatever they like as long as they make a law.

Perfectly in compliance with section 7 and 8.

as to self defense sure, the courts uphold that all the time. But the gov't forbids you to access to the tools for self defense under the "reasonable" premise that it's too dangerous to let common people have them. 

So sorry - but you've misidentified the problems and unfortunately it's entirely constitutional.

[CdnFox]

20 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

the arbitrary nature of gun seizure in Canada is blatantly unreasonable

 

Nope - as long as a law makes it through the house it's deemed to be reasonable by definition. The charter says any property may be taken by legal process.

I might think it's unreasonable, You might.  But the law does not.

Everything you said after that is true, but from a legal point of view irrelevant.

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

in other words it's 100 percent constitutional for them to pass a law that says 'everything dougie owns belongs to the gov't.  Or to me for that matter. Whatever they like as long as they make a law.

how is that a free country then ?

as that is what the Nazis did to the Jews

[CdnFox]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

how is that a free country then ?

we're free to elect a gov't that would change that.

We just don't.

Unfortunately freedom isn't just automatic in a democracy - the people have to make good choices. Elections matter. And unfortunately too many make bad decisions.

Just now, Dougie93 said:

as that is what the Nazis did to the Jews

Yep.

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yep.

on paper, Canada is simply not a free country

it is only the fear of violent insurrection which holds the government in check

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

on paper, Canada is simply not a free country

it is only the fear of violent insurrection which holds the government in check

Well that's all that holds ANY gov't in check.

But at the end of the day the voters are to blame. We are free - we just don't take our freedom seriously. And then someone else comes along and DOES take it seriously and we wind up where we are now.

Democracy hinges on the voters making good decisions. And not just in the elections.

[Dougie93]

Just now, CdnFox said:

Well that's all that holds ANY gov't in check.

I don't think that's the case in America

because America invokes the ultimate right to violent insurrection

 on paper, America is a free country, and that is what holds violent insurrection in check

[Nefarious Banana]

A law cannot be rescinded - overturned - cancelled ?

Referring to the onslaught by the federal govt. against legal gun owners.?

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't think that's the case in America

because America invokes the ultimate right to violent insurrection

 on paper, America is a free country, and that is what holds violent insurrection in check

That's kind of circular logic,

[Dougie93]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That's kind of circular logic,

 it is the ideas on paper which keep Americans in check

America is simply an idea, that is the only thing Americans defend & uphold

Canada is not an idea, Canada is simply a collection of bureaucratic rules

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

 it is the ideas on paper which keep Americans in check

Paper has never kept anyone anywhere in check ever.  Laws and agreements last right until the parties involved decide they don't. And ideas are not held equally by all people.

4 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

America is simply an idea, that is the only thing Americans defend & uphold

That is patently ridiculous. Ask the black community what their 'ideal' of the us is right now. Or the latinos. Ask someone in texas and then what someone in New York thinks america's all about and what's important.

Americans are not one big huge homogeneous single entity.  There may have been a time in the past where it was all mom and apple pie but those days are LONG behind us.

4 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Canada is not an idea, Canada is simply a collection of bureaucratic rules

Canada is in exactly the same boat as the states and is no more or less a collection of rules than they are.  THe big difference is we'll tolerate more rules and abuses of our freedoms without taking action.  And i don't mean 'action' like a revolution - i mean even the simple act of voting out gov'ts that abuse our freedoms and voting in ones that don't. Picking leaders and candidates that will protect and improve our freedoms instead of trampling on them and throwing out those who won't.

So the only real difference is the people. If voters in Canada were as intolerant as the ones in america of gov't overreach we wouldn't have it.

[Dougie93]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Paper has never kept anyone anywhere in check ever.  Laws and agreements last right until the parties involved decide they don't. And ideas are not held equally by all people.

That is patently ridiculous. Ask the black community what their 'ideal' of the us is right now. Or the latinos. Ask someone in texas and then what someone in New York thinks america's all about and what's important.

Americans are not one big huge homogeneous single entity.  There may have been a time in the past where it was all mom and apple pie but those days are LONG behind us.

Canada is in exactly the same boat as the states and is no more or less a collection of rules than they are.  THe big difference is we'll tolerate more rules and abuses of our freedoms without taking action.  And i don't mean 'action' like a revolution - i mean even the simple act of voting out gov'ts that abuse our freedoms and voting in ones that don't. Picking leaders and candidates that will protect and improve our freedoms instead of trampling on them and throwing out those who won't.

So the only real difference is the people. If voters in Canada were as intolerant as the ones in america of gov't overreach we wouldn't have it.

well perhaps Canadians have been Americanized now

Justin Trudeau is right about one thing, Canada is the Post National State

but I was born in the British Empire, the Canada prior to the Constitution Act of 1982

wherein the Liberals imposed the Post National State upon us

I am after all an Orangeman of Upper Canada, United Empire Loyalist

tho in fact, United Empire Loyalists of Upper Canada did not come from Britain

we came from Pennsylvania, fleeing George III's defeat in the War of Independence, led by Benedict Arnold

Benedict Arnold tho, he hated Canada

so did Isaac Brock

Canada was the hardship posting of the British Empire

tracing one warm line, across a land so wide & savage

a Scots German Empire, seeking a Northwest Passage to the sea

that was the idea of Canada, once

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

that was the idea of Canada, once

the main ideas of Canada were 'gee, it'd be great to sell some beaver pelts back home' followed eventually by ' gee it would be great if we had some where to grow some food and be nice to people.  Also - do you think someone would buy this tree if i cut it down.

but we have developed a bit of that european "the gov't will take care of important things for me so i don't have to think" mentality and we've made some bad choices there which have eroded our personal freedoms.

We can only hope that at some point we start to care about our freedoms and make better choices.