Jump to content

Poilevre lobs nuclear bomb across the house of commons


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Contrarian said:

So, in my view -> CSIS is trying to alert the population, Trudeau is not allowing a public inquiry and your argument is that they want to damage the government? For what aim? 

The aim of the individual who leaked this seems to me to be trying to damage Prime Minister Trudeau. Attacking Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Singh or Mr. Poilievevre is fair game, but not if the individual is an active member of law enforcement, the military, or an agency like CSIS and especially using classified information.

China's interference isn't news. They have been doing it for years and that is no secret. The Russian interference was old news when Igor Gouzenko defected in 1945. 

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

Agreed. This should not be covered up. The poster is implying CSIS needs to be partisan to the government in power. That is the road to totalitarianism.

this is where it is most important to understand the constitutional separation of powers

under the rule of the British Crown within the confines of Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy

police officers, military personnel & the security services

are only bound by their oaths of allegiance to the monarch

no officer nor soldier of the Crown swears any oath to defend the ruling party in the House of Commons

this is by design;  in order to prevent a tyranny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

The poster is implying CSIS needs to be partisan to the government in power. That is the road to totalitarianism.

I will go out on a limb here and presume this refers to me. I did not imply such a thing. I explicitly said CSIS needs to be non-partisan. 

I still haven't heard an explanation of where the word "trans" comes in. 

Edited by Queenmandy85
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what a public inquiry would look like?

"This inquiry is called to order. I call on all persons who have relevant information pertaining to foreign interference in Canada's electoral process, not covered by the Security of Information Act 1985, to come forward and give their testimony."

(Sounds of crickets and cute little tree frogs)

"Thank you all for coming."

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2023 at 4:36 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

it could be argued that they have a duty to pass it on the the government to implement it, unless winning an election is more important than helping the country.

Wow, wow! And what country would that be? Curious minds can't wait to know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

but sir, you are Canadian Scottish Regiment ( Princess Mary's )

Lowland Scots shall never yield in the face of foreign tyranny

Glorious Revolution of 1688

if the likes of you will not even stand against Chinese Communist subjugation

then all is lost

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. By crickets, I wanted to illustrate there isn't much a public inquiry can say if the subject matter is classified and cannot be made public. 

It is amazing how all of the western nations were scrambling over each other to be China's friend until there was that ah ha moment when we all discovered Xi is a psychopathic SOB. For Canada, it came when we arrested Madam Meng Wanzhou for the US DoJ. Lots of people will claim they knew the Chinese administration was evil for years but that wasn't the tune people were singing in 2016. 

I'm not sure what a public inquiry is supposed to reveal. We already know China tried unsuccessfully to manipulate the last election. It has never been any secret that we don't have effective laws to prevent it. The Russians and the Americans have been doing this interference since the Second World War. What else do they want to know? China is a relatively late comer to the game. It's not like we can retaliate. How do we interfere in Chinese elections?

Edited by Queenmandy85
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 It's not like we can retaliate. How do we interfere in Chinese elections?

why can't the Department of Public Safety Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams

round all these Chinese agents up and put them under arrest ?

since these enemies of the Crown are operating with impunity upon Canadian soil

this is is first invasion of Canada since Ridgeway 1866

the catalyst for Confederation itself

if there is no public inquiry into that

then what purpose does the Government of Canada even serve ?

the first role of a nation state being national security against hostile foreign powers

since the Treaty of Westphalia 1648

if we do not take a stand now, ready for the fray, then when ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

By using this strategy, Mr. Poilievre opens him self up to references to the revelations of his child molesting in 2019.

There were no revelations of child molesting in 2019

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 

That too is a false accusation, but when he starts throwing excrement, he should expect to get buried in it.

Justin has been making false accusations about conservative leaders for years now. Just totally made up crap  Sooooo by your own logic he had this coming.

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Unless he can back up his accusations with proof,

What accusation? Did you hear him make any accusation? I didn't hear him accuse justin of anything, did you?  "What is the nature of your thoughts, gentlemen, when you say 'fuddle duddle'" to coin a phrase :) 

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Political discourse has rules.

Abandoned by the libs long ago. And after years of putting up with that - abandoned by the CPC now.

If people wanted to keep those rules then they should have punished the libs for ignoring them in the past. Too late to complain now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The aim of the individual who leaked this seems to me to be trying to damage Prime Minister Trudeau.

That is an EXTREMELY partisan position.  It is far more likely that they are concerned that a serious threat to canada is going ignored and wants to force someone to do something.  For you to suggest there is no other reason than to attack justin trudeau suggests strongly that you have partisan sentiments towards justin. Which is fine but it's clouding your vision if you can't see people would be concerned about Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I wonder what a public inquiry would look like?

It's not complicated. They can compel people who SHOULD know or MIGHT know anything and then ask them questions, and it's illegal for them to lie. And those questions can be non classified such as 'when did justin know about this' and 'was he given a brief' or 'who in his office was'.  Or even things like 'were there any recommendations offered to address this and without giving secrets or specifics where any followed at all".

theres a lot that an inquiry will tell.  Justin knows that. Which is why he and his supporters are working so hard to avoid one :)   LOL

Anything you want to tell the class?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I'm not sure what a public inquiry is supposed to reveal. We already know China tried unsuccessfully to manipulate the last election.

It could reveal how much the Chinese were involved, how much they donated to Trudeau's election campaign (more than $200k?), how much Trudeau knew and when he knew about it.

Perhaps you want to know about all that.

Or?

I see... ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I will go out on a limb here and presume this refers to me. I did not imply such a thing. I explicitly said CSIS needs to be non-partisan. 

I still haven't heard an explanation of where the word "trans" comes in. 

It just seemed you were saying that it was unfair for CSIS to allow the information to be made public. Maybe I misunderstood you there. Care to clarify on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

It just seemed you were saying that it was unfair for CSIS to allow the information to be made public. Maybe I misunderstood you there. Care to clarify on that?

Yes, you misunderstood. Whether or not something is unfair is not the issue. My contention is that it is illegal. It is not for someone in CSIS or one of its contractors to decide government policy. In this case, how should the government deal with this issue once they were informed.

 The point being, only government and Parliament set government policy, not members of the military, law enforcement the security services nor the public service. They can advise the government, but never encroach on the government's (including Parliament) perogative to make policy. If the public servant, soldier, police officer or security service member feels the need to openly disagree with government policy, they must first resign, just as a member of Cabinet should.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

It could reveal how much the Chinese were involved, how much they donated to Trudeau's election campaign (more than $200k?), how much Trudeau knew and when he knew about it.

Perhaps you want to know about all that.

Or?

I see... ;) 

If they can do that without violating the Act, they should. But that is not a revelation. We already knew that. We also know it made no difference to the outcome. If anything, this issue has been a benifit to Mr. Poilievre.

Ther seems to be a misunderstanding that I somehow support Prime Minister Trudeau. I have supported the Conservative Party since I was a teenager until it ended and was replaced by Reform. I did join the CPC over a year ago. I supported Mr. O'Toole in the last election and was sorry he was forced out, Since then, I have been disappointed by the leader. All I seem to be to Mr. Poilievre is his ATM machine. Sorry, in the coming election, my focus will be on my local candidates, regardless of Party.

I will say this in PP's favour. He has a future in comedy. I would pay money to watch his stand up. It is funny. I can think of another comedian who has turned in to one of the Great War leaders of our time. However, Mr. Poilievre should stick to comedy.?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If they can do that without violating the Act, they should. But that is not a revelation. We already knew that. We also know it made no difference to the outcome. If anything, this issue has been a benifit to Mr. Poilievre.

We don't tho.  Justin has refused to answer much of that and has already claimed he wasn't briefed when sources say he was.  So hopefully we would get to the bottom of it.

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Ther seems to be a misunderstanding that I somehow support Prime Minister Trudeau. I have supported the Conservative Party since I was a teenager until it ended and was replaced by Reform. I did join the CPC over a year ago. I supported Mr. O'Toole in the last election and was sorry he was forced out, Since then, I have been disappointed by the leader. All I seem to be to Mr. Poilievre is his ATM machine. Sorry, in the coming election, my focus will be on my local candidates, regardless of Party.

Well, i'm not going to call you a liar.  But - this is the kind of thing closet liberal supporters always say.  "I've been a conservative all my life but now that the leader is XXX i just can't and i'm forced to consider the liberals!!!"  Usually followed by ' I'd vote cpc if Mike chong was leader".

If you find PP too much to swallow but are thinking voting to keep justin in power is worth considering, there's a disconnect there which doesn't quite match up.

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I will say this in PP's favour. He has a future in comedy. I would pay money to watch his stand up. It is funny. I can think of another comedian who has turned in to one of the Great War leaders of our time. However, Mr. Poilievre should stick to comedy.?

Well justin and the libs are a massive joke, so either way he is :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless Mr. Poilievre begins to mature and earn my donations rather than thinking of me as an unthinking cash cow, I am going to vote for the candidate in my riding who I believe will be the best MP. I'm not going to vote for a Prime Minister or a political Party. I am a Progressive Conservative, the party of Sir John A. Unless there is a Progressive Conservative Party, I have no party to vote for. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

But that is not a revelation. We already knew that. We also know it made no difference to the outcome.

That is what we are allowed to know at this time. That is the unofficial narrative given by government spokespersons. They can say anything they want if they're not under oath.

Here is what this looks like to the general public, in my view- If Trudeau has nothing more to hide he should behave in a manner that's honest. He does not. That smells like a coverup. He is tarnishing his image further by choosing a partisan family friend to report on the issue (Johnston). Just as he's bullied anyone who dared to be a whistleblower, just as he ignores the criticism from various auditors, some of whom resigned their posts, if I recall. 

Yeah, a quick google search shows my memory's pretty good -

https://ottawa.citynews.ca/2023/04/28/former-trudeau-foundation-ceo-says-she-resigned-after-pushback-on-donation-audit/amp/

One can only assume he does have something to hide. There's something more, but he is willing to look bad by these obvious coverups, because the truth is far worse. 

Let's not get all excited by a few words from Poilievre. The real issues are far more important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Unless Mr. Poilievre begins to mature and earn my donations rather than thinking of me as an unthinking cash cow, I am going to vote for the candidate in my riding who I believe will be the best MP. I'm not going to vote for a Prime Minister or a political Party.

That's the kind of thing one tells themselves to justify voting for a gov't they know they shouldn't. You are well aware you've never voted for a prime minister unless you happen to live in their riding, and yet one will be selected.

It's important to be honest with yourself.  At the end of the day you WILL be voting for a party and a prime minister, so choose wisely.  (unless you vote for an indy i guess).

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I am a Progressive Conservative, the party of Sir John A.

John a was a conservative - the Progressive conservatives were formed much much later. The CPC is closer in name to John a's party.

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 

Unless there is a Progressive Conservative Party, I have no party to vote for. 

Well that's a very ..  simplistic shall we say?....  view of politics.  The name means little. If you believe in certain policies or principles then you show up at the leadership conventions, you show up at the policy conventions, and you help make sure the party represents your views  What does it matter what it's called.

Sorry but you're well into the realm of 'excuses' here. You honestly do sound far more like a liberal supporter than you do a conservative whether that's your intent or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Unless Mr. Poilievre begins to mature and earn my donations rather than thinking of me as an unthinking cash cow,

I mean you should vote for whomever you want, of course. But you seem upset that you're not getting a direct response from either Poliviere's office, or the man himself. That expectation seems quite unrealistic. Do you not think they get hundreds of questions and comments every day? How  do you expect them to keep up with every whimsical question coming from the public, at a federal level?

My advice is go to your local MP's office and talk to them. Have you tried that already?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

My advice is go to your local MP's office and talk to them. Have you tried that already?

Way ahead of you. When I email him, he phones me back and he listens to what I have to say. We disagree on a number of issues, but there is a reason why he keeps getting re-elected with a massive majority. He pays attention to his constituants. Added bonus, he is not afraid to admit his mistakes. I am 90% sure I will vote for him.

Mr. Poilievre asks me to support him without giving me a hint of what he plans to do. To add insult, he keeps asking me to give him money. Do I want to support a whiney panhandler who says "trust me?' You might as well vote for Trudeau. At least he doesn't threaten to cancel Coronation Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That's the kind of thing one tells themselves to justify voting for a gov't they know they shouldn't. You are well aware you've never voted for a prime minister unless you happen to live in their riding, and yet one will be selected.

It's important to be honest with yourself.  At the end of the day you WILL be voting for a party and a prime minister, so choose wisely.  (unless you vote for an indy i guess).

John a was a conservative - the Progressive conservatives were formed much much later. The CPC is closer in name to John a's party.

Well that's a very ..  simplistic shall we say?....  view of politics.  The name means little. If you believe in certain policies or principles then you show up at the leadership conventions, you show up at the policy conventions, and you help make sure the party represents your views  What does it matter what it's called.

Sorry but you're well into the realm of 'excuses' here. You honestly do sound far more like a liberal supporter than you do a conservative whether that's your intent or not.

Normally, I would agree with you, but which party. CPC is reform. Reform is Social Credit. When my late father-in-law retired from the RCAF in 1952, he was approached by a guy from the BC Social Credit party who asked him to run. Sec Bennett was the socred leader at that time. My F-in-L asked the guy to explain what Social Credit was about. The guy told him about funny money and all that. Seeing to prospective candidate was even more confused, the party guy leaned in and said, "We're going to get rid of the jews." His feet probably didn't touch the ground on his way out.

Manning has never even tried to hide the fact that he admires Lincoln. Not MacDonald, not Borden or Churchill. Not Pitt,  or Diefenbaker. No. He admires an American republican president over any Canadian or British Conservatives.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2023 at 7:07 AM, CdnFox said:

 

https://twitter.com/therealkeean/status/1663993851114328064?s=46&t=cRwDAwEF-1fKEqCRPfhcJw

As many will remember - Justin trudeau was accused of having had to leave his acting job due to 'inappropriate' relations with a student.  Here PP shows his skill at the art of insinuation again :)  

This guy has the skills to win the next election.

What’s so clever about insinuating something like that? I could do that. Is it even true? Trudeau has made a lot of serious mistakes that are definitely true. Why not stick to them? 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Normally, I would agree with you, but which party. CPC is reform. Reform is Social Credit.

Well i think we both know that's not true. A quick comparison between the two especailly in office demonstrates there's a big difference. The PPC is closer to reform than the CPC is.

11 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

When my late father-in-law retired from the RCAF in 1952, he was approached by a guy from the BC Social Credit party who asked him to run. Sec Bennett was the socred leader at that time. My F-in-L asked the guy to explain what Social Credit was about. The guy told him about funny money and all that. Seeing to prospective candidate was even more confused, the party guy leaned in and said, "We're going to get rid of the jews." His feet probably didn't touch the ground on his way out.

Yeah - i'm going to call bullshit at this point.

the socreds were never about getting rid of the jews.  And they were in power for many years in bc, it's not like we didn't get a chance to see what they're like.

And no politician walked around right after ww2 saying they were going to get rid of the jews as a platform plank. I don't care what they believed.

And this local mp that calls you every time you email (which i don't believe in the slightest) is with which party? I"j going to guess that it just HAPPENS MAGICALLY to be liberal?  He must be the loneliest liberal in the world to have the kind of time to drop whatever he's doing and physically call everyone who emails him.  Only the green party reps have that kind of free time as a rule.

11 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Manning has never even tried to hide the fact that he admires Lincoln. Not MacDonald, not Borden or Churchill. Not Pitt,  or Diefenbaker. No. He admires an American republican president over any Canadian or British Conservatives.

First off - this has to do with what exactly?  A guy who was first leader of a party 3 decades ago that no longer exists?

And having met the man more than once it would be a lie to say he didn't admire the others, he DID admire that lincon stood up for people's personal freedoms but he admired macdonald and others as well. . Reform was about standing up and doing the right thing for personal freedoms.

 But - i'm sure you can provide quotes where he said he didn't admire the others or even where he said he preferred lincon right?  right?  No? Hmmmm.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Everyone seems to be missing the real question. Yes, China has been trying to interfere in Canadian elections. So have the Americans and the Russians. It is nothing new.  Everybody does it. It is not right, but that is the way it is.

The real danger is to have CSIS interfering in Canadian politics.

I don’t think I’d equate American interference with what the Chinese are up to - they aim to overthrow our system not do a few tweaks. As for the Russians, they don’t have the money to be a major problem. The CSIS leaks have been disquieting but I think they’re evidence of serious threats being ignored. 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
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
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

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