FOREIGN INTERFERENCE ALLEGED IN CONSERVATIVE RACES. The Canadian Media Starts To Do Its Job

[Goddess]

Question:  Why is Singh able to name PPol but can’t name others?

Seems more like a personal attack rather than a quest for the truth.

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

So when he becomes Prime Minister, he's going to avoid being briefed on anything sensitive to avoid so he's not in the position to slip? 😑

Sure. Because that's what i said. 

If you're at the point where you're just going to continue to say silly crap then i guess you're conceding the point  

This is stunningly simple. If he signs this document he can't talk about something that desperately needs to be talked about.  While i'm sure that liberal supporters would love to see it swept under the rug it would be foolish of him to sign it because then he has to either stop talking about it or risk a potential criminal issue. 

I'm afraid the libs and their ardent supporters will have to live with him continuing to ask questions about this in the house, and that IS in fact what the job of the opposition is. 

 

[Moonbox]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure. Because that's what i said. 

Well you said he's not being briefed because he apparently can't trust himself to not slip, so why should anyone trust that he won't do that as Prime Minister?

The absurdity of your reasoning on this note is stunningly simple.  

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If he signs this document he can't talk about something that desperately needs to be talked about.

If he signs the document then he can still talk about it.  He just can't reveal state and intelligence secrets.  His preference is to be able to talk shit in ignorance, and that's typical.  Talking shit is all he's ever been good for.  No wonder you have such a boner for him.  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Well you said he's not being briefed because he apparently can't trust himself to not slip,

LOL  no, i really didn't    I said it's a bad idea to put yourself in a position where that's possible if you say too much.

Sigh. And once again you're getting angry and spouting nonsense because you weren't right about something. Minimizing exposure to risk is prudent.  Trying to twist that into some sort of "he can't trust himself' nonsense (which i'm sure you'll deny having said) is just childish. 

Why are you like this? Why can't we just have a sane conversation and discuss real issues?

 

Quote

so why should anyone trust that he won't do that as Prime Minister?

I"m sure he will, every single prime minister in history has said one thing or another he regrets.  But smart ones minimize the chances,

Quote

The absurdity of your reasoning on this note is stunningly simple.  

The only thing stunningly simple here is you. 

Quote

If he signs the document then he can still talk about it.  He just can't reveal state and intelligence secrets.  His preference is to be able to talk shit in ignorance, and that's typical.  Talking shit is all he's ever been good for.  No wonder you have such a boner for him.  

So what you're saying is you haven't read the terms, you don't understand the restrictions and you have no idea what you're talking about. 

Fair enough.  Perhaps the problem here is you haven't sufficiently educated yourself with what's involved with that document. 

Go do that, and then we can have an intelligent conversation about it. What you said is wrong and you'd know that if you'd looked any of this up.  There's no point talking about this until you at least understand the basics. 

[Moonbox]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL  no, i really didn't    I said it's a bad idea to put yourself in a position where that's possible if you say too much.

It's the same thing.  🤡

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It's the same thing.  🤡

No, that's just dumb.  Not taking a risk is not the same as saying you can't be trusted. Even if he says something he thinks is fine or his lawyers think is fine the opposition could seek to charge him and he'll have to defend himself in court. Even if he wins it's bad for him. 

If you walk along the edge of a cliff the cliff might give way even if your balance is excellent  so smart people don't do it. 

Imagine being so basic that you thought not being willing to take an unnecessary risk was the same as saying you coudn't be trusted   LOLOL

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, Goddess said:

What a novel concept! 

Like Sweden trusted their people during coronamania, instead of flip-flopping non-scientific rules all over the place and shutting everything down?

Geez, trusting the public is what some of us were advocating for during the last 3+ years and you were AGAINST it then.

Not at all. The whole COVID thing only added fuel to the argument I like to make for making governments as transparent as possible - to help dispel the misinformation that fuels dingbats and crackpots like you.

The connection between misinformation and mistrust couldn't have been made planer than during COVID.

[CdnFox]

40 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Not at all. The whole COVID thing only added fuel to the argument I like to make for making governments as transparent as possible - to help dispel the misinformation that fuels dingbats and crackpots like you.

The connection between misinformation and mistrust couldn't have been made planer than during COVID.

You realize your side was the misinformation and that has now lead to her side having the mistrust right?

[Goddess]

57 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Not at all. The whole COVID thing only added fuel to the argument I like to make for making governments as transparent as possible - to help dispel the misinformation that fuels dingbats and crackpots like you.

The connection between misinformation and mistrust couldn't have been made planer than during COVID.

Liar.

[eyeball]

16 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Liar.

Hold on now, you know neither of us trust politicians and we both share similar sentiments when it comes to using technology to make politicians more accountable. I'd be happy enough using cameras but you'd like to implant computer chips in them.

Maybe your animosity for me is because using cameras instead of computer chips is like being too soft on crime.

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

Maybe your animosity for me is because using cameras instead of computer chips is like being too soft on crime.

LOLOLOL - yeah that must be it   

[herbie]

On 6/13/2024 at 5:06 PM, Moonbox said:

God forbid he actually learned what was really going on and could speak informed on it

He;s a Conservative FFS. He'd rather rant on like they're Manchurian Candidates.

[Nationalist]

Just more Libbie trash.

Polievre will be the next PM.

The greenie garbage will end and the economy will improve.

[Venandi]

14 hours ago, Moonbox said:

That are probably answered in the briefings.  Political performance is so much easier when you can just plug your ears and remain purposefully ignorant.  

The counter is that political performance, especially in opposition, becomes impossible once you're read into the information itself. 

Once read in, you are forever legally bound by the security classification emblazoned on the file docket and at the top and bottom of every single page the docket contains.

It doesn't enable conversation / debate.... it ends it with finality. The legal duty to preserve the integrity of the classified material applies to all parties, it applies across the board, and it applies until such time as the contents are declassified by lawful authority.

In the realm of things that might be characterized as non political, if you've ever wondered why ex-military members (who choose to participate in public forums) never comment on the specific details of specific operations they were personally involved in, this is that.

The duty to protect the classified information you were once privy to outlives the careers of those read in so resigning and singing isn't an option either.  

It's pretty simple...

 

 

Edited Saturday at 10:46 AM by Venandi

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

The counter is that political performance, especially in opposition, becomes impossible once you're read into the information itself. 

Once read in, you are forever legally bound by the security classification emblazoned on the file docket and at the top and bottom of every single page the docket contains.

It doesn't enable conversation / debate.... it ends it with finality. The legal duty to preserve the integrity of the classified material applies to all parties, it applies across the board, and it applies until such time as the contents are declassified by lawful authority.

In the realm of things that might be characterized as non political, if you've ever wondered why ex-military members (who choose to participate in public forums) never comment on the specific details of specific operations they were personally involved in, this is that.

The duty to protect the classified information you were once privy to outlives the careers of those read in so resigning and singing isn't an option either.  

It's pretty simple...

 

 

The key is "being read in" and in order to be read in, you need to sign and abide by the Security Act.

If political leaders refuse to get cleared, that is, in my opinion, being a very poor leader. Not knowing or being able to see national documents that are secret makes them very poor leaders. You cannot presume to lead if you refuse to see or read documents that affect Canada.

As I have said previously, I had top secret clearance when I was in the military and I will forever be obliged and bound by the rules in the act.

Edited Saturday at 12:26 PM by ExFlyer

[Moonbox]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Not taking a risk is not the same as saying you can't be trusted.

It is the same thing if the "risk" is that you'll break your trust.  🤡

Put more marbles in your mouth and try again.  

[Dougie93]

On 6/13/2024 at 9:18 PM, August1991 said:

We in Canada have had many clains about foreign interference - Fenians, for example.

Fenians are leftist republican invaders from America

come to overthrow our civil society in the name of revolution

now come in the form of the bizarre & maniacal postmodernist Woke ideology

Confederation itself is meant to be a bulwark against such insanity, since 1 July 1867

[Moonbox]

3 hours ago, Venandi said:

The counter is that political performance, especially in opposition, becomes impossible once you're read into the information itself. 

Untrue, as evidenced by Jagger coming out and crying "Treason!" 

[ExFlyer]

5 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Untrue, as evidenced by Jagger coming out and crying "Treason!" 

Although, if you ask him why and about who he made that comment, he would be unable to tell you

[Venandi]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Untrue, as evidenced by Jagger coming out and crying "Treason!" 

I might have missed it and I'm too busy to go searching... what information contained in the classified report did he release?

Edited Saturday at 05:17 PM by Venandi

[Venandi]

5 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I had top secret clearance when I was in the military and I will forever be obliged and bound by the rules in the act.

You and many others. 

If you are bound by rules in the act and thus unable to comment as journalist, politician or whatever then all discussion ends. Really, you've answered your own question and made my point in the process.

I want political leaders asking questions, I want journalists asking questions and seeking answers. I want them to ask the same questions I would ask if I had the venue to do it.

And that's why I don't want them read in.

Simple eh?

 

Edited Saturday at 05:29 PM by Venandi

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

It is the same thing if the "risk" is that you'll break your trust.  🤡

 

As i previously demonstrated its not even remotely the same   

As usual you get stuck defending something you said that's entirely stupid and just double down on it till you hit peak dumb  

Not taking unnecessary risk is not the same as saying you can't be trusted.   

ANd oh look - you're defending justin and the liberals yet again same as always - but gosh you don't support them actually, honest    ROFLMAO!!!!!

 

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Untrue, as evidenced by Jagger coming out and crying "Treason!" 

But he didn't. He said justin isn't doing enough to defend canada. 

And he's not asking any questions about it, he's not putting forward any motions about it, hell he's not even breaking his coalition about it because it won't look good if he does that without being able to give specifics as to why.

Hmmmmm.  Swing and a miss again kiddo  

[paradox34]

Amazing that the media should call for a review of the conservative leadership race. If nothing else this highlights the blinkers and blinders attitude of the press. What's important is that our entire election system is vulnerable to outside manipulation. Rather than focusing on the 'results' perhaps we should focus on the 'hows'. Lets fix the process before revisiting questionable results which would only be open to manipulation again! 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Venandi said:

You and many others. 

If you are bound by rules in the act and thus unable to comment as journalist, politician or whatever then all discussion ends. Really, you've answered your own question and made my point in the process.

I want political leaders asking questions, I want journalists asking questions and seeking answers. I want them to ask the same questions I would ask if I had the venue to do it.

And that's why I don't want them read in.

Simple eh?

 

Well this is what Tom Mulcair was saying, and what many others have said. ESPECIALLY for the leader of the opposition. 

The liberals desperately want him to read the report and to limit himself. 

That's why you see his supporters here demanding that if PP doesn't read the report it means he's unreliable, and it means he cant' be prime minister etc etc etc. Yeash. 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, paradox34 said:

Amazing that the media should call for a review of the conservative leadership race. If nothing else this highlights the blinkers and blinders attitude of the press. What's important is that our entire election system is vulnerable to outside manipulation. Rather than focusing on the 'results' perhaps we should focus on the 'hows'. Lets fix the process before revisiting questionable results which would only be open to manipulation again! 

well recommendations have been made about that for a few years now and trudeau has ALSO ignored that. A foreign agent registry is step one. 

It's all the same thing. Punishing mp's who knowingly accepted money or helped a foreign gov't or who SHOULD have known but turned a blind eye helps discourage others from doing the same. Demonstrating how those who didn't know and shouldn't have known got used helps parties and MPS protect against that in the future. And foreign agent Registries and other similar laws help give police the tools necessary to go after those who pull these kinds of things on behalf of another government.

But so far none of it has happened.