Left Wing extremist Mark Carney threatens Albertans for wishing to express themselves thru the Democratic process

[BeaverFever]

On 5/25/2026 at 7:45 PM, West said:

Just say on the ctv news that Carney was sending veiled threats to Alberta for wanting to express themselves through a democratic referendum on taking a vote to leave Canada. 

The man is Hitler. Sad

OMG once again you confirm you are a looney tunes batshit internet right wing nutjob extraordinaire!  Must be all them chemtrails   Even normal mainstream conservatives think you’re a kook. 

[WestCanMan]

23 hours ago, West said:

Just say on the ctv news that Carney was sending veiled threats to Alberta for wanting to express themselves through a democratic referendum on taking a vote to leave Canada. 

The man is Hitler. Sad

Carney can f right off. That little euro-biotch has to sneak around in Alberta with a bunch of armed guards, and it's his home province. 

[WestCanMan]

8 hours ago, West said:

Carney is sounding more and more like his dictator friends in China. This is what the Chinese did to Taiwan when they expressed they wanted independence. 

Sick man

Carney thinks that he can exert pressure from Ottawa, but what he's underestimating is external pressure from the US and elsewhere.

The LPoC LOVES external money and pressure when it comes to killing Alberta's energy sector, their party has been propped up by those forces for over a decade, but now the external pressure is going to be appied in a way that's not beneficial to Ottawa. BooHoo. Too late. 

[West]

13 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Like what?

 

That's just a truth. Letting a small group of malcontents leading them to disaster. That's some bad cosequence.

 

What comments? And in what kind of democracy  "those comments do not belong"?

You would have to ask Carney the specifics of his threats. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 5/26/2026 at 12:45 AM, West said:

Just say on the ctv news that Carney was sending veiled threats to Alberta for wanting to express themselves through a democratic referendum on taking a vote to leave Canada. 

The man is Hitler. Sad

Remind me how easy it is for American states to secede. 

[Benz]

50%+1 is THE ONLY ONE rule that everybody can agree on. It is the basis of democracy. Anything else means that one individual has a bigger value than another one. Therefore, Carney is anti-democratic. He has the right of having that opinion but, let's call a cat, a cat. He is anti-democratic, period.

On 5/27/2026 at 7:54 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Remind me how easy it is for American states to secede. 

Is it what Canada is all about? A bloody imperium? Would you fight and kill Albertans if Ottawa ask you to do it?

[Barquentine]

On 5/27/2026 at 11:53 AM, West said:

You would have to ask Carney the specifics of his threats. 

No. I'm asking you. Quote the 'threats' Carney made. The threats are all coming from some Albertans who want to break up the country. And the obvious blackmail from cowardly id!ots like Smith.

 

[LinkSoul60]

On 5/27/2026 at 7:53 AM, West said:

You would have to ask Carney the specifics of his threats. 

I'm curious of the so-called threats from Carney as well.  It's your thread so will assume you have something to back it up, other than your far right bias....don't you?  Seems to me the threats are from the Premier Idi0t Smith.  

 

 

[West]

2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

No. I'm asking you. Quote the 'threats' Carney made. The threats are all coming from some Albertans who want to break up the country. And the obvious blackmail from cowardly id!ots like Smith.

 

This is from over a month ago and addressed above. 

As the OP alludes to the threats were vague. Something to the effect of "Alberta doesn't know what they are opening up" by simply taking a vote. 

Very pathetic. Especially after the Trudeau years 

[West]

https://globalnews.ca/video/11864098/carney-warns-alberta-separation-referendum-question-is-dangerous-bluff

A dangerous bluff.. "consequences" similar to Brexit. What consequences are those exactly? 

 

[Goddess]

2 hours ago, West said:

What consequences are those exactly? 

 

We already know what Carney thinks the consequences should be.

It was Carney who wrote an entire op-ed about how the Freedom Convoy was traitorous, seditious and needed to be dealt with severely, including freezing them out of bank accounts.

This is how he deals with dissent from citizens.

[West]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

 

We already know what Carney thinks the consequences should be.

It was Carney who wrote an entire op-ed about how the Freedom Convoy was traitorous, seditious and needed to be dealt with severely, including freezing them out of bank accounts.

This is how he deals with dissent from citizens.

Exactly. A dog whistle to have his minions silence critics

[CdnFox]

On 5/26/2026 at 4:56 AM, John Stone said:

The NAZI were fascist

 

The nazis were nazis.  The facists were facists. 

They are both based on a concept of severe nationalism and a socialist market based economy.  But they are still different. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

21 hours ago, Benz said:

50%+1 is THE ONLY ONE rule that everybody can agree on. It is the basis of democracy. Anything else means that one individual has a bigger value than another one. Therefore, Carney is anti-democratic. He has the right of having that opinion but, let's call a cat, a cat. He is anti-democratic, period.

Is it what Canada is all about? A bloody imperium? Would you fight and kill Albertans if Ottawa ask you to do it?

No, I certainly would not. I’m merely pointing out an awkward fact than many Albertan admirers of the US choose to ignore. I believe there should be a path to secession when the settled will of a province expresses it. However, with the benefit of hindsight, we may have given too much power to the provinces in Canada. Much of what we hear from these premiers is an extended rant about the evils of the federal government. 

[Barquentine]

20 hours ago, West said:

threats were vague. Something to the effect of "Alberta doesn't know what they are opening up" by simply taking a vote.

In what deranged world of yours is that a threat?

[West]

1 hour ago, Barquentine said:

In what deranged world of yours is that a threat?

We all lived through covid under a similar dictatorship. 

Couldn't even take a shit without the government trying to tell you what to do

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

No, I certainly would not. I’m merely pointing out an awkward fact than many Albertan admirers of the US choose to ignore. I believe there should be a path to secession when the settled will of a province expresses it. However, with the benefit of hindsight, we may have given too much power to the provinces in Canada. Much of what we hear from these premiers is an extended rant about the evils of the federal government. 

The problem is trying to give power to the provinces while also trying to take power from the provinces

You have this weird crossover where they try and give the provincial governments local power while at the same time giving federal governments power over areas that affect each other and it comes into conflict.

For example, guns. The constitutional powers clearly indicate that the provinces are responsible for the sale of goods and what goods can be sold. So a province like Alberta should absolutely be able to say what kind of guns are soldwhat regulations involve their use. However the constitution grants the federal government certain powers under safety. So you get the federal government stepping on the provincial rights under the name of safety and there isn't a lot of balance there

Things work best when there are clear divided authorities. What you get now is frequent and constant government overreach on the federal level into the provinces and the provinces get angry and fight back. You also see tax dollars collected from all provinces benefiting a disproportionately small number of provinces often at the expense of other provinces.

When it's clear and there's no cross over and no opportunity for overreach and everyone agrees who's job is what then you tend to eliminate much of the problem. 

[Barquentine]

On 6/9/2026 at 12:42 PM, West said:

What consequences are those exactly

An 8% drop in their economy, the inability to travel and work in Europe freely, less foreign investment, higher costs for businesses, reduced trade, higher consumer costs...

Google it!

[Barquentine]

23 hours ago, West said:

Couldn't even take a shit without the government trying to tell you what to do

My sympathies. That explains why you feel so bad all the time. Eat your bran and prunes and get some exercise.

Btw: Exactly how did they tell you to shit? And are you sure it was the gov't, not the voices in your head?

[SpankyMcFarland]

It seems the Americans make things rather difficult for any state wishing to leave their country. From Google:

Under current United States law, there is no legal process for a state to unilaterally secede. The U.S. Supreme Court definitively ruled in the landmark 1869 case Texas v. White that the Union is indestructible, declaring acts of secession absolutely null and void. 

Because there is no official constitutional mechanism for leaving the Union, the only theoretical pathways to secession are revolution or mutual agreement. Should a state genuinely attempt to leave, it would involve the following formidable steps: 

1. Amend the U.S. Constitution

Congressional Approval: A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds supermajority vote in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate.

State Ratification: The amendment must then be ratified by the legislatures or state conventions of three-fourths (38) of the states.

Unanimous Consent: Alternatively, some legal scholars argue that seceding requires the unanimous consent of all 50 states. 

2. Overturn Legal Precedent

Supreme Court Review: The current Supreme Court would have to overturn Texas v. White.

New Interpretation: The Court would need to rule that the Constitution allows for states to leave. 

3. State-Level Action

Referendum: State citizens would likely need to vote in favor of secession via a statewide ballot measure.

Convention: The state legislature would likely pass a formal resolution calling for a constitutional convention to draft articles of separation.

4. Negotiate the Separation

Federal Treaties: The state and the federal government must negotiate complex treaties regarding borders, public lands, and military bases.

Asset Division: Both entities must divide national debt, federal infrastructure, and state-contributed tax revenues.

Citizenship and Currency: Agreements must be reached on whether residents retain U.S. citizenship and what currency the new nation will use. 

5. International Recognition

Global Acceptance: The newly independent nation would need diplomatic recognition from other countries and the United Nations to function as a sovereign state.

 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

It seems the Americans make things rather difficult for any state wishing to leave their country. From Google:

Under current United States law, there is no legal process for a state to unilaterally secede. The U.S. Supreme Court definitively ruled in the landmark 1869 case Texas v. White that the Union is indestructible, declaring acts of secession absolutely null and void. 

Because there is no official constitutional mechanism for leaving the Union, the only theoretical pathways to secession are revolution or mutual agreement. Should a state genuinely attempt to leave, it would involve the following formidable steps: 

1. Amend the U.S. Constitution

Congressional Approval: A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds supermajority vote in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate.

State Ratification: The amendment must then be ratified by the legislatures or state conventions of three-fourths (38) of the states.

Unanimous Consent: Alternatively, some legal scholars argue that seceding requires the unanimous consent of all 50 states. 

2. Overturn Legal Precedent

Supreme Court Review: The current Supreme Court would have to overturn Texas v. White.

New Interpretation: The Court would need to rule that the Constitution allows for states to leave. 

3. State-Level Action

Referendum: State citizens would likely need to vote in favor of secession via a statewide ballot measure.

Convention: The state legislature would likely pass a formal resolution calling for a constitutional convention to draft articles of separation.

4. Negotiate the Separation

Federal Treaties: The state and the federal government must negotiate complex treaties regarding borders, public lands, and military bases.

Asset Division: Both entities must divide national debt, federal infrastructure, and state-contributed tax revenues.

Citizenship and Currency: Agreements must be reached on whether residents retain U.S. citizenship and what currency the new nation will use. 

5. International Recognition

Global Acceptance: The newly independent nation would need diplomatic recognition from other countries and the United Nations to function as a sovereign state.

 

That's pretty much all countries everywhere including Canada. 

However in the real world united nations and other groups have recognized that if a group of people truly want to leave the country that they're in this should be supported and acknowledged and the country in question should be pressured to accept it. Obviously it would be a negotiated situation. It has happened like that several times in history around the world.

[eyeball]

You know what'll be even harder than secession?

A united world government.

That would actually trigger secessionists.

[SpankyMcFarland]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's pretty much all countries everywhere including Canada. 

However in the real world united nations and other groups have recognized that if a group of people truly want to leave the country that they're in this should be supported and acknowledged and the country in question should be pressured to accept it. Obviously it would be a negotiated situation. It has happened like that several times in history around the world.

Britain allowed Scotland to take a vote on independence and will allow NI to do the same in the future. Czechoslovakia divided peacefully, so did Norway from Sweden and Iceland from Denmark. Beyond Northern Europe, Southern Sudan became independent after a referendum. Exactly how votes for independence should be organized, whether 50%+1 is enough or one vote is enough is a matter for legitimate debate but the basic premise should be that a viable region that has expressed a settled wish for independence should be allowed to secede. 
 

 

Edited June 16 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Britain allowed Scotland to take a vote on independence and will allow NI to do the same in the future. Czechoslovakia divided peacefully, so did Norway from Sweden and Iceland from Denmark. Beyond Northern Europe, Southern Sudan became independent after a referendum.

In other words what I said was accurate   Yes. There are lots of examples where even though the constitution of the country did not allow for it a negotiated separation took place and that kind of thing is strongly encouraged by the international community where it's obvious that one group wants to separate. It's always a negotiated process one way or another

Where that doesn't happen you have civil war.And generally speaking most people like to avoid that. The Americans for example went that route when they couldn't work out the differences between southern independence and the national state

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Exactly how votes for independence should be organized, whether 50%+1 is enough or one vote is enough is a matter for legitimate debate but the basic premise should be that a viable region that has expressed a settled wish for independence should be allowed to secede.

Yes and the international community is strongly supported that. As our own Clarity Act says it must be a clear majority of people but once it's clear that the majority of people want to go then if that's the case it should be allowed

[SpankyMcFarland]

46 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

In other words what I said was accurate   Yes. There are lots of examples where even though the constitution of the country did not allow for it a negotiated separation took place and that kind of thing is strongly encouraged by the international community where it's obvious that one group wants to separate. It's always a negotiated process one way or another

I would just say that America is behind the curve on this matter. Since Lincoln’s address at Gettysburg and in some ways even further back to their own secessionist origin where they broke their oath to the monarch, they have a rather hysterical obsession about any move to separate from their country. 

Edited June 16 by SpankyMcFarland