Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

thedestroyerofworlds

Members
  • Posts

    7,812
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by thedestroyerofworlds

  1. 1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

    You aren't wrong however in Jean's case I think it's a little different. When he got into provincial politics it was the wildrose which makes me think he wasn't happy with the conservative party. 

    Ya, the conservatives weren't crazy enough for him.

  2. 1 hour ago, inane said:

    There are many other things that kill many many more innocent people. Perspective. 

    Yes there are.  Thing is, COVID 19 has yet to really spread it wings, so to speak.  It's been popping up here and there.  I hope it doesn't but if/when cases appear throughout the privince/country I think there will be a lot more deaths due to it.  All while the lack of a vaccine which could reduce those deaths.

     

  3. 1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

     

     

    Here's a thought experiment:

     

    Maybe the doofus above^^ (not talking about Strome) should have done something while he, Kenny, and Stevo were in government for the better part of a decade with a majority government.   Now that they are out of government and the CONs managed to snatch defeat from victory, now they open their yaps and complain about things they should have and COULD have done something about.  That doofus gets no sympathy or respect. 

  4. About time.  On of the main reasons for the current issues with ICBC was years of Liberal governments siphoning money from ICBC sending it to general revenue.  ICBC, BC Hydro money should stay with them.  Not used to try an fudget the budget. 

     

    Global news link

    New bill aims to ban using ICBC profits to cover other government costs

     

    The B.C. government has announced profits earned from ICBC will no longer be used to cover other government expenses. Richard Zussman has the details.

    • Cheers 1
  5. 18 minutes ago, Chicken. said:

    So once Warren drops out, the final Dem candidates are 3 old white men age 77-78 ..  interesting. if they serve 2 terms they would be like 85-86 years old when leaving office. wow!

    Well, Jimmy Carter is 95 and still ticking.   I'd bank on Bernie being capable going int his second term than TRUMP being all there in 3 years.

  6. 31 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

    This set of polling makes little sense to me. Something very off about it. All of those states should poll similarly.

     

    So either the Wisconsin polling is the true data and Trump is performing well across all 3 states or the Mich and Penn data is the true data set and Trump is performing poorly across all 3. It should be one or the other, not both.

    Based on what?

     

    TRUMP barely won those 3 states, and his performance hasn't been great enough to improve his position.   Only papa Bush had worse approval at this point of his term and we all know how reelection went for him.  I would say it's far more likely that the Wisconsin polling is the outlier.   I'd hate to be wrong about that

     

  7. 11 minutes ago, DonLever said:

    Who wins the presidency is based on the Electoral college, not popular vote.   Clinton got more votes than Trump but Trump won.

    Yup,  TRUMP won by the slimmest of margins in Michigan,  Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.  He needs to keep those 3 states to win reelection.  Polls have him behind in two.

     

    Link

    Trump defeats all 2020 Democrats in Wisconsin but loses in Pennsylvania and Michigan, poll finds

     

  8. 16 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

    I don't. These people are hurting the economy and hurting vulnerable people. The bloody thing is lead by an American and you want to negotiate. :picard:

    Not now as the injunctions have been put it place.  But still, asking the protesters to break up the protest peacefully before force is used is and will be the way it's done.  That's the minimum negotiation I'm talking about.  I'm not talking about them getting away Scot free.  Now do you understand??

  9. 8 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

    Canada does not negotiate with criminals and terrorists, well at least not before 2015. Imagine if he dealt with what his dad did in 1970. 

    I think you are missing what type of negotiation I'm talking about.  I'm not talking about negotiation to minimize or eliminate charges/getting off free.  I'm talking about negotiation for the protesters to give up /end protest peacefully.   The last resort is to break the protest up with force.  We have taken the negotiation first, force last position on many protests in the past.  Even pre 2015.   Hopefully you get it now.

  10. 30 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

    Acts of sabotage potentially causing death should be treated the same as drug busts. Clearly the majority of Canadians agree.

     

    Those acts mostly occurred after JT spoke and the injunctions were enforced.   It was the protesters escalating after force was used to break up the blockades.   That's the whole point of negotiating first.  You try to avoid escalation.  

    • Cheers 1
  11. 2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

    The last resort for the military is force. The job of the police is "law enforcement." Which means enforcing the law. I find it hilarious you are not discussing the extremes. 

    Not discussing the extremes or now because the time for negotiations has passed.  The rail blockades passed the point after JTs presser last week.  Up until then was the negotiation time.   Again, negotiate first, force last.  Only in certain situations (drug bust etc) will there be no negotiation.  The fact you don't get that is sad.

  12. 13 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

    You're nuts. They are sabotaging rail roads and starting fires. Ya let's negotiate with terrorists. :picard:

    Go sabotage a railroad, potentially causing death I guarantee you won't have negotiations with anybody but your lawyer.

    I'm not talking about now, or in your extreme examples.  The protesters were given their time.  Its always the aim of law enforcement for a "peaceful" negotiated end to situations.  The last resort is force.  I find it hilarious that you are trying to argue the opposite. 

  13. This will the a Supreme Court decision that the Wexit crowd should be watching.  The decision will apply to all of Canada since 

    Saskatchewan and Ontario ruled in favour if the Federal government. 

     

    CBC link

    See you at the Supreme Court, Ottawa says after Alberta demands carbon tax be killed

     

    Federal justice minister notes that Alberta appeal court's opinion is non-binding

  14. 2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

    The entirety of the world's economic outlook is being downgraded.  Canada included.

     

    40% risk of a recession

     

    https://business.financialpost.com/executive/posthaste-canadas-recession-odds-at-worrisome-40-as-mounting-risks-test-economys-stall-speed

    Well last year there were US treasury inversions.   Those inversions have indicated economic downturns or recessions 12 to 24 months later.  We're coming up on 12 months.

  15. 1 hour ago, Squamfan said:

     

    So shouting out a question starting before JT even left the room he was leaving and then heading down the hallway away from the "reporter" ambushing him with this obvious question is what?  If this was an obvious media availability or press conference you would have something.   This is just a bs hit job for knuckle dragging knuckleheads to fall for.

  16. Just now, Ryan Strome said:

    No need to go that far. Alberta judges are totally impartial and are the best in the world.

    Actually it does because that's how precedent works.  That Supreme court decision will apply for the entire nation.   Saskatchewan is in on the challenge. 

     

    That's how it works. 

×
×
  • Create New...