All four Canadian political parties have applied for the Trudeau government's wage subsidy

[Warhippy]

Someone remind me how Trudeau is treasonous again?

 

Just curious how he's committed treason but this guy was lauded by those same people for this trade deal

 

https://thinkpol.ca/2020/04/20/canada-liable-compensate-chinese-companies-covid-19-losses-harper-govt-trade-agreement/?fbclid=IwAR2Mvsi88wM5Ldh5WZJH4xrR1KB-Jn6vyE2jHuadM583SkdTeqzs4NWInQc

[Ryan Strome]

2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Someone remind me how Trudeau is treasonous again?

 

Just curious how he's committed treason but this guy was lauded by those same people for this trade deal

 

https://thinkpol.ca/2020/04/20/canada-liable-compensate-chinese-companies-covid-19-losses-harper-govt-trade-agreement/?fbclid=IwAR2Mvsi88wM5Ldh5WZJH4xrR1KB-Jn6vyE2jHuadM583SkdTeqzs4NWInQc

We get it you hate Harper. This thread isn't about him or JT for that matter.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Ryan Strome

[Dazzle]

17 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

back peddling? or just realizing how dumb of a comparable you made and don't want to touch it.  Well I will.

 

First abortion really has zero to do with women's rights, this is proven by the fact that only 13% of people believe that an abortion should still be legal in the final trimester. Which is fair because you'd have to be a sick human to think it is ok to terminate a healthy baby that is full term.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-views.aspx

 

Meaning abortion has less to do with telling a women about what she can do with her own body and more to do with the development of the fetus.   Strange how at 26 weeks it's "her body, her rules", but at 29 weeks it's all of the sudden, "yeah abortion ain't cool".  

 

Second, take out the anti/pro abortion focus.  If a pregnant women has a miscarriage, the impact of that loss if far more than the loss of someone misplacing their face mask.  The fact that you thought it's a reasonable comparable is just pure stupidity.  

 

There's something very wrong with your logic here.

 

The reason why abortion is so controversial is partly hypocrisy and an indecision of ideas involving development of fetus AND women's rights. However, you really can't legitimately talk about abortion without women's rights.

 

Abortion should be discussed in an educational/productive way, but I also feel (my opinion) that men should not have primary voices on this matter. I say this because men do have a role in the reproduction phase, but they also control most of society and in many cases have reason to keep the baby (whereas the woman might not). We can talk about it, but the final decisions should be left with women. Some guys want the woman to hold a baby but she doesn't want it (for whatever reason). It's possible that these types of relationships come as a result of abuse or unequal partnerships.

 

That's my take on it.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Dazzle

[aGENT]

34 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

So you support your tax dollars going to a party who's sole purpose is to get Quebec out of Canada? Interesting because in the 90s the liberals then used our tax dollars to convince them to stay in Canada. We got screwed twice. 

 

Also the cpc consistently raises more money than any other party.

How is it any worse than my tax dollars going to a party that wants to revert to archaic social policies, archaic 'trickle down' fiscal policies, archaic energy policies and recently, increasingly has its own growing separation movement?

[Ryan Strome]

6 minutes ago, aGENT said:

How is it any worse than my tax dollars going to a party that wants to revert to archaic social policies, archaic 'trickle down' fiscal policies, archaic energy policies and recently, increasingly has its own growing separation movement?

It's not and you just inadvertently agreed with me. It's a flawed setup.

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

It's not and you just inadvertently agreed with me. It's a flawed setup.

Nope. I'm fine with my tax dollars going to any party assuming they have the support of actual voters behind them. That's how the system works.

 

The problem here is that there's apparently a regretful amount of people supporting bass-ackwards policies that are frequently counter to their own best interests.

 

Now if you want to have a discussion of correcting that problem (education?) or modifying that political mechanism to function better... Sure. But money going to political parties you (or I) happen to disagree with is not a flaw.

 

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by aGENT

[JM_]

11 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Nope. I'm fine with my tax dollars going to any party assuming they have the support of actual voters behind them. That's how the system works.

 

The problem here is that there's apparently a regretful amount of people supporting bass-ackwards policies that are frequently counter to their own best interests.

 

Now if you want to have a discussion of correcting that problem (education?) or modifying that political mechanism to function better... Sure. But money going to political parties you (or I) happen to disagree with is not a flaw.

 

 

it isn't. Its one of the things that keeps a vibrant debate going, which we need more of imo.

 

What I'd absolutely love to see get kicked out is ANY kind of lobbying money. None. Zip. Nada. If you want to lobby it should be done in a public place where an audience or the media can go watch. Make your pitch to a government panel out in the open.

 

I'd also do away with political fundraisers. If people want to give individual donations thats fine, but these meetings are also essentially lobbing just with better snacks. 

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

it isn't. Its one of the things that keeps a vibrant debate going, which we need more of imo.

 

What I'd absolutely love to see get kicked out is ANY kind of lobbying money. None. Zip. Nada. If you want to lobby it should be done in a public place where an audience or the media can go watch. Make your pitch to a government panel out in the open.

 

I'd also do away with political fundraisers. If people want to give individual donations thats fine, but these meetings are also essentially lobbing just with better snacks. 

Largely agree but...

 

You'd just end up with 'individuals' donating on behalf of lobby/corporate etc interests. Same excrement, different pile.

[JM_]

Just now, aGENT said:

Largely agree but...

 

You'd just end up with 'individuals' donating on behalf of lobby/corporate etc interests. Same excrement, different pile.

well, Del Mastro did get caught doing that now didn't he  

 

I'd be fine with doing away with donations as well, we'd have to replace that with something like a per vote subsidy anyway so it would be the same effect on our taxes but far more transparent. 

[Ryan Strome]

28 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Nope. I'm fine with my tax dollars going to any party assuming they have the support of actual voters behind them. That's how the system works.

 

The problem here is that there's apparently a regretful amount of people supporting bass-ackwards policies that are frequently counter to their own best interests.

 

Now if you want to have a discussion of correcting that problem (education?) or modifying that political mechanism to function better... Sure. But money going to political parties you (or I) happen to disagree with is not a flaw.

 

 

You mean in your opinion. 

Paying parties you don't vote for is a flaw imo.

[aGENT]

20 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

You mean in your opinion. 

Paying parties you don't vote for is a flaw imo.

No, it's healthy politics. You can't have open,  healthy debate and hence healthy politics with out equality. And that includes funding.

 

Like Jimmy, I'd rather see a ban on lobbying and donation money and ONLY allow the funding. It would produce a far more balance to each party's financial ability.

Edited May 24, 2020 by aGENT

[You Mad Bro?]

Three more years before the conservatives can start rebuilding this guys dumpster fire

 

[King Heffy]

25 minutes ago, You Mad Bro? said:

Three more years before the conservatives can start rebuilding this guys dumpster fire

 

What's lost in that context were the bigoted comments of his predecessor against anyone who wasn't an "old stock Canadian". 

[You Mad Bro?]

4 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

What's lost in that context were the bigoted comments of his predecessor against anyone who wasn't an "old stock Canadian". 

Why did he have to include race tho? Calling white Canadians an unpleasant replaceable relic is repulsive.  

[Warhippy]

35 minutes ago, You Mad Bro? said:

Why did he have to include race tho? Calling white Canadians an unpleasant replaceable relic is repulsive.  

White isn't a race, it's a colour.  It's that predominance that was outright and bold in their utterance of "old stock Canadians" and as such was wide open and rightfully so to being declared up for extinction.

 

 

[You Mad Bro?]

18 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

White isn't a race, it's a colour.  It's that predominance that was outright and bold in their utterance of "old stock Canadians" and as such was wide open and rightfully so to being declared up for extinction.

 

 

White/Caucasian is absolutely a race 

[Warhippy]

4 minutes ago, You Mad Bro? said:

White/Caucasian is absolutely a race 

No.  Canadian is a race.  British is a race.  Irish.  Ukranian.  White is a colour.  Human is a species.  But none of that matters.  As when you base policy and belief off of discrimination of a person based on country of origin, skin colour or a belief of your superiority over others based off of your heritage there's an issue.

Which is what that statement you quoted in your image was in response too.  It is a statement I whole heartedly agree with as well.  Of all the reasons to dislike humans, basing it off of religion, country of origin or skin colour is just lazy.  Golden boys response was justified even if it was almost as stupid as the reason he said it.

[You Mad Bro?]

6 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

No.  Canadian is a race.  British is a race.  Irish.  Ukranian.  White is a colour.  Human is a species.  But none of that matters.  As when you base policy and belief off of discrimination of a person based on country of origin, skin colour or a belief of your superiority over others based off of your heritage there's an issue.

Which is what that statement you quoted in your image was in response too.  It is a statement I whole heartedly agree with as well.  Of all the reasons to dislike humans, basing it off of religion, country of origin or skin colour is just lazy.  Golden boys response was justified even if it was almost as stupid as the reason he said it.

What are you talking about? Canadian isn’t a race. It’s a nationality. White is a race. Just like black and Asian.

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by You Mad Bro?

[Warhippy]

16 minutes ago, You Mad Bro? said:

What are you talking about? Canadian isn’t a race. It’s a nationality. White is a race. Just like black and Asian.

 

You're marginalizing.  Black is a colour.  White is a colour.  Red is a colour.  Yellow is a colour.  We identify those colours with ethnicities in vulgar and rude ways.  I'm a First Nations member, I identify as a human being.  I don't think someone from America of any skin colour is anything but American.  But the moment you start applying colours to it, there is a fundamental issue no matter the argument.  We could argue this for days and never come to an agreement on it so let's skip the niceties and get to the meat of the argument

 

Again, while I do not agree with Trudeau in his use of "white" terminology in his statement I whole heartedly agree with his belief that people of caucasian descent who believe they are racially superior to others based on their heritage, not actions or merit is wrong and needs to be stamped out.

 

I also believe the same about marginalization of the LGBTQ community.

 

*on a side note, I am struggling to figure out how the hell a thread about political parties applying for wage assistance has lead to an anti abortion/old stock Canadians/ left v right debate again.  I think we all need hockey and we need some hockey soon or we're all going to go insane

[Ryan Strome]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

White isn't a race, it's a colour.  It's that predominance that was outright and bold in their utterance of "old stock Canadians" and as such was wide open and rightfully so to being declared up for extinction.

 

 

 

43 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

No.  Canadian is a race.  British is a race.  Irish.  Ukranian.  White is a colour.  Human is a species.  But none of that matters.  As when you base policy and belief off of discrimination of a person based on country of origin, skin colour or a belief of your superiority over others based off of your heritage there's an issue.

Which is what that statement you quoted in your image was in response too.  It is a statement I whole heartedly agree with as well.  Of all the reasons to dislike humans, basing it off of religion, country of origin or skin colour is just lazy.  Golden boys response was justified even if it was almost as stupid as the reason he said it.

What the hell are you talking about?