• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

General Election: Oct 21, 2019

Mister Donut said:
I'm usually apolitical, but I'll be voting for the Cons primarily for two reasons:

The filthy communists want to take my guns, and they gave $10 mil to Khadr. 

Not to mention the Blackface thing, the SNC Lavalin scandal, and importing hundreds, if not thousands of un-vetted terrorists.

I guess there are more than two reasons.

Glad you are voting. 

Not sure I agree with all of your reasons.  Anyone voting against the LPC based on Trudeau's hypocrisy and less than honest way of doing things is well within reason.  Although not a voting factor for me, I sympathise with gun owners and can see why they would vote CPC.  As far as the Khadr thing is concerned, it was a problem that predated the current government and they got stuck with it.  I won't rehash that as we have quite a thread on that.    Not sure what you mean about your last thing about importing terrorists.

For me it is likely going to boil down to who I want in a minority situation and quite likely which MP I prefer in my riding.  Slim pickings                                       
 
Mister Donut said:
The filthy communists want to take my guns, . . .

Good to see that someone has read the platform of parties fielding candidates.

https://votecommunist.com/peoples-agenda-election-platform/
•Ban the sale and possession of hand guns and military assault weapons.

I'll certainly won't be voting for a candidate from the CPC (Communist Party of Canada), but that was highly unlikely anyway since they don't have anyone running in my riding.
 
[quote author=Remius]Although not a voting factor for me, I sympathise with gun owners and can see why they would vote CPC.                                       
[/quote]

Appreciate that.

Even as a non-gun owner (or perhaps non-factor for you) the absurdity of what Trudeau is doing with firearms in order to buy votes should factor in to your decision making. Gun owners are low hanging fruit. There are no stats anywhere in Canada that support vilifying AR15s when you take into account our laws in order to obtain them and the frequency in which they're used in murders.

You should see that behavior as a redflag.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
I would rather the party leaders focus on debating substantive policy issues, but I have to admit that the "camping gear and costumes" quip about Trudeau's second plane is pretty funny.

I would tend to agree with your assessment of Scheer and the Conservatives now being seen as a threat. This puts the Liberals in a bind as they are fighting a two front war. Pivot too far left and they lose the blue liberals to the conservatives. Pivot too far right and the NDP/ Greens eat their lunch- although the liberals may have already calculated they can make deal with one or both in a minority situation to keep them in power.

Yeah, you would think that the incumbent would be the target.   

About arguing the policy issues, it would seem that the LPC and CPC platform is very similar with a few exceptions.  2 sides of the same coin.
 
Brad Sallows said:
>Scheer was gangbanged

Perhaps you meant "ganged-up upon"?

Yes.  I should have perhaps used better wording... :facepalm:
 
Jarnhamar said:
Appreciate that.

Even as a non-gun owner (or perhaps non-factor for you) the absurdity of what Trudeau is doing with firearms in order to buy votes should factor in to your decision making. Gun owners are low hanging fruit. There are no stats anywhere in Canada that support vilifying AR15s when you take into account our laws in order to obtain them and the frequency in which they're used in murders.

You should see that behavior as a redflag.

I see red flags on all sides.  All parties are trying to buy votes.  Like I said, slim pickings.  Trudeau's behaviour on plenty of things have raised many a red flag.  In fact his stance on guns is trivial compared to his other issues.
 
Remius said:
Although not a voting factor for me, I sympathise with gun owners and can see why they would vote CPC. 

I'm a gun owner, because I've always enjoyed hunting. But, I'm not obsessed with guns.

Most of my political interest has been at the municipal level, which thank-fully, is non-partisan.

Our union and pensioners association are pretty helpful with information for active and retired members to make informed decisions to support the politicians who support us.

 
Gun control isn't really a safety and health issue.  It's a culture war.  You can map that out easily enough by looking at whom the "fixes" are directed.
 
Trudeau lost me on Electoral Reform, Ethics breaches (how many now ?), Khdar, SNC Lavalin, the VAdm Norman Affair, I am asking for more than he can give; and to top it all off, now he wants to come after my guns. 

Its almost like he took my vote last time and then did everything he could to make sure I wouldn't vote for his party ever again.  It wasn't that personal I know ;)

 
Remius said:
Trudeau's behaviour on plenty of things have raised many a red flag.  In fact his stance on guns is trivial compared to his other issues.
His stance on guns may be trivial but his actions are a hell of a lot more serious.

Banning personal property from 99.9% law abiding citizens based on emotion and fear mongering to buy votes while costing Canadians at least $600 million with no empirical evidence. That's fucked up.  But a lot of Canadians don't seem to care because it doesn't directly effect them. Maybe carbon emitting SUVs will be next because you don't need an SUV to drive to work.
 
This is just breaking.

https://election.ctvnews.ca/andrew-scheer-has-dual-canadian-u-s-citizenship-party-confirms-1.4623024

I don’t think it’s a big deal at the end of the day but how did no one know about this until now?
 
Remius said:
This is just breaking.

https://election.ctvnews.ca/andrew-scheer-has-dual-canadian-u-s-citizenship-party-confirms-1.4623024

I don’t think it’s a big deal at the end of the day but how did no one know about this until now?

Looks like the US embassy knew in August.
 
Brihard said:
What in the hell are you going on about?

Have a few friends that work for IRCC and CBSA......and many of the decisions being rendered there and even up to the IRB are being fettered by the the current government to buy votes.

For those not familiar with the decision making process in these departments, approvals are far easier to write up than refusals.  When management increase quotas required of the officer, approvals naturally increase, and the level of scrutiny per file decreases significantly.  Complex files are suddenly processed with the same level of attention as straight-forward cases.

And this is not just at IRCC.  The same thing happens at the IRB level.  A IRB member was dismissed for not approving enough cases, not sure if they ever hired him back after making a stink about it....Uni prof at U of T I think.

Security and background checks?  They're based on what the applicant says on their Schedule A.  They literally take their word for it when it comes to their history.  The bad guys that are dumb enough to be honest might get screened out, but beyond that, there isn't enough time and staff to conduct proper investigations on an applicant's background.  Terrorists was a bit general, I apologize for that, but there are a lot of people that should not be here (criminals, pedofiles, rapists - fuk, surprising a lot of the last two), and it's you'd be surprised how costly and difficult it is to get them out once they're here.

The cost to keep these $hit-rats alive and comfortable for a year before their hearing is on us, the tax payers. 

Dumb applicants have been known to confess to the reviewing officer that the only reason they made a claim was because their parent's can no longer afford to send them to school in Canada and pay for their MSP, but most are coached by immigration consultants and lawyers for a significant fee. 

If you want to scratch the surface, stand outside of an IRCC building and see the line up of ref claimants every morning.  Most are well dressed, with their iPhone Xs, LV, Coach or Gucci bags waiting to make a ref claim.  Not all of them are simply trying get out of paying the International Fee for schooling....some claimants have minor crim, to serious crim to being RBGs (really bad guys). 

One particular friend told me he worked in the Ref unit for 6 months, seeing maybe 3 families a day.  He didn't render the ultimate decision on whether the applicants qualified for protection, but rather made recommendations to the IRB.
In those 6 months, he only had one family he actually believed - a white family from South Africa.  He was of the opinion that the rest of his claimants lacked credibility, and it was demoralizing for him to watch the IRB approve applications with minimal evidence and weak reasons for their approvals.  This officer is not white, so it's not a racial thing, but he thought the white family from SA would probably get fukked when the finally got to the IRB.

Maybe my friends are just jaded, but they're from different POEs and various inland offices, so it probably isn't a coincidence that there's a common theme when it comes to who's being allowed into the country.  And it's not just ref claimants, we're talking all lines of business.





 
Jarnhamar said:
Looks like the US embassy knew in August.

Just watching his media scrum...he looks uncomfortable with the line of questioning about it.
 
Remius said:
This is just breaking.

https://election.ctvnews.ca/andrew-scheer-has-dual-canadian-u-s-citizenship-party-confirms-1.4623024

I don’t think it’s a big deal at the end of the day but how did no one know about this until now?

So? Elizabeth May was born in the USA. Half the Trudeau cabinet was born outside of Canada. Trudeau himself is half cuban (that was a joke...).

I thought Canada embraced immigration and multiculturalism?
 
Jarnhamar said:
Maybe carbon emitting SUVs will be next because you don't need an SUV to drive to work.

Guess I was fortunate being able to walk to work. Took the car when it needed a wash.

SeaKingTacco said:
I thought Canada embraced immigration and multiculturalism?

According to the quoted article, it depends,

The Conservatives have been critical of other leaders’ citizenship status in the past, however.

Scheer himself questioned former Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean’s French citizenship in an August 2005 blog post, in which he said he has a “few questions” about her appointment: “Does it bother you that she is a dual citizen (France and Canada)? Would it bother you if instead of French citizenship, she held U.S. citizenship?”

Jean renounced her French citizenship before taking office in September 2005.

In 2015, then-Conservative Leader Stephen harper blasted then-NDP leader Thomas Mulcair for holding onto his dual French citizenship.

“I’m very clear. I’m a Canadian and only a Canadian,” he said at the time.

Harper’s team also blasted then-Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff in 2011 for a perceived lack of loyalty to Canada. Ignatieff spent 34 years working in the United States before becoming the head of the Liberals, which spurred Conservative attack ads with the slogan “Michael Ignatieff: Just visiting.”
 
SeaKingTacco said:
So? Elizabeth May was born in the USA. Half the Trudeau cabinet was born outside of Canada. Trudeau himself is half cuban (that was a joke...).

I thought Canada embraced immigration and multiculturalism?

Ah yes.  The CPC has never had an issue with dual citizens?  Like Michael Jean or Stephane Dion?  His citizenship status isn’t the issue.  But it sure looks like he was hiding it. 
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Trudeau himself is half cuban (that was a joke...).
In case anyone takes the joke seriously,
Is Justin Trudeau Fidel Castro’s Love Child?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/justin-trudeau-is-fidel-castros-love-child/
Claims that Fidel Castro and Margaret Trudeau had an affair that produced the current Canadian prime minister are impossible on both biological and historical grounds.



 
Jarnhamar said:
Looks like the US embassy knew in August.

So he took the step to relinquish US citizenship (or a step that could make public the knowledge of his dual citizenship) only two years and two months after becoming Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, or only eight years after becoming Speaker of the House of Commons. 

I wonder if he has been filing his US tax returns all these years; the IRS takes a dim view of non-resident citizens who don't file.
 
Back
Top