rangerx

Just now, MigL said:

I'm good with a lot of things.
You, on the other hand, seem to be one of those always angry people who stomps his feet when he doesn't get his way.

Have a nice day.

I speak the court's mind. Apparently you have no respect for that either.

It's your lot in life to deride liberals and uphold conservatives.

Meanwhile I doubt you ever picked a drop of spilled oil or cleaned a beach of plastic.

Unlike the conservatives who do nothing but mouth off, we actually do something. We physically clean up the mess, We are leading the charge to rid the oceans of single use plastics, yet you would demonize us because you want more pollution and don't give a rat's ass about first nations interests or killer whales or clean beaches. You just want to own libs, irrespective of the cost to yourself, your environment and moreover, your country.

We have every right to make a claim against dirty oil. The court agreed. My case stands, your bullshit walks.

My opinion has nothing to do with it. The law prevails.

35 minutes ago, MigL said:

The consultation criteria for the EXPANSION of that pipeline were not met, and it was halted by the Supreme Court of Canada.

And just exactly where is this "world class spill response" located?

No where. There are no ships or storage facilities equipped with adequate response gear capable of managing spills greater than a few hundred litres in calm, harbour waters.

Let's examine a recent spill in Vancouver's English Bay. https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/city-of-vancouver-tries-to-recover-cost-of-english-bay-oil-spill-cleanup.
 

“This is a clear example of where the federal government and the international oil tanker program is not safe, not dealing with the damages appropriately and where we have great concerns”

"The lack of compensation leaves taxpayers and municipalities on the hook for costs incurred by the spill, and raises concern over what might happen in the case of a diluted bitumen spill along B.C.’s coastal waterways.

“Vancouver’s primary concern with the Kinder Morgan pipeline is the oil tankers — seven times the number will go through our harbour — and the oil spill we expect will happen over time and dramatically impact our environment and our economy,”

"The SSOP fund was established in 1989 to act on behalf of impacted municipalities, companies and individuals in pursuit of compensation from shipowners in the event of a spill and provide additional compensation. The city has received an “absolutely unacceptable” offer from the Ship-source Oil Pollution fund of 27 per cent of the $550,000.

They can't even clean up a minor spill from a ship in calm weather at anchor. MigL figures a few more consultations will resolve that. Wrong. Talk, talk talk, but no action. Several of the first nations say no. It's their right. It's their territory. It's their decision to make, not his.

Just now, MigL said:

Well he is the current Prime Minister.
And being directly relevant to the preceding conversation, why wouldn't I ???

To which you replied "But what about S Harper".
And so it started...

Because he sold us out to China and got us into this mess, but you're all good with that part.

On 8/23/2019 at 7:00 PM, MigL said:

THAT's what you don't like about J Trudeau, Rangerx ?

Oh bullshit MIgL! Lies, lies and more lies.

YOU are the one who brought Trudeau into the discussion and pretend that I'm defending him. I did no such thing.

Gaslight fail.

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

I didn't make this a Harper vs Trudeau contest. Rangerx did.

Bullshit

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

No point talking to Rangerx; he'll just accuse me of killing Canada geese.

Lies.

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

And the fact that Rangerx thinks BC does neither, means he believes in magic.

Lies

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Did they manage to get any straight answers to their questions? I hope you told them about MigL wanting to kill all the marine mammals as well. It sure is helpful here.

We had quite a nice chat about southern resident killer whales. The TM case isn't the only instance, it's happening in America too.

Tulalip and Suquamish Tribes, represented by Earthjustice, took steps to protect endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales from oil tanker traffic and risk of oil spills in the Salish Sea. 

The TransMountain project will add a seven-fold spike in oil tanker traffic to the already-crowded waters of the Salish Sea.

The tribes filed a legal challenge in federal court over the U.S Coast Guard’s failure to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service on the harmful impacts to orcas from shipping traffic, including the massive increase in oil tankers resulting from Canada’s recently approved pipeline through British Columbia. The TransMountain pipeline project and the resulting increases in oil tanker traffic through U.S. waters in the Salish Sea signals major threats to already endangered Orcas.

This is what MigL's "smart" Stephen Harper did to Canada:

Under the terms of the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, approved by PM Harper on Friday, China can sue Canada in secret tribunals to repeal national and provincial laws that interfere with Chinese investments, including laws limiting construction of the Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline.

The treaty allows the government to engage in secret negotiations to vary its rules and laws to avoid harm to Chinese assets, or to pay public money to Chinese companies, and only publish notice once the matter is final and settled. The way the deal is structured, it can't be undone, even if the Canadian courts find it to be unconstitutional, without consent from China. More significantly, it overrides existing treaty obligations to Canada's First Nations, allowing Chinese investors to force the Canadian government to grant access to aboriginal lands that are technically not Canadian territory.

Harper sold out our sovereignty to line his pockets. Nary a peep from our conservative friend. Had a liberal done that, we'd never hear the end of it.
 

Short of genocide, that's about as egregious as it gets.

Tar sand is not crude oil. It's hard on pipes and life expectancy is a fraction of what it is for other products.

Tar sand is filthy. It requires massive stripping of wetlands and uses extraordinary amounts of water. It flies in the face of Canada's commitment to reducing carbon

What you call a snag, the court said  "Canada fell well short of the minimum requirements imposed by the case law of the Supreme Court of Canada. For the most part, Canada’s representatives limited their mandate to listening to and recording the concerns of the Indigenous applicants and then transmitting those concerns to the decision-makers. The law requires Canada to do more than receive and record concerns and complaints.”

Unlike you MIgL, who complains, yet does nothing, I am in that court, as an expert witness to Canada's inability to clean up major spills based on my experiences with several spills one of which was the Exxon Valdez. Your bullshit wouldn't make it through the front door. You obviously have no respect for the law, for the environment or worse yet, the opinions of of other Canadians.

There are 73 remaining southern resident killer whales, but you're hellbent on seeing those finally wiped out.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

You still haven't explained where BC gets its oil from...

Not from a pipe through the mountains. That's for sure.

Besides that narrative is just exactly what I suggested it was from the get-go before you even chimed in.

Conservative authoritarianism. Shifting the conversation away and twisting it into something it's not.
 

1 minute ago, MigL said:

But the 'knuckle dragger' S Harper had way more sense, international clout and intelligence than our current 'drama teacher' ( and father's coat-tail riding ) Prime Minister."

After which you went on a rant about S Harper, and claimed he sold SNC-Lavelin to the Saudis.
Totally unrelated 'whataboutism', intended to obfuscate.

 

Here you go again claiming I defend Trudeau. I'm not, you're the one hellbent to slag him.  All the while chastising me for criticizing Harper while you fawn over him. Don't preach to me about double standards or whataboutism, no less while using it as your MO.

You made a totally  ridiculous statement, claiming that if BC doesn't pipe the dirty oil to China we will be stuck with middle eastern oil. You blew a dog whistle and nothing more. Okay, so I should have said Libya. If anything that's worse, but okay so long as it owns the libs, right? It doesn't matter anyway, your whole premise  was wrong.

Truth is, the middle east has nothing to do with TransMountain. That's the issue at bar here.
 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

You know damn well, if it doesn't come from within Canada, it comes from the middle east.

Then explain to good people watching how shipping unrefined dirty oil to China though a pipeline though a province fraught with environmental perils is the solution to that?

47 minutes ago, MigL said:

Not the fact that he tries to influence the justice system to benefit those who donate to the Liberal party ?
Not the fact that he shuts down inquiries into his abuses of power ?
Not the fact that he promised Proportional Representation until he won a majority ?
Not the bungled Air Force jet acquisition  ( which we are part of the program  due to  a previous Liberal government ) but, to save face he is stalling until after his mandate, at which point, the same jet will be bought ?
Not the fact that he champions women's rights, yet he groped a woman 18 yrs ago, and claims his recollection is different from hers ?
Need I go on ?

I'm no fan of A Sheer, the NDP are now trailing the Greens in public support, and J Trudeau may well get re-elected.
But the 'knuckle dragger' S Harper had way more sense, international clout and intelligence than our current 'drama teacher' ( and father's coat-tail riding ) Prime Minister."

After which you went on a rant about S Harper, and claimed he sold SNC-Lavelin to the Saudis.
Totally unrelated 'whataboutism', intended to obfuscate.

 

*Not the fact that he tries to influence the justice system to benefit those who donate to the Liberal party ?*

Harper did that. Why was it okay for him, but not Trudeau?

*Not the fact that he shuts down inquiries into his abuses of power ?*

Harper did that. Why was it okay for him, but not Trudeau?

*Not the fact that he promised Proportional Representation until he won a majority ?*

It was tried in a BC referendum and fell flat. No point in falling flat in other provinces, I suppose.

*Not the bungled Air Force jet acquisition  ( which we are part of the program  due to  a previous Liberal government ) but, to save face he is stalling until after his mandate, at which point, the same jet will be bought ?*

Liberals messed up the helicopter deal a few years ago too. They were wrong, we need the hardware. Even though the acquisition process for the choppers by the Mulroney conservatives was dubious.

*Not the fact that he champions women's rights, yet he groped a woman 18 yrs ago, and claims his recollection is different from hers ?*

She has the right come forward and ought to be taken seriously. I seem to recall your thread about #metoo. Is it a scary time for boys?

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

"That's how you conservatives do things. By gaslight and bullshit."

And still you don't address any of the points I've made.
Just resort to labeling and name-calling.
Throw a childish temper tantrum, why don't you.

YOU blew the Saudi dog whistle. Not me.


 

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

And yet, none of what you posted makes the statement "Harper sold SNC-Lavelin to the Saudis" true, Rangerx.
Meanwhile J Trudeau wants to defer their prosecution on the bribery scandal, and threw a native, woman Attorney General under the bus, all to spare a generous Liberal donor and protect seats in Quebec.

Where does BC get their oil from, if it doesn't come by tanker or the unbuilt pipeline ?
Does it magically appear in your storage tanks ?
You know damn well, if it doesn't come from within Canada, it comes from the middle east.

And I can write a list, just as long about J Trudeau's 4 yrs in office as you did about S Harper's nearly 10 yrs.
Yet only S Harper is accused of being a 'Boogey Man" and evil incarnate.
Bit of a double standard wouldn't you say ?
( actually YOU probably would not )

I am not defending Trudeau, but yet your narrative is that I am. That's how you conservatives do things. By gaslight and bullshit.

And there you go with the ridiculous fallacy that unless dirty tar sand comes through a pipe in BC, it doesn't exist.

TransMountain is monumental failure, a legal nightmare and an undesirable product because of the high cost of production and extremely pollutant. We have no use for tar sand, so Harper pre-sold it to China at 10% of the cost of sweet crude. We're selling it at a loss. WTF is with that? Corruption, that's what.

Somehow you just think because you want a pipeline it you can just have it, everyone else be dammed. No way. The courts have ruled. The province won and TransMountain lost. Period.

Subsequent cases have been thrown out and the feds have not even begun to revisit the consultation processes order by the court.

Again, there's a reason why there's no pipelines crossing BC. Mountains, canyons, rivers, rock slides, avalanches, fish habitat and more, but all of you back east think it's lotus land and rainbows. Match that up with the bogus line, oh it's safe and if it spills we will have a world class response, such bullshit. BC depends on the marine environment for it's existence. Increasing tanker traffic x8 is a recipe for disaster, especially in the absence of cleanup equipment and related technologies.

Your argument isn't grounded in reality. It's tainted with political bias and little else.

No way pipeline. Not happening.


 

11 hours ago, MigL said:

So, tankers at your ports are OK, along with the spills they may cause, but a pipeline regulated by Canadian laws is too risky ?
And I don't recall mentioning O Khadr.

Why not address the points I DID make ?

Tankers are not okay. In fact there is a tanker exclusion zone. And the pipeline is not regulated because it's not approved. Stop pretending it's approved or even exists.

And as expected, your head is in the sand with SNC Lavalin and Harper.

The Harper government divested itself of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and Joe Oliver, Harper's Minister of Natural Resources, said at a news conference in Toronto that the Crown corporation's Candu reactor business has been sold to engineering giant SNC-Lavalin Group of Montreal. Link here . Yet the narrative from the US, it was Hillary Clinton who sold uranium to the Russians. Such bullshit.

Then when the deal closed, SNC-Lavalin gave the Harper government $15 million and then the Harper government gave SNC-Lavalin $75 million. Good deal huh? Canadian taxpayers ended up paying $60 million for the privilege of no longer owning that chunk of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., while SNC- Lavalin got the lion’s share of the nuclear technology company’s $1.1 billion worth of assets — including land, buildings and tools.

But look in the bright side MigL, we're stuck with all of AECL’s $4.5-billion worth of liabilities on top of it. Killer good deal huh? Right up your conservative alley, right? Harper was sure looking out for  you and me, there... not.

Let's chat about Senator Hugh Segal, one of the former board members of SNC, who is both linked to Gaddafi and credited with helping Harper become Prime Minister. Oh, and Gwyn Morgan from the Board of Directors was appointed to chair a new public appointment commission in 2006 by his close friend Stephen Harper, greeted by objections from opposition MP's due to statements blaming refugees for crime in Canada. Oh, one more thing, Chair of the Canadian Public Accountability Board, and also a director of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, the Canadian Oil Sands trust, etc. also sits on the SNC Lavalin board. Connect the dots, count the dog whistles and don't wonder why they pillaged our pensions while selling out our infrastructure.

Now, let's talk about Harper ordering the burning the Department of Fisheries Library before less than 15% of it could be digitized. Gotta burn those books about fish ya know because that climate science stuff is just too fake, right? How about muzzling scientists and experts. So much for freedom of expression huh?  Hell, even Harper’s MPs Protested Muzzling decrying anti-democratic practices. in 2014 several members rose up to contest being censored at question period by the Prime Minister’s Office. Conservative back-bencher Brent Rathgeber turned independent and published a book, Irresponsible Government.

Want to chat about Harper violating a juvenile offender's constitutional rights? All corruption aside, he should have been immediately removed from office, if not jailed, but no. Conservatives don't give a rat's ass about the constitution when their own contravene it.

Want to talk about hush money payments to Mike Duffy by the PMO's staffers under Harper? Do I need to post the court docs?

How about Stephen Harper being found in Contempt of Parliament for refusing to disclose information on the costing of programs to Parliament, which Parliament was entitled to receive? The Harper government became the first in Canadian history to be found in contempt of Parliament.

Should we discuss  Access to Information System Impeded and the roadblocks put up by the Harper Conservatives? Former Information Commissioner Robert Marleau concluded that having obtained absolute power, the prime minister “has absolutely abused that power to the maximum.”

We could also touch upon Loyalty Oaths Imposed on Public Servants. Archivists and librarians were made to swear strict oaths of allegiance and were hit with restrictions on freedom of speech that many on the right and left described as chilling.

Let's speak to the issue of Billions Borrowed without Parliament’s Permission. The auditor general sounded alarms about the “prodigious” growth and size of federal borrowing. Those billions in “non-budgetary” spending used to get Parliament’s oversight, but no more. Why? A loophole buried in a 2007 Harper omnibus bill. You're good with the government just helping itself to your cash without scrutiny? No big deal, right?

Maybe we can talk about Harper's respect for the troops. Oh wait. The PMO Attempted to Cover up Video Leak Putting Troops at Risk. On an Iraq visit, the PMO was caught lying to try and cover up the leak of a promo video, which constituted a security breach. The PMO, noted a National Post piece, “stumbled from blunder to evasion and falsehood in the service of shamelessly manipulative partisanship, especially in using our troops as PR props.”

Let's gab about Conservatives Place Party Logos on Government of Canada Cheques. The federal ethics commissioner noted “Public spending announcements are government activities, not partisan political activities, and it is not appropriate to brand them with partisan or personal identifiers.”

Then of course, Record Amounts of Partisan Political Advertising, on the Public Purse. Several media reports came to light how the Conservatives used taxpayer money for partisan political advertising in record quantity,  costing the public treasury $750 million since Harper became PM. In one instance, the Tories spent lavishly on ads for the promotion of a jobs grant program that had yet to be made public or presented to parliament or the provinces. Even more nakedly partisan, spam campaign, charged to the taxpayers targeting Justin Trudeau.

Perhaps we could cover the topic of Conservatives Convicted on Robocalls Scam. Tory operative Michael Sona was given jail time for his role in the scam. The judge indicted more than one person was likely involved. In another court judgment in a case brought by the Council of Canadians, the ruling said the robocalls operation was widespread not just limited to the Guelph riding. Donald Segretti who did dirty tricks for the Nixon White House told a Canadian reporter his skullduggery didn’t go so low as to run schemes sending voters to the wrong polling stations.

The Vic Toews Porno Smear. In a vivid example of the browbeating of opponents, Harper's Minister of Public Safety said anyone who opposed federal plans to make electronic surveillance of Canadians easier for authorities was siding with child pornographers.

Harper Smears Liberal Sikh MP, Insinuating Tie to Terrorism. When Liberals opposed a 2007 Conservative plan to extend anti-terror legislation, Stephen Harper singled out Grit MP Navdeep Bains, seeming to suggest that Bains’ party was motivated by a desire to protect Bains’ father-in-law, Darshan Singh Saini. A recent news story had claimed Singh Saini was on a list of witnesses sought by the RCMP for its Air India investigation, but provided no proof he was involved.

Veterans’ Advocates Smeared. Medical files of Sean Bruyea, a strong advocate for veterans’ rights, were leaked by the PMO in a case that privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart described as “alarming.” Rather than accept the report, Veterans Affairs Canada ombudsman Pat Stogran was dumped for criticizing the government.

There's your Canadian Conservative platform folks. Free speech and small government... my sore ass!

Is that enough Harper truth for you MIgL, or are you just going to dismiss all that as slander too? Lots more where that came from, wanna discuss those too?

So MigL in closing,  you still haven't explained your assertion that not selling tar sand to China means we have to keep using Saudi oil. Oh wait, you can't, because it's nonsensical.

Full points for the terrorist dogwhistle and anti-eco trope though.

28 minutes ago, MigL said:

THAT's what you don't like about J Trudeau, Rangerx ?
The pipelines which would avoid buying from the Middle East ?

Not the fact that he tries to influence the justice system to benefit those who donate to the Liberal party ?
Not the fact that he shuts down inquiries into his abuses of power ?
Not the fact that he promised Proportional Representation until he won a majority ?
Not the bungled Air Force jet acquisition  ( which we are part of the program  due to  a previous Liberal government ) but, to save face he is stalling until after his mandate, at which point, the same jet will be bought ?
Not the fact that he champions women's rights, yet he groped a woman 18 yrs ago, and claims his recollection is different from hers ?
Need I go on ?

I'm no fan of A Sheer, the NDP are now trailing the Greens in public support, and J Trudeau may well get re-elected.
But the 'knuckle dragger' S Harper had way more sense, international clout and intelligence than our current 'drama teacher' ( and father's coat-tail riding ) Prime Minister.

 

PS     Its about time we discussed some Canadian politics.
          I'm getting tired of talking Trump.

I'll indulge that. Here's the fallacy I spoke of.

Fact. The pipeline went to the supreme court and lost. The feds buying it on your dime doesn't change a thing. The injunction stands. Moreover It has sweet FA to do with Saudi oil. In fact quite the opposite. Selling unrefined low grade oil to China at a loss is not some magic bullet to solve the economy and prevent us from buying Saudi oil. It's absurd to sell oil to China so we don't have to buy Saudi oil. There's a reason there's no pipelines in BC, they're called mountains, canyons, avalanches, rock slides, fish, farm and wildlife habitats, water supplies, first nations issues and all that annoying liberal nonsense, right?

Then of course there's the complete incapability to deal with major oils spills at sea so screw BC, so long as whiners can piss and moan about pennies at the pump or in this case, dog whistle terrorists, right?

Lets just nip this in the bud now. Tar Sand is on Harper. He made the deal with devil on that one, yet you lay it at my feet? How about Khadr? Harper is the most culpable party in that one too, in fact he violated the constitutional rights of a juvenile offender while in office FFS, yet you chose to lay that at Trudeau's fee?  Sure, Trudeau could have fought both, but he would have lost, both times and it would have cost you and me twice as much (or more) in the case of Khadr and already cost us and arm and a leg for a dead horse in the case of TransMountain.  How about SNC Lavalin...oops Harper sold that to the Saudi's. right? How bout dem der tanks, eh?

You (Ontario I mean) take it. Put your money where your mouth is. You got the pipes, you got the refineries. You guys need the work. You need the oil, right? Truth is you don't want it, so you'd rather buy Saudi and ship the dirty oil to China through us at our expense and destruction. Nope. TransMountain ain't happening. It will never get off the ground for pure legal reasons, no less if they try it will fail to any number of perils by nature. It's just that simple. And yet again the experts and pundits will be wrong. Dead wrong.

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

Does Canada have a proportional voting system or first past the post? 

What JCM said.

BC held a referendum last year on proportional voting, but first past the post prevailed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_British_Columbia_electoral_reform_referendum

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

One thing to keep in mind. Rough figures, there are 10 times as many Americans as Canadians. Multiply by 10 all the questionable things attributed to Canadians and you get a fairer comparison...also as you mentioned...three main political parties...if two get in a pissing match the third makes hay in the Sun.

Yes. Which is why you rarely see political talking points used to divide. For example, abortion or healthcare. Even a knuckle dragger like Harper avoided those issues like a plague, knowing full well it would have been political suicide. Sheer's going to try, but he'll just hand it to Trudeau for doing so. I'm no fan of Trudeau either, he can piss off with his little pipeline as far as BC goes.

Even if elections don't go well, we accept them as the law of the land. We generally understand it's the will of the people, not the lobbyists or party leaders deciding for us.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Are you sure: 

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/crown-canada/about.html

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/commonwealth

You're correct. However,  I suppose it's fair to suggest the commonwealth isn't much more than an agreement in principle. We have a governor general who does what the queen would have otherwise done. The queen doesn't appoint the GG, the prime minister does and that's who they are accountable to.

Probably the best example of commonwealth validity is the use of foreign consulates. If I were to walk into a consulate, say in Australia they might assist me, but are under no obligation to do so. It might have some clout when it comes to immigration, but the processes are the same as anyone wishing to emigrate.

Our constitution is a sovereign one. Other than during times of war,  we don't cling to the commonwealth (or even our interpretation of it) for political discourse.
 

24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

Everyday I remind myself how lucky I am not have been born in Canada and grown up as a Canadian...

...but I'm also thankful for having grown up as a North American.

There are problems everywhere. We are fortunate to have to deal with First World ones.

We have an election on the horizon, but mark my words we'll see some of the American antics rear their ugly heads. I'm already seeing Russian bots and dunderheads posting fallacies about paying off terrorists or giving money to refugees instead of veterans sort of bullshit.

With three parties (more if you count Greens) we tend to vote the man, not the party. I voted NDP last time around, because I personally know the man and he's represented us well. Certainly better than the conservatives or liberals that gerrymandered or otherwise pillaged their way around this riding in the past.

You never hear the term un-Canadian used when disagreements arise. That whole America love it or leave it thing  died in the sixties, but still gets kicked around in America. More than ever recently. Patriotism isn't measured by how many Chinese made flags we can buy and clutter our yards with. We view that as stolen valor. Other than a flag on our backpacks while traveling, we carry flags only when asked, as an honor to the country, not ourselves or political alignment.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Using Trump as a measure of success is not setting the bar very high.

When half the country follows him, that's where the bar is set.

Thing is, even when Trump is gone, America will still be what it is.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

How would Americans feel about having the Queen as their head of state!? (I'm sure there are plenty of Canadians who aren't crazy about it)

We used to be in the commonwealth. The queen isn't our monarch. We don't pay her anything and she doesn't decree. Trudeau Sr. patriated our constitution a half century ago.

Our constitution is a modern document though, something that is not amended and absent of contentious clauses that authoritarians love to cling to, like guns.

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Because Canadians don't want Trump, or his sort of  politician.
The question isn't why not, but why?

What would Canadians gain?

Exactly, we'd gain nothing but the unresolved problems of America.

We use the parliamentary system, which was protested by Americans. So that begs the question, under who's terms?

There's no way Canada would ever capitulate to the American system and I doubt America would re-adopt the old ways.

We don't need to inherit America's shitty gun laws, even shittier health care system and hyper-partisan tribalism.

There used to be a time when Americans would say, if they wanted Canada they'd just take it. In recent times, America has proven it's unable to secure even the smallest countries (Vietnam, Iraq etc) no less major one's. It's that kind of narrow-minded arrogance that make the discussion a non-starter.

The greatest thing about being Canadian, is that we're not American.

Every day, I thank my lucky stars for that.

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Former Colorado Governor, John Hickenlooper, has chosen to drop-out of the race. One down, seven hundred and ninety-three (that feels  aboutright, doesn't it?) to go!

A senate run is in the cards for a few candidates.

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes the US administration is very rightist at the moment... and very ugly.

Likewise, I'm sure you'd you would take offense in having any of your policies framed as fascist by default.

The right is pigeon-holing every and any policy in that manner. In fact nowadays, you don't even need to express a policy to be called a socialist.

It's desperation, intolerance and bigotry when one's core values go out the window to support the party, leadership and ideology. Or to demean others entirely whether by preemptive character assassination, fear mongering, scarlet lettering or racism.

Americans always vote the party, not the candidate. It's the biggest flaw in their system. The third party system lets you vote for the man, then coalesce into forming the government.

This thread is about Mueller, so I'll close up by saying Mueller was bound by the policy that no sitting president may be indicted. It has no foundation in law, but he went along with it anyway as a matter of direction from the terms of reference laid upon him and look where it left him and the country. No better off, worse even because the gaslight is cranked up to the max as to the outcome.

You'd think America was talking about entirely different things. The left claims corruption while the right says witch hunt and hoax, even though they know the former to be true.

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Over decades, there is a fairly narrow range which we move either way. Undoubtedly fear-mongering on the US Cons part.

We've moved further right than that though. The left still regards what it always regarded as core issues. Health care, education and pollution, for example.

The right on the other hand, has deregulated or otherwise defunded all those things while signing themselves up for huge tax breaks, fighting minimum wage (no less providing perks), buying back shares and laying off employees.

More than ever from a sense of entitlement and a right, than fairness or privilege.

5 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

What I find interesting is that conservatives in places like Canada, France, the UK etc, are still considerably to the left of American right wingers, and yet they still espouse the same deep seated fears about expanding new social programs (in our discussion free public college).  An American right winger would fight tooth and nail against the healthcare system you wouldn't give up, despite it being "far from perfect".

All the while pointing fingers at liberals for their far left views as though it's a slippery slope to socialism.

You know it's gotten insidious, when even moderate conservatives in foreign countries use it as the ideological basis for their talking points.

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Like how much will it help if he is impeached or indicted? Will it signal that somehow integrity should prevail, the way the Dems are going about it?

Congress impeaches, not the democrats albeit a majority in the House. They'd be remiss to not (at the very least) consider impeachment. Dangling it in Trumps face triggers his lunacy whereas his actually doing it would exacerbate his obstinate defiance and his goose stepping followers into more craziness.

He is (and the Republican's) best own character assassin.

Run out the clock, then the voters will decide.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

It's pretty clear the GOP's goal is not to inform the public of the truth in these matters.

Including the genesis of the Steele Dossier.  Fusion GPS was contracted by conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon to provide dirt on Trump.

Funny how they always seem leave that part out.

51 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Kind of feel bad for you Americans...or is candidate Castro going overboard?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/castro-says-he-was-glad-to-see-nike-pull-betsy-ross-flag-shoes/

Heres one that also served during times where slavery was legal...

It also served during the war that lead to ending slavery in America...so maybe it gets a pass? How about the current flag, unchanged since July 4 1960? Any hint of racism during that time?

On topic, does Castro (not the only candidate espousing this view) get a passing grade on this? Or is he shooting himself in the foot...and worse potentially dragging any Democrats that agree with him down with him? (not to mention loading Trumps gun and handing it to him...)

Should they not just stick to graciously accepting the Whitehouse in 2021, rather than insisting Trump stays in the game? The Betsy Ross Flag could become the next MAGA hat...hopefully it represents anti-identity politics and not anti-minority or anti immigration...but I would be very surprised, shocked in fact, if the GOP doesn't take advantage of this.

 

Republicans love to co-opt the flag as a political symbol. If a stars and bars emoticon follows a comment, one pretty much gathers it's an elitist attitude under the guise of patriotism. Wrapping one's self in the flag, if you will.

You and I are a undoubtedly patriotic Canadians, yet we don't feel the need to plaster a hundred Chinese made flags on our homes, yards and shoes to demonstrate that. A simple flag on a backpack or a sticker on a bumper is about as far as we go. Even when we do, it's not to imply I am a patriot are you are not, sort of thing.

Other than Canada Day, we generally do no carry a flag at events unless asked, which is a great honor. It's about respect, not political messaging or jingoism.

It's a little off topic, so I'll leave it at that.