Canadian Politics Thread

[the destroyer of worlds]

9 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

Quality of if life is objectively worse than 8 years ago, GLOBALLY. Between a pandemic, it's supply chain issues, wars, global aging population, climate change costing us billions (floods, fires, crops), corporate profiteering, increasing wage gap etc, etc. Trying to pin that on the minority Liberal government is just ignorant. And no, that's not too say they're without faults. I'm not a Liberal supporter. I am however a facts, common sense and Canada supporter.

 

Now tell me how the even more pro-corporate, anti-worker, social safety net slashing, climate change denying "axe the tax" Conservatives are going to improve things from that list?

 

Decades of small government, deregulation, trickle down economics, greed is good didn't work?   Colour me shocked.

[UnkNuk]

A short article by an economist from the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives:

 

Why a capital gains tax on the rich makes sense

 

 ...the rich will still get a discount on their taxes for capital gains, but instead of the discount being 50 percent, it will only be a third. No doubt plenty of crocodile tears will still be shed over this reduction in their incredible deal.

 

https://troymedia.com/business/why-a-capital-gains-tax-on-the-rich-makes-sense/?utm_source=CCPA+Master+List&utm_campaign=4df669753d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_01_07_02_51_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_243d98559a-4df669753d-60825126&mc_cid=4df669753d

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

3 hours ago, Ricky Ravioli said:

Something something the left never has loaded headlines right?

That's not what was said but valiant effort nonetheless.

[Heretic]

3 hours ago, Optimist Prime said:

Off topic, do you gave Swedish Flower Chickens? 

We used too, we only have a couple "retired" ones enjoying the rest of their lives out in our main coop and free ranging in a field.

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

Imagine the outcry from the conservatives down south if a president had the power to override the constitution. Conversely, we get them up here essentially cheering it on. Frickin bizarro world team sports politics. 

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

Imagine the outcry from the conservatives down south if a president had the power to override the constitution. Conversely, we get them up here essentially cheering it on. Frickin bizarro world team sports politics. 

 

Federal Court finds Emergencies Act invocation violated rights, was unreasonable

 

Federal Court finds Emergencies Act invocation violated rights, was unreasonable - Canadian Constitution Foundation (theccf.ca)

 

You're damn right.  How dare Trudeau and the Liberals violate the Canadian Constitution and take away the rights of Canadian citizens!!!  Plus 100 brother...  

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

3 hours ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

Imagine the outcry from the conservatives down south if a president had the power to override the constitution. Conversely, we get them up here essentially cheering it on. Frickin bizarro world team sports politics. 

 

Trudeau haters will be quick to show their ignorance on the constitution by pointing to the government's use of the Emergencies Act, but that's a perfect example of how the constitution is operating as it should - because the courts can still point out the potential for contravening the constitution.  On the other hand, invoking the NWC (as the opposition leader would claim to do) would be the actual overriding of the constitution.

 

Too bad there are people who can't be bothered to differentiate between the two situations and would instead seek to score cheap political points where none actually exist.

[aGENT]

6 hours ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

Trudeau haters will be quick to show their ignorance on the constitution by pointing to the government's use of the Emergencies Act, but that's a perfect example of how the constitution is operating as it should - because the courts can still point out the potential for contravening the constitution.  On the other hand, invoking the NWC (as the opposition leader would claim to do) would be the actual overriding of the constitution.

 

Too bad there are people who can't be bothered to differentiate between the two situations and would instead seek to score cheap political points where none actually exist.

 

 

8 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Federal Court finds Emergencies Act invocation violated rights, was unreasonable

 

Federal Court finds Emergencies Act invocation violated rights, was unreasonable - Canadian Constitution Foundation (theccf.ca)

 

You're damn right.  How dare Trudeau and the Liberals violate the Canadian Constitution and take away the rights of Canadian citizens!!!  Plus 100 brother...  

 

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

 

 

 

It's also being appealed but we all know how that will be viewed if it doesn't go the anti vax camp way.

[Maninthebox]

10 hours ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

Imagine the outcry from the conservatives down south if a president had the power to override the constitution. Conversely, we get them up here essentially cheering it on. Frickin bizarro world team sports politics. 

 

Hello veto powers?

 

How would using the 'notwithstanding clause', a part of our constitution, be overriding the constitution?

[Bob Long]

6 minutes ago, Maninthebox said:

 

Hello veto powers?

 

How would using the 'notwithstanding clause', a part of our constitution, be overriding the constitution?

 

because thats what the mechanism is. So its like a chicken and egg argument, its part of the constitution that overrides the constitution in limited ways. 

 

Its controversial because Skippy is talking about using it in away no one has done before. 

 

https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201817E

 

 

Edited May 7 by Bob Long

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

38 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

It's also being appealed but we all know how that will be viewed if it doesn't go the anti vax camp way.

Activist judges if NP is reporting.

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

13 minutes ago, Maninthebox said:

 

Hello veto powers?

 

How would using the 'notwithstanding clause', a part of our constitution, be overriding the constitution?

We have a Charter, but if you don't see how detaining a person without trial isn't a violation of rights I can't help you there. 

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

It's also being appealed but we all know how that will be viewed if it doesn't go the anti vax camp way.

 

And proceeding in a constitutional manner, as it should.  I don't see the Rt. Hon. coming out and using the NWC to kibosh the court's decision, as others would imply in claiming that he's been overriding the constitution.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

because thats what the mechanism is. So its like a chicken and egg argument, its part of the constitution that overrides the constitution in limited ways. 

 

Its controversial because Skippy is talking about using it in away no one has done before. 

 

https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201817E

 

 

 

Plus veto power (which is a tool in the PotUS's belt) only accepts or denies a piece of legislation in its entirety, as it comes from Congress; it's meant as a defensive tool, not a weapon.  Not to mention it's part of their constitution that places a responsibility on PotUS, so it would be constitutional for the PotUS to exercise it.

 

On the other hand, the NWC is a sharp tool that cuts off any judicial review for constitutionality of any law when and where it's invoked - in other words, it's a method to override the constitution, so even though it's part of the Canadian constitution, it's not very democratic and the result is that it allows items that would otherwise be unconsitutional to be set aside for 5 years before it is able to be reviewed.

 

Usage in the manner as the Leader of the Opposition would claim to is a slippery slope to an authoritarian outcome.

[Elias Pettersson]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

 

 

 

So it’s okay for the Prime Minister to break the law as long as he can be overridden by the constitution. Got it. 

 

Also, it’s pretty funny that we are scoring cheap political points by referencing the fact that the Prime Minister broke the law. 

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, Maninthebox said:

 

Hello veto powers?

 

How would using the 'notwithstanding clause', a part of our constitution, be overriding the constitution?

It’s never been used before. You know just like the Emergencies Act, which was never used before either other than at a time of war. 

[Satchmo]

10 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

So it’s okay for the Prime Minister to break the law as long as he can be overridden by the constitution. Got it. 

 

Also, it’s pretty funny that we are scoring cheap political points by referencing the fact that the Prime Minister broke the law. 

Has it been proven that the PM broke the law?  Or was that just the decision of Judge Mosely and countless armchair judges?   (Mosely felt the law was misinterpreted while the countless armchair judges feel countless things.)  It ain't over until the Supremes have sung.

 

And yes, cheap political points are funny.

[Elias Pettersson]

3 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

Has it been proven that the PM broke the law?  Or was that just the decision of Judge Mosely and countless armchair judges?   (Mosely felt the law was misinterpreted while the countless armchair judges feel countless things.)  It ain't over until the Supremes have sung.

 

And yes, cheap political points are funny.

Yes it was proven in a federal court of law. Are you actually serious that every court ruling needs to have Supreme Court verification before the ruling is accepted?  
 

Armchair judges?  Only the ones that don’t rule in your favour are considered armchair right? 

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

We have a Charter, but if you don't see how detaining a person without trial isn't a violation of rights I can't help you there. 

Joey is concerned that rapists and murderers will lose their rights under PP. How tragic that would be. I’d lose sleep over it too really. 

[The Lock]

6 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Yes it was proven in a federal court of law. Are you actually serious that every court ruling needs to have Supreme Court verification before the ruling is accepted?  
 

Armchair judges?  Only the ones that don’t rule in your favour are considered armchair right? 

 

He didn't say "every court ruling". We're talking about a prime minister here, not Bob from down the street.

 

Also, could you link where he was found guilty? I'd rather be able to read it myself and come to my own conclusions.

Edited May 7 by The Lock

[Elias Pettersson]

2 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

He didn't say "every court ruling". We're talking about a prime minister here, not Bob from down the street.

He said the accusations weren’t proven which is false. They were proven in a court of law. If a Prime Minister’s violations of the law can only be proven at Supreme Court level then they shouldn’t even bother with a regular trial right?  

[The Lock]

5 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

He said the accusations weren’t proven which is false. They were proven in a court of law. If a Prime Minister’s violations of the law can only be proven at Supreme Court level then they shouldn’t even bother with a regular trial right?  

 

You missed my edit. I want to see where these were proven in a court of law so I can make my own decision.

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

13 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Joey is concerned that rapists and murderers will lose their rights under PP. How tragic that would be. I’d lose sleep over it too really. 

You can fuck right off with that nonsense 

[RupertKBD]

4 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

You can fuck right off with that nonsense 

 

An outright lie....as usual.....

 

.....and as usual, nothing will happen to him. In fact, the more likely scenario is that you get a warning for saying what anyone being accused of something like that would say....