Canadian Politics Thread

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

4 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

 

With all those documented instances, if his nose grew an inch for every lie he made (a la Pinocchio) since he entered politics, there's a good chance he could be sodomizing himself with his nose any day now.  

[Sapper]

At a recent presentation about post pandemic realities they dug into the top 10 things that people feel have changed and not for the better

 

Unsurprisingly small business and night life ranks pretty high as does increased prices 

 

A suprise though was our social behaviour made the top 10. Pre pandemic people who are active in politics or discussions of such had 2 personalities.

 

Your online social media which they were bullet proof , invisible and felt safe to push any ideology and agenda. Often under false names 

 

Your in person personality which your conscience still kept you in check and soften your words as you debated person to person

 

Coming out of the pandemic many have lost the in person civil debate and dropped their anonymous names , now feeling empowered to internet troll in real life

 

Heck even Harper who loathed the liberals and ran gutter attack adds was more civil in person

 

When you think about it ..... That's what I see in our conservative movement. They have gotten use to the all empowered internet troll mode and forgot to turn it off back in public.

 

My wife just calls it the entitled  wave generation ... But really PP can't even show human kindness on any level to anything not supporting him...... Not a great roll model for sure 

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

15 minutes ago, Sapper said:

When you think about it ..... That's what I see in our conservative movement. They have gotten use to the all empowered internet troll mode and forgot to turn it off back in public.

 

 

It could also be coincidental timing.  Those years were also the tail end of the previous PotUS' administration years.  People may have felt emboldened by his actions on the world stage - his bullying, his buffoonery, his blatant acts of disregard for seeking consensus in favour of an agenda that benefits himself - that they decided that they could set aside civility and take up assholery to push their own agenda of exercising entitlement and seeking control over others instead of the true "unalienable" American rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", as enshrined in their own Declaration of Independence.

 

edit - sorry, I meant the above in the context of american conservatives; maybe not entirely applicable here in the Canadian politics thread. 

Edited May 10 by 6of1_halfdozenofother

[Optimist Prime]

59 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

With all those documented instances, if his nose grew an inch for every lie he made (a la Pinocchio) since he entered politics, there's a good chance he could be sodomizing himself with his nose any day now.  

well that would be only slightly different from all of his career till now: where he was sodomizing Preston Manning and Steven Harper with it. 

[the destroyer of worlds]

 

But it's the left that is radical. 

 

 

 

[Boudrias]

41 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

well that would be only slightly different from all of his career till now: where he was sodomizing Preston Manning and Steven Harper with it. 

Is this the level of crudeness that is acceptable on this site now? 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Is this the level of crudeness that is acceptable on this site now? 

Isn’t this just a funny Metaphor? The guy has a brown nose. Another metaphor. 

[Optimist Prime]

11 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Is this the level of crudeness that is acceptable on this site now? 

to be fair Pierre Poilievre took it down to that level himself in the house of commons and recorded in Hansard. But yeah, it is a bit off colour. Stinks a bit too. (his nose, not my post)

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

to be fair Pierre Poilievre took it down to that level himself in the house of commons and recorded in Hansard. But yeah, it is a bit off colour. Stinks a bit too. (his nose, not my post)

Just imagine what the smelly conservative noses down south have to do. Yuk! 

[bishopshodan]

1 hour ago, the destroyer of worlds said:

 

But it's the left that is radical. 

 

 

 

 

Man, this is sad.

 

I really hope our conservative friends are taking note. I know some pretty hardcore right wingers. The type of folks that say agressive stuff about JT all the time, however I dont know a single one that is anti-abortion. 

[aGENT]

7 hours ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

I guess he is responsible for inflation world wide then?

 

Never mind that Canada has handled inflation better than most G7 countries.... "Broken!" 

[Dizzle]

44 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

 

Man, this is sad.

 

I really hope our conservative friends are taking note. I know some pretty hardcore right wingers. The type of folks that say agressive stuff about JT all the time, however I dont know a single one that is anti-abortion. 

I only pop into the politics section intermittently… it’s like a car accident where you just can’t look away… also wanted to see if the loblaws boycott was popping up… than see the abortion discussion.  
 

My .02 cents is it’s likely just a matter of time until abortion is gone in the West, and with great reason. Thr logic isn’t there to support the kind of practice it is and the tides are likely to swing on that one as the pendulum looks to be swinging back to the right. 
 

 

[Sapper]

1 hour ago, Dizzle said:

I only pop into the politics section intermittently… it’s like a car accident where you just can’t look away… also wanted to see if the loblaws boycott was popping up… than see the abortion discussion.  
 

My .02 cents is it’s likely just a matter of time until abortion is gone in the West, and with great reason. Thr logic isn’t there to support the kind of practice it is and the tides are likely to swing on that one as the pendulum looks to be swinging back to the right. 
 

 

Although they won't .... I wish they would put their social agenda in the table and be honest 

 

If they did they wouldn't win many seats outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan as the overwhelming majority of Canadians support women's right to choose. I would hate to see evangelical religious fanatics take over Canada as they have in the USA

 

 

[Warhippy]

6 hours ago, the destroyer of worlds said:

 

But it's the left that is radical. 

 

 

 

So you can officially say that anti abortionist actions are officially on the Conservative platform

[Warhippy]

3 hours ago, Dizzle said:

I only pop into the politics section intermittently… it’s like a car accident where you just can’t look away… also wanted to see if the loblaws boycott was popping up… than see the abortion discussion.  
 

My .02 cents is it’s likely just a matter of time until abortion is gone in the West, and with great reason. Thr logic isn’t there to support the kind of practice it is and the tides are likely to swing on that one as the pendulum looks to be swinging back to the right. 
 

 

The logic isn't there to support the kind of practice it is.

 

You mean, bodily autonomy and the right to choose for women?

[Dizzle]

31 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

The logic isn't there to support the kind of practice it is.

 

You mean, bodily autonomy and the right to choose for women?

No, but I don’t expect to find much agreement on this particular forum for the idea that the abortion argument has never actually hinged on women’s rights… but it sure sounds good if you can frame that as the primary issue in the discussion. I would even be willing to bet most people who say that really do believe it and in that case, who wouldn’t want to be for it… women’s right are important. 
 

like I said, I’m glad more people are moving away from the pro-abortion ideology. It’s long past due. 

[Sapper]

23 minutes ago, Dizzle said:

No, but I don’t expect to find much agreement on this particular forum for the idea that the abortion argument has never actually hinged on women’s rights… but it sure sounds good if you can frame that as the primary issue in the discussion. I would even be willing to bet most people who say that really do believe it and in that case, who wouldn’t want to be for it… women’s right are important. 
 

like I said, I’m glad more people are moving away from the pro-abortion ideology. It’s long past due. 

I believe conservatives once in power will scream about it ... Move to restrict access to funded birth control ... But stop shy of actually changing the law ?

 

Why ? in Canada unlike the USA our courts would overturn any law changing abortion rights which would then force PP to use the notwithstanding Clause 

 

Using the not withstanding clause to outlaw abortion would wipe out a party the next election. As much as I dislike PP he knows that

 

And I disagree that more people are moving from it .... People are just now more empowered to push their religious and ideological ideas with more vorticity 

 

It's the same minority ... There just getting louder ... Not growing in numbers 

 

 

[StrayDog]

6 hours ago, Dizzle said:

No, but I don’t expect to find much agreement on this particular forum for the idea that the abortion argument has never actually hinged on women’s rights… but it sure sounds good if you can frame that as the primary issue in the discussion. I would even be willing to bet most people who say that really do believe it and in that case, who wouldn’t want to be for it… women’s right are important. 
 

like I said, I’m glad more people are moving away from the pro-abortion ideology. It’s long past due. 

So then, pray tell, what does the abortion argument hinge on if not women's rights?

[Bob Long]

9 hours ago, Warhippy said:

The logic isn't there to support the kind of practice it is.

 

You mean, bodily autonomy and the right to choose for women?

 

Brought to you by the party that claims it doesn't like state interference in peoples lives.

[Bob Long]

13 hours ago, bishopshodan said:

 

Man, this is sad.

 

I really hope our conservative friends are taking note. I know some pretty hardcore right wingers. The type of folks that say agressive stuff about JT all the time, however I dont know a single one that is anti-abortion. 

 

They just haven't said it out loud. PP won't lose many, if any, CPC memberships over this. He is risking further reduction in womens support and red Tories.

 

In order to pull this off, PP is also going to have to stack our supreme court. 

 

I also think this could really reignite Quebec separation.

 

PP is a dangerous little creep. I just hope he keeps letting us see the real him.

[Dizzle]

38 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Brought to you by the party that claims it doesn't like state interference in peoples lives.

I do generally like small government. I don’t actually consider myself a hard conservative though… I’m certainly not overly committed to the party. That being said, I view this as an issue of protection of life which is a perfectly reasonable area to interfere in peoples lives. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. 
 

2 hours ago, StrayDog said:

So then, pray tell, what does the abortion argument hinge on if not women's rights?

The argument hinges on the definition of personhood. We all likely agree that taking human life shouldn’t be done outside of very extraordinary circumstances (self defence, perhaps capital punishment in some cases, perhaps war - although these last two may be debated).

 

The question is what (or who) is a person? If a fetus is a person then taking their life is wrong outside of extraordinary circumstances (I would say if the physical health of the mother is severely threatened personally). If the fetus is not a person then there is nothing wrong with abortion. 
 

so what/who is a person? And do unborn babies fit that definition or not? 
 

The pro-choice argument has to establish that unborn babies are not human. The pro-life argument needs to establish that unborn babies are human. That’s what the argument hinges on. 
 

many pro-life (or call us anti-abortion.. I don’t mind the title) individuals will argue a prima facie position… we all recognize unborn babies are humans innately. That’s why the murder of expecting mothers is extra heinous. 
Others will argue from religious positions (humans are created in the image of God and so all have intrinsic worth from conception), and some others will work with definitions of function (humans are those who are conscious, have human dna/parts etc). 
 

So what/who is a human, and does an unborn baby fit the bill? That’s the argument. 
 

 

[Bob Long]

11 minutes ago, Dizzle said:

I do generally like small government. I don’t actually consider myself a hard conservative though… I’m certainly not overly committed to the party. That being said, I view this as an issue of protection of life which is a perfectly reasonable area to interfere in peoples lives. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. 
 

The argument hinges on the definition of personhood. We all likely agree that taking human life shouldn’t be done outside of very extraordinary circumstances (self defence, perhaps capital punishment in some cases, perhaps war - although these last two may be debated).

 

The question is what (or who) is a person? If a fetus is a person then taking their life is wrong outside of extraordinary circumstances (I would say if the physical health of the mother is severely threatened personally). If the fetus is not a person then there is nothing wrong with abortion. 
 

so what/who is a person? And do unborn babies fit that definition or not? 
 

The pro-choice argument has to establish that unborn babies are not human. The pro-life argument needs to establish that unborn babies are human. That’s what the argument hinges on. 
 

many pro-life (or call us anti-abortion.. I don’t mind the title) individuals will argue a prima facie position… we all recognize unborn babies are humans innately. That’s why the murder of expecting mothers is extra heinous. 
Others will argue from religious positions (humans are created in the image of God and so all have intrinsic worth from conception), and some others will work with definitions of function (humans are those who are conscious, have human dna/parts etc). 
 

So what/who is a human, and does an unborn baby fit the bill? That’s the argument. 
 

 

 

 

my question to you is, what gives you the right to make this decision for someone else? 

 

[Bob Long]

Oh look @Master Mindwith his usual insight 

[Dizzle]

9 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

 

my question to you is, what gives you the right to make this decision for someone else? 

 

If it’s a question of ending a human life, I - like everyone else - have every reason to weigh in on someone making this decision… even to do my best to influence policies regarding it. 
 

How do you define a person, and does an unborn baby fit that definition or not? 
 

I will note. Part of the problem with this discussion is we don’t actually hear/understand what the other side is saying, and simply demonize. I think your sides desire to protect women’s rights is super important and laudable. But it still doesn’t answer the most important question in the debate… what is a person and does an unborn baby fit the bill or not? 

[Bob Long]

27 minutes ago, Dizzle said:

If it’s a question of ending a human life, I - like everyone else - have every reason to weigh in on someone making this decision… even to do my best to influence policies regarding it. 
 

How do you define a person, and does an unborn baby fit that definition or not? 
 

I will note. Part of the problem with this discussion is we don’t actually hear/understand what the other side is saying, and simply demonize. I think your sides desire to protect women’s rights is super important and laudable. But it still doesn’t answer the most important question in the debate… what is a person and does an unborn baby fit the bill or not? 

 

but all of this is just what you think is the main issue. At the end of the day, you are making this choice for someone.

 

Are you going to be there to support these people for their entire lives? other than e.g., getting a religious need filled, where are you going to be for the rest of it?

 

I'm not demonizing you, I'm asking you where you think you get the right to make this decision for someone else. 

 

So far, I just see an argument based on your values, which in a free society isn't what the law is based on.