Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Your comment would be fine without that first sentence.
681–690 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Your comment would be fine without that first sentence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You said Trudeau was unpopular for years and yet only now he's leaving. There's unpopular and then there's unpopular . His approval rating has dropped off a cliff over the past year. His cabinet ministers have been resigning and/or openly criticizing him / asking for him to step down to save their own political careers. This article is from last September - 4 months ago. >> Darrell Bricker, a political scientist and…
No need to get emotional. We agree that there was a good reason for Trudeau to not be in power for a while. I am just focusing on the timing and history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Can you explain what these illegal orders were, within the purview of Sloly's role as police chief? Also, who is the second Ottawa police chief you're talking about? For that matter, who is the third one? Furthermore, on what grounds are you claiming that Sloly resigned over illegal orders, when most sources agree it was over failure to perform?
My point still stands though and as you say: he was pressured to resign because he wouldn't do what the politicians were demanding of him - which is in line with your "failure to perform" claim.
The actions then done under the Emergencies Act to "clear" the Freedom Convoy from downtown were found to have been illegally invoked.
And you know crime in Ottawa went down during the Freedom Convoy too, right?
Have you put your shoes in the Freedom Convoy participants at all I wonder to balance your perspective? Do you care about the RCMP horses trampling and breaking bones of an elder disabled indigenous woman, who just moments before was basically preaching about love and peace?
I can find that video for you if you'd like, if you haven't seen it.
Otherwise it's not worth it to put anymore of my time to debate this one on one, when I'm responding to someone who tries to support their argument with "when most sources agree" without citing any sources, and where I can predict which sources you'll cite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is going to stay until a new leader is chosen by the Liberal Party of Canada.
Why not hand over power immediately to the next person in line? Doesn't preclude the party choosing someone else when they get around to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "prorogued" do here? Does it prevent a no-confidence vote? And, what would a no-confidence vote do?
Prorogued means parliament will not meet, and so cannot hold any votes. Right now it is purely being used to prevent such a vote since there is a majority in parliament that would now vote against the government in such a situation, which in turn provokes an election. During his delusional ramblings (and that is no exaggeration) Trudeau said that the GG was persuaded to prorogue to the 25th March because of the no co…
As part of their deal with the Liberals, the NDP had some real power to implement legislation. If an election happened tomorrow the NDP would lose that power.
Unhitching from Trudeau at this moment is a good move for the NDP, they want to distance themselves from Trudeau's unpopularity before the next election. That Trudeau is now leaving benefits them even more, they could conceivably continue to support the government now that it's missing its most unpopular member, or they could pull the plug right away if they think they can steal away some Liberal votes during a snap election
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That logic seems like it would outlaw labor strikes too, especially in important industries. Sometimes, holding the economy hostage is the point. I take exception to the framing of “attempts to settle this.” The government used violence and threat of violence to make the problem go away. There wasn’t an attempt at compromise. Do what I say or else isn’t an attempt to settle.
The recent postal strikes in Canada are an example of the situation you're describing. Eventually the federal government had to step in and break the strike to get the mail system moving again - if the workers refused to comply, against the orders of the government, I actually think strong measures like the freezing of bank accounts would be warranted and supported by most Canadians.
Typically such measures are mandated by court order, not executive fiat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The city or the province could have done that. They didn't. The Feds could only use federal reasons. The mishandled response to the trucker protest should be blamed on the city and the province, not on Trudeau.
There is room for two failures. The province should have enforced the provincial law, and the feds should not have have taken action through the banking sector.
Not saying they did right, but curious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That logic seems like it would outlaw labor strikes too, especially in important industries. Sometimes, holding the economy hostage is the point. I take exception to the framing of “attempts to settle this.” The government used violence and threat of violence to make the problem go away. There wasn’t an attempt at compromise. Do what I say or else isn’t an attempt to settle.
Except it wasn't a labour strike.
Is it me or does it seem like the internet era has taken away incumbent advantage and actually put incumbents at a massive disadvantage? I'm not here to attack or defend what Trudeau has actually done, only to posit the idea that once you become a leader in the political landscape there is a very effective machine whose only job is to attack you, personally, as much as possible anywhere you're perceived to be vulnera…