rangerx

You inferred, then denied the inference. It's called gaslighting. Conservatives loose their shit whenever there's a remote possibility someone might have breached constitutional or national security issues, but when they do it themselves, it's a nothing burger or a so what. The major thing worse than the allegations against the American president are the Republican's double standards floundering around them.

I'm not the one suffixing every post with Dems do A so B must be true, but go ahead blame me for not spinning with your fallacy loop. That's how Republicans do things nowadays. Turn a blind eye to the substance, except to blame others by it. Last time I checked, it was MigL that stated that in the OP. But go ahead, spin it to blame the left for that too.

This has nothing to do with the discussion yet always lands at the end. There's a thread about that topic where you've abundantly posted yet brought it over here again and again. where you'll incessantly perpetuate the fallacy that the Dems are by default worse than the criminal running the place now. Anything but the substance is what we expect from American Republicans in this matter. Yet when Canadians repeat that nonsense ad nauseam, it's obvious we're already down the tubes and it's the conservatives instilling it. Conservatives would do well to clean up their own house before admonishing others. That's what's wrong with this continent.

Which begs the question, what's the difference? Not that I expect you to know what it contains, insomuch as why release one and secure the other?

Oh? What was purportedly locked up in a secure private server then? Apparently this was a call made to an unsecured cell phone in a setting where others could listen in. The phone provider would have a copy. Beside that, if it were a "perfect" call, Trump would have no trouble releasing it otherwise why would he spend so much time going out of his way to hide evidence of his innocence? Perfect is never a term used to describe a general conversation, it's used in response to executing a scheme.

It's not a court case. The House can run impeachment hearings any way it chooses. Yes, they can subpoena, but what's the point if they go unheeded? The real time recording should be released and Trump compelled to testify. Not by law, but by being forthright, but nooooooo. That says more about a failure in democracy than it does about the rule of law, sadly. Just to reiterate, it was the Republicans who nixed Nixon, for the better of the party and country. Modern day Republicans have no such introspect.

Even then it doesn't matter. The status quo is tribalism. The evangelicals were never about about upholding morality or family values, the tea party were never about curbing deficits and spending and the conservatives were never about personal responsibility. The so-called federalists don't give a ratsass about the constitution, other than the parts they can use to prop up their selfish bad behavior. It's all about character assassination and owning the libs, at any cost.

Nonsense, spoken as though high crimes and misdemeanors are more pervasive on the left. It's more like all the radical right has are talking points, moving goal posts and finger wagging, when in reality it's the conservative house that needs cleaning.

Not to mention the Kurds, who can't seem to catch a break in this fiasco either.

You've omitted the Bush/Cheney part. WMDs, greeted as liberators, last throes of the insurgency sort of stuff.

To you, me and most of the western world perhaps. Not to defend suicide, but to a jihadist, it's a noble thing to sacrifice one's life for their ideology. I suppose, if anything it takes guts to blow yourself up. Trump didn't actually see the incident and is a compulsive liar about pretty much everything else, so I take his comments with a grain of salt. Not directed at you, but if Trump said al-Baghdadi was wearing a pink tutu at the time of his death, his minions would parrot it as gospel. Just saying.

It's a huge burden. The court order Canada to come to an agreement with first nations. The term "consult" was thrown out because it was little more than lip service. It was ruled, first nations territory cannot be expropriated under eminent domain. Of all the territories, thirty something, only one has reach a tentative agreement. It's yet to be finalized. Several have indicated no. The court ruled, Canada has not meet it's burden on the issue of clean up or compensation if or when oil spills. They also failed to conduct and certify the required environmental assessments. As it stands, if oil spilled in BC, BC would be forced to foot the bill to do the cleanup and would have to sue Canada for the damages to the environment and the loss of opportunity. How is that fair, when China is off the hook for all of it? In fact, if the flow stops because of a spill, China will sue us for loss of opportunity during the interruption. Thank you, Stephen Harper for that.

Of course. At this point in time, the high court ruled Canada has not met it's burden. This whole campaign of poisoning the grassroots comes across as an end play rather than a solution. Divide and conquer, as it were.

Indeed. MigL has conceded the deal Harper made with China is disagreeable. As an adult, I understand there are consequences of decisions made a high levels. Our coastline, our environment, our livelihood, my home. The court has ruled our province has none of the economic benefit yet has all the liability. The narrative is such that it's our fault, for every reason but the reality of the situation. If the court says done, it's done. The court has not said it's done, so it's not done. I fail to see how that's our fault and why we're treated as such. MigL, of all people claims to be a champion of rights and a fighter when things get shoved down our throats. Color me skeptical. It occurs to me he's being selective, not universal.

In my defense, I am following what the high court has ruled on TMX. MigL brought up women's issues, accusing our Prime Minister of of being a misogynist hypocrite, who clearly he has the most diverse cabinet in history and championed women's rights here and all over the world. Rather than answer, attacks me personally.

I boiled it down to a simple question about women's issues because YOU brought it up. It's got nothing to do with what I read, wrote or even think. That tells me all I need to know about your debating style. Other than it being a means to an end, do you admit going ahead and getting approval are two entirely different things. Have First Nations signed off? No Are spill responses trained, equipment depots established and compensation funds established? No Are the required environmental assessments been certified? No Lip service will not build a pipeline.

Thank you. Not a mod, but point taken. So MigL. Will you at least answer my question about Trudeau v Sheer on women's issues? How about the spoiled brat question? https://pressprogress.ca/andrew-scheer-was-asked-to-name-one-policy-that-shows-he-supports-womens-rights-he-couldnt-name-any/ https://globalnews.ca/news/3981858/trudeau-davos-speech-investment-womens-rights/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-29/trudeau-says-he-ll-raise-women-s-rights-backsliding-with-pence https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/06/04/trudeau-increased-funding-health-rights-women-world/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-women-reproductive-rights-1.4014841 https://globalnews.ca/news/2581600/justin-trudeau-pushes-for-gender-equality-at-un-womens-conference/

May I request a ruling from the moderators, that the conduct of a previous Prime Minister is germane to this discussion? MigL has leveled serious allegations about a PM in a previous cycle, the genesis of several of those allegations were stirred up by his predecessor, Stephen Harper. I have articulated on several points, that Trudeau's hand was forced by his predecessor, Stephen Harper's actions and those actions had an effect on the last election.

His legacy has everything to do with this election. Beside that it's my right to say it, and I refuse to be censored/moderated by you in this discussion. Beside that, it's whataboutism, no less in an abstract form. Are you suggesting because he didn't wear black face, that by default makes him a better PM? It appears to me as yet another desperate grasp for a gotcha or a false equivalence, which has been your MO, time and time again in my view. More whataboutism, except this time with the authoritarian hogwash that anyone critical of climate issues ought to live in a cave. No less framed as though I defend him or ignore those facts. I don't. My point being, it pales compared to Harper and I won't be moved from that position, just because you say so. Last time I checked, he was duly elected by democratic processes. Twice. Apparently you "simply" don't agree and preach it in the same breath to me. Again, authoritarianism at it's height. Is he the only spoiled rich brat in politics? What's your point? Will I hear that same admonishment about other leaders or candidates of your ilk?... I doubt it. So Trudeau doesn't champion women's rights? His is the most diverse cabinet in history. Name ONE issue on women's rights Sheer championed this past cycle. He was asked in a recent press conference, but couldn't answer. Not one. Truth is you can't, hence in a typical shift of blame, lay it at Trudeau's feet. I see. You make rules for me and what I can bring to the discussion, yet excuse yourself for the same thing. Thank you for that heaping helping of hypocrisy, for all to see. How is this not gaslighting? How is this not sore losing? How is this not snide commentary on what you expect from others. What? Are you going to be scarlet lettered? Trundled off to the Gulags? Perhaps not, but that's the narrative you're attempting to instill here. That somehow you're rights will be trampled by a Trudeau government. If only you were so adamant when your rights were actually trampled under Harper. A glaring double standard, indeed.

Most Canadians agree with each other on major points, but diverge on minor ones. And unlike many Americans, we have longer memories and not inextricably aligned to a party. This last election cycle was said to be about Trudeau, which is true, but as much as folks like MigL would like to say it's ancient history, Stephen Harper was a horrid Prime Minister. Trudeau's transgressions while serious and inexcusable, pale in comparison to what Harper did to this country. That smell lingers large to this day. At the very least Trudeau has a modicum of contrition and in it for Canada (albeit badly sometimes), whereas Harper was a double down dictator, in it for himself and the crooks he consorted with. It was the controversial "Barbaric Practices Act" and other anti-Muslim antics that showed his true colors as anti-constitutional, religiously driven racist. This is a science forum. What Harper did to scientists was reprehensible. As federal employees, he took away their rights to free speech, burned DFO libraries before they could be digitized and trashed our standing as climate leaders, globally. Again, that scent still looms large, despite his departure. He will be a model for conservatism for a while to come too. Doug Ford in Ontario and Donald Trump in America are living, breathing examples of that point.

It's not about illegality. It's about saddling you and me as taxpayers with the liabilities of corporations. Okay Bombardier. My home town in Ontario hosts a facility of theirs. Oh wait. Not anymore. They just recently laid everyone off. I'm not impressed with either they or Canada's performance there. GM and Chrysler, same deal. That's an Obama AND a MAGA thing combined. No angels there worth defending. No argument there. What's your point? Still putting me in your liberal box? It has everything to do with SNC-Lavalin. Trudeau's antics were merely after the fact. I'd dare say had a liberal done what Harper did with SNC-Lavalin, you'd be screaming @+100 db from the rooftops. Again, just to let our American friends know: On 19 February 2015, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) laid charges against SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. and two of its subsidiaries: SNC-Lavalin International Inc. and SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc. Each firm was charged with one count of fraud under section 380 of the Criminal Code, and one count of corruption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. The charges allege that between 2001 and 2011, SNC-Lavalin paid CA$48 million in bribes in Libya to officials in the government of Muammar Gaddafi. They also allege that at the same time, the company defrauded Libyan organizations of CA$130 million. The company advocated for the rapid adoption of legislation to allow a new type of sentencing agreement called deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) and changes to Ottawa's Integrity Regime to amend the 10-year contract ineligibility for suppliers with ethics-related criminal convictions. On recommendation from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Kathleen Roussel, former SNC-Lavalin Executive Vice President Normand Morin was charged in the Court of Quebec in May 2018 with making illegal donations to Canadian federal political parties. The charges, which were unrelated to the federal charges against the company, alleging that from 2004 to 2011. So again, Trudeau got caught trying to cover up what Harper wrought. Very, very bad boys, but you seem to only want to tell one side of the story as though all of this is on Trudeau and Trudeau alone. Nothing could be further from the truth on that score. I don't use mushrooms or any drugs for that matter. Even if I did, I wouldn't let you tell me what to do about it. Beside that, if you're going to admonish me for snarky comments, it's hypocrisy to use snarky comments in your next breath.

Government of Canada and SNC-Lavalin Group Reach Agreement on AECL CANDU Reactor Division SNC-Lavalin became the proud owner of the entire commercial CANDU division of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), at a cost of only $15 million, thanks to $17 billion in subsidies by the federal taxpayer over many years. The deal was closed in 2011 by the conservative government of Stephen Harper, who simultaneously gave SNC-Lavalin an additional $75 million subsidy and absolved the company of all liabilities. This from the nuke industry itself (albeit from a financial standpoint) https://ocni.ca/news/article/ottawa-sells-aecl-to-snc-lavalin/ "But Ottawa will retain financial responsibility for AECL’s existing refurbishment contracts, including liability for cost over-runs that have plagued projects at Point Lepreau in New Brunswick, and the Bruce power station in Ontario." In other words, Canada paid SNC-Lavalin $58,000,000 to buy the AECL from Canada. How in the hell does that make any sense? AND we're still on the hook for the liabilities. It has everything to do with the election, because SNC-Lavalin was an election issue in the conservative playbook. You don't get to pick and chose the parts that suit you and the parts that don't. Just like Khadr and TMX, Trudeau's hands were tied by Harper's undoings and took the easy way out in every case. In the case of Khadr, Harper violated the constitutional rights of a youth offender. Trudeau settled or it would have cost more. Trudeau bought TMX because China was going to take us to the cleaners because of the Harper deal. Again, Trudeau trying to get us out of the weeds on that. The SNC-Lavalin fiasco, that's on Harper and Trudeau both, but for different reasons. I'll add this, because I suspect you'll bring up the terrorist thing. Just so others know. Omar Ahmed Sayid Khadr is a Canadian who at the age of 15 was detained by the United States at Guantanamo Bay for ten years, during which he pleaded guilty to the murder of U.S. Army Sergeant 1st Class Christopher Speer and other charges. He later appealed his conviction, claiming that he falsely pleaded guilty so that he could return to Canada where he remained in custody for three additional years. Khadr sued the Canadian government for infringing his rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; this lawsuit was settled in 2017 with a CA$10.5 million payment and an apology by the federal government. I don't like what he did any more or less than the next person, but that doesn't mean his rights as a youth offender could be extinguished.

Thank you. How about his part in SNC Lavalin.. as to liability?

I get that. I agree with that, but that does that mean you're okay or not okay with the Harper part as well? In both cases. SNC and TMX

Okay fine. Let me put it to you straight up then, so we are clear on the issue. Are you okay with what Harper did, by removing our constitutional rights and leaving citizens holding the bag for the pollution it causes? Just so you know, Harper also absolved SNC Lavalin of any liability and saddled us as Canadians with that too. Are you good with that or is Justin's part in it your only gripe?