Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Posts posted by bush_cheney2004

  1. 3 minutes ago, taxme said:

    I am not sure as to whether Canadians are awake. After all, they did put that fool back in power again.



    Don Cherry would have been fine if he just wore blackface instead.   Blackface/brownface is still quite acceptable for not only prime ministers, but hockey culture too, especially in Quebec.  



  2. 2 hours ago, Right To Left said:

    It is a clear violation of the UN Charter regarding laws and rules of war signed by every nation that became a member of the UN after it was established for the primary purpose of preventing the next world war! The rules governing when it is legal and acceptable to invade and occupy another sovereign nation are extremely restricted, and have been violated more and more frequently since 9-11, when the US was unable to strongarm allies and adversaries into approving the Iraq Invasion.So, a "Coalition Of The Willing" translated into English as a "Coalition of The Bribed and Bought Off" was used by George Bush and friends as a figleaf to claim some sort of international legitimacy.


    Nonsense....Canada was doing so before 9/11 or Bush....see Kosovo War (1999).    No UN approval or even vote in Parliament for Chretien to attack another sovereign nation.

    As for Syria, it is hardly an angel when it comes to respecting international borders (e.g. Lebanon).

    Karma is a bitch !

  3. 4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

    The illegal guns come from the US.


    Some of the illegal guns come from the U.S.

    ...others come from Canada...oh my !



    The majority of the illegal guns in Canada used to be smuggled across the border from the U.S., but that seems to be changing. According to police, a growing number of guns are bought legally in Canada and resold on the black market, or made here illegally.



  4. 4 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

    Yes, we're also assisting the Empire in Venezuela and Bolivia because Justin cares so deeply about human rights or our mining companies who are planning operations there.....so,what's your point? Canada is now firmly in the pocket of US foreign policy, whether it's Trump or another centrist Democrat standard-bearer!



    The point is obvious....if "illegal" foreign actors in Syria be the concern, change starts at home....in Canada....regardless of Trump or Democrats.

  5. 18 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

    ....The US also has an illegal (by the international standards they force on everyone else) land grab in Eastern Syria, over a small oil reserve that only puts the 1000 or so US troops sent to protect it, in danger. Like it or not, the only nations that have forces in Syria legally, by the standards of international law are Russia and Iran, because they....unlike all the others, were invited in by the still legitimate government of Syria!


    Canada started ("illegal") CF-18 strike missions (bombings) in Syria (2015)...Operation Impact.


  6. 2 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

    Don't forget to add that the 2nd Amendment was intended to go with that "well regulated militia," and every man of sound mind was supposed to have his gun ready to go off with his fellow militia members when they had to run out and kill some more Indians, or put down a slave revolt.


    ....or kill some more redcoats and loyalists.

  7. Americans have an enumerated constitutional right to own and bear arms (unlike free abortions on demand)...this right has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Law abiding citizens will not lose their gun rights because of actions by criminals and the mentally ill.

    Gun bans in Canada have not prevented Toronto from having a higher gun homicide rate than New York City.

  8. Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

    You're the one who said your not voting for Trump was because you were confident in Republicans retaining the Senate even if Clinton had won in 2016. So your deflection to why don't you focus on what really happened also plays into my argument that based on Trump exceeding your expectations that you should have voted for him in 2016, given hindsight.


    That's not what I said at all...I didn't vote for Donald Trump because he promised more fiscal excess.   

    I live in a blue state...both of my Senators are Democrats.   Also, I am not a Republican.

    Lastly, I don't vote in hindsight...and neither does anybody else.


    Senator Mitch McConnell is the SCOTUS hero far more than Trump.

  9. 1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

    Yes and that game often backfires on the obstructing party in Senate elections, as 2018 proved. Which means your assumption that Republicans can stop all Clinton nominees until 2020 doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.


    More speculation on top of previous conjecture.

    How's about paying more attention to what actually happened in not only 2018, but 2016, when the GOP only lost two seats after Garland got shut out.

    The Democrats had dug such a hole in 2012 & 2014 in the Senate, it didn't matter.

    McConnell has been able to nurse a slim majority ever since, plus he has the VP as tie breaker.



  10. Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

    I'm saying they wouldn't have, which would have cost them the Senate in 2018. There were too many Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats in swing seats for either of them to get away with doing SCOTUS judges dirty for clearly partisan reasons, without costing them potential control of the Senate.


    But they already did it, using rules changes passed  when the Democrats had a majority.

    Judges will face the same tactics going forward from both sides now....it is game on...forever.

    Americans understand the fight, and many have chosen their side....right down the middle.

    We play hard ball down here...political blood sport...it ain't Canada.

  11. Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

    Not so long against them that Republicans shooting themselves in the foot blocking Clinton nominations over bullshit wouldn't have cost them the Senate.


    But still against them...and the GOP would prevail until at least 2020 anyway.

    Clinton never got her chance, and McConnell's ruthless strategy worked out well for the GOP.

    What, did you think the GOP would just roll over on SCOTUS justices just to save a seat or two.....no way.


  12. Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

    Whichever party decided to commit political suicide by opposing a judge for no reason other than partisan politics, would not have been in control of the Senate in 2018, it was a toss up until Dems shot themselves in the foot, and it would have been a toss up unless the GOP shot themselves in the foot.


    That's just isn't the case, because the Democrats faced an uphill battle long before the Kavanaugh hearings.

    It was not a toss up.....odds were against the Democrats taking control of the Senate in 2018.


  13. 1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

    The GOP would not have been favored to retain the Senate in 2018 without the Democrats committing suicide trying to stop Kavanaugh.


    No so, as the Democrats were already disadvantaged by the breakdown of 35 seat elections mostly held by them, not the GOP.

    The GOP did not face as many potential seat losses in 2018 regardless of the Kavanaugh hearings.




  14. Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

    I am arguing that given hindsight, where Republicans barely retained the Senate in 2018 off the backs of Democrat Senators being dicks to Kavanaugh, that you should not have so confident that Senate would have shut down all of Clinton's judges until 2020.


    I was confident then because the GOP was favoured to retain the Senate, even before the Democrats committed suicide.

    The GOP did far better than "retain"...they picked up two more seats !


  15. Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

    Informed speculation, unlike your speculation, which is based on wishful thinking.


    What are you arguing about...what might have happened ?    What matters is what actually did happen, and McConnell won at that game.

    I don't give a crap what Clinton would or would not have done for SCOTUS, because the GOP still would have controlled the Senate.

  16. Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

    They wouldn't have retained in 2018 though. Your "long" view is rather short sighted and overconfident.


    But they did.....the most important view is what actually happened.    And it may pay off again if the House votes to impeach Trump.

    The GOP went from having nothing in 2008 to having it all in 2016.....and that builds confidence.

  • Create New...