Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Trudeau lying about SNC


Recommended Posts

On 2/9/2019 at 7:02 PM, Argus said:

Harper was just as eager to suck up to Quebec as the Liberals and wasn't about to do ANYTHING that would tick them off.

Harper won without quebec.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Real women don't need to hide behind some 'feminist' banner, taxme.  Real women tend to stand on their own and value the contributions of men.  Real women can think for themselves - unlike so-called '

I don't care how big they are. And no this is not just a few bad apples. The corruption is part of SNC-Lavalins culture through and through. 20+ years of corruption and blackmailing the Canadian gover

Maybe you guys saw different shows?  Maybe the hosts don't write their copy, but they don't read like robots either. Watch Lisa LaFake do her eyerolls or her insinuating tones when she's talking,

Posted Images

57 minutes ago, PIK said:

Harper won without quebec.

Not actually true in a political sense.

Harper won because of Quebec voting for Bonne Jack and the NDP.

Quebec splitting the left. 

When Quebec switched back to the Liberals, Harper was ejected by the left united once again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And Quebec is still solidly behind the Liberals, and Trudeau taking a beating for SNC is entirely about that, and Quebec will remember, they don't give a shit what Jody Raybould says, unless she has a smoking gun to prove that Trudeau actually committed a crime, which if she had that, Trudeau would be gone already.

The Western Prairie Populists cannot rule, so long as the Liberals are able to bribe Quebec, see; asymmetrical dictatorship, entrenched political aristocracy.

Edited by Dougie93
Link to post
Share on other sites

So now Trudeau has conceded the point....he was approached by Minister/AG Wilson-Raybould directly about SNC-Lavalin....

 

Quote

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau revealed Friday that former justice minister and attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould had approached him to clarify whether he was in fact ordering her to make a particular decision on the bribery and fraud prosecution of SNC-Lavalin Group.

....Mr. Trudeau’s acknowledgment that Ms. Wilson-Raybould had approached him on the matter comes only three days after he told reporters that she failed in her duty to raise concerns about the government’s handling of the SNC prosecution.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-says-he-removed-wilson-raybould-from-justice-because-of/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

He seems to be in breach of ethics, and plausibly the law, by even bringing it up in the first place.

Bear in mind; the law does not allow for what Trudeau is asking, because whoever it was who passed the law, expressly wrote in it that SNC cannot be let off the hook by the PPS.

The PPS was legally bound to prosecute, the PMO does not have the authority to even ask them to break the law, never mind demand it. 

Edited by Dougie93
Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, failed state Confederation in action; the imperative of bribing Quebec is inherently corrupt, to the point of corrupting the rule of law itself.

And as we see with Meng Wanzhou, Ottawa only upholds the rule of law, where the Americans force them to.

Five Eyes is watching.  Have at them, Black Widow.

The United Kingdom - United States Security Agreement, protects me, protects my property, protects my interests, even against the lawless rule of my own Mandarins.

Edited by Dougie93
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Once again, failed state Confederation in action; the imperative of bribing Quebec is inherently corrupt, to the point of corrupting the rule of law itself.

And as we see with Meng Wanzhou, Ottawa only upholds the rule of law, where the Americans force them to.

Five Eyes is watching.  Have at them, Black Widow.

The United Kingdom - United States Security Agreement, protects me, protects my property, protects my interests, even against the lawless rule of my own Mandarins.

What nonsense.  You trust American rule of law over Canadian? After all of the times the US simply ignored trade disputes settled by arbitration in Canada’s favour.  “Trust yourself and don’t believe in any more lies.”  The US serves itself first.  The UK is a more faded empire than the US and certainly can’t afford to look beyond its own backyard right now.  No one has a better handle on Canada’s interests than Canadians, obviously.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely.  American rule of law is exponentially more just than Canada. 

Just the Notwithstanding Clause alone justifies overthrowing the Canadian Confederation,  Section 33 is an abomination to truth, justice and liberty for all. 

None the less, America will save us from ourselves.  

Come and free me Uncle Abe, the United Kingdom - United States Security Agreement can climb the Heights at Queenston, the Mohawks are on our side this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Absolutely.  American rule of law is exponentially more just than Canada. 

Just the Notwithstanding Clause alone justifies overthrowing the Canadian Confederation,  Section 33 is an abomination to truth, justice and liberty for all. 

None the less, America will save us from ourselves.  

Come and free me Uncle Abe, the United Kingdom - United States Security Agreement can climb the Heights at Queenston, the Mohawks are on our side this time.

You need to invoke different symbols.  Brock and the Iroqois Confederacy repelled the Yanks at Queenston Heights.  Brock’s death was recognized with a taller monument than the Nelson Monument in Trafalgar Square, London.  Brock is an Upper Canadian hero, a Canadian hero.  He looms over the Niagara River facing the United States in defiance.  Yes it’s all cultural mythology, but still, choose other references if you want to attack Canadian identity.   

Also, the American legal system is more politicized than the Canadian one.  Our courts are more independent.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You need to invoke different symbols.  Brock and the Iroqois Confederacy repelled the Yanks at Queenston Heights.  Brock’s death was recognized with a taller monument than the Nelson Monument in Trafalgar Square, London.  Brock is an Upper Canadian hero, a Canadian hero.  He looms over the Niagara River facing the United States in defiance.  Yes it’s all cultural mythology, but still, choose other references if you want to attack Canadian identity.   

Also, the American legal system is more politicized than the Canadian one.  Our courts are more independent.  

Brock was a British officer who hated Canada, hated being here, wanted to be in Europe fighting Bonparte, where an officer could make a career for himself.

Then all of a sudden the Americans invaded with 30,000 troops and Brock had the mission he was desperate for.

Unfortunately for Brock, he was shot and killed in the opening volley, so he never actually lived to see the Grand River Mohawks come to the Crowns rescue to save Upper Canada.

Edited by Dougie93
Link to post
Share on other sites

Prior to the American invasion, the Americans here were about to overthrow the British Crown because there was no democracy and the Crown was behaving tyrannically as it had with the American colonies.

So in actual fact, it was James Madison who saved Canada, was James Madison who created Canada, as prior to, there was no border and nobody here called themselves "Canadian" nor were particularly fond of the Crown neither.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Prior to the American invasion, the Americans here were about to overthrow the British Crown because there was no democracy and the Crown was behaving tyrannically as it had with the American colonies.

So in actual fact, it was James Madison who saved Canada, was James Madison who created Canada, as prior to, there was no border and nobody here called themselves "Canadian" nor were particularly fond of the Crown neither.

It’s actually a lot more complicated than that.  Read about the family compact, the Upper Canada Rebellion, the formation of Canada East and West, the burning of the parliament, etc.  Canada had its own early struggles enhancing democracy, and in the mid-19th century the US was freer than Canada, but Canada was more peaceful (Peace, Order and Responsible Government).  Canada never had a revolution or civil war.  It evolved and is now perhaps the freest country, which is why we don’t need a red white and blue freedom revolution.  We’re already there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s actually a lot more complicated than that.  Read about the family compact, the Upper Canada Rebellion, the formation of Canada East and West, the burning of the parliament, etc.  Canada had its own early struggles enhancing democracy, and in the mid-19th century the US was freer than Canada, but Canada was more peaceful (Peace, Order and Responsible Government).  Canada never had a revolution or civil war.  It evolved and is now perhaps the freest country, which is why we don’t need a red white and blue freedom revolution.  We’re already there. 

You're way off.  The Upper Canadian Rebellion was in 1837.  

The Americans in Upper Canada in 1812 never had a chance to rebel, because James Madison invaded and then the locals were driven to rally around the Crown, when the Americans, after having been defeated by the Grand River Mohawks, retaliated by going up and down the north shore of lake Erie burning farms down like they would do later in Vietnam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

You're way off.  The Upper Canadian Rebellion was in 1837.  

The Americans in Upper Canada in 1812 never had a chance to rebel, because James Madison invaded and then the locals were driven to rally around the Crown, when the Americans, after having been defeated by the Grand River Mohawks, retaliated by going up and down the north shore of lake Erie burning farms down like they would do later in Vietnam.

Sorry buddy, you need to read about the response to the rebellions of the late 1830’s and the formation of Canada East and West, and the further reasons for a new Confederation in 1867, which was again about creating a more representative government, reparations, and cultural protections.  It’s complex and involves interesting figures like Mackenzie and Baldwin.  Madison was peripheral as the Canadians that the Yanks were fighting had already pledged their loyalty to the Crown during the Revolution.  The cohesion and purpose was there start to finish in the War of 1812.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites

Non sequitur, the Mac-Pap rebellions are not relevant to the War of  1812, as  William MacKenzie was 17 years old living in Scotland, and Louis-George Papineau was serving as an officer in  the Militia,  at the time.

There was no cohesion in Canada against the Americans, most people here refused to serve under Brock, most of them took a pass, and it was in fact the indians who saved Canada, as special operations forces.

There was no cohesion on the American side neither, New England was actually supporting the British during the war, in defiance of Madison.

There was no border, and the people on both sides of what became the border, were related, and called themselves Americans and considered themselves Americans, there was no such thing as a non Quebecois Canadian, prior to James Madison's invasion.

Edited by Dougie93
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Non sequitur, the Mac-Pap rebellions are not relevant to the War of  1812, as  William MacKenzie was 17 years old living in Scotland, and Louis-George Papineau was serving as an officer in  the Militia,  at the time.

There was no cohesion in Canada against the Americans, most people here refused to serve under Brock, most of them took a pass, and it was in fact the indians who saved Canada, as special operations forces.

There was no cohesion on the American side neither, New England was actually supporting the British during the war, in defiance of Madison.

There was no border, and the people on both sides of what became the border, were related, and called themselves Americans and considered themselves Americans, there was no such thing as a non Quebecois Canadian, prior to James Madison's invasion.

The Brits retained their forts on the Yank side of the border until the treaty of 1815.  Much of the dispute and border were settled by treaty rather than war. 

Don’t forget the British support of an Indian country and Tecumseh.  The Yanks burned down the capital in Upper Canada. Our regs burned the White House.  Halifax and Kingston weren’t touched. It was a stalemate.  The French stuck with the Brits.  It all looks a bit silly today.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

You're totally off topic now, you're not even addressing the point. 

Talk about trying to distract from ahistorical prattle by going off topic with a list of facts not even relevant to the conversation, keeps digging his grave deeper and deeper. Sad.

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Talk about trying to distract from ahistorical prattle by going off topic with a list of facts not even relevant to the conversation, keeps digging his grave deeper and deeper. Sad.

Merely defending the country from cheap unsubstantiated pot shots.  It relates to the topic because you and D want to reduce not only the Liberals but Canada as a whole to a Marxist puppet police regime.  It is none of those things.  Until you can have a more balanced and nuanced discussion, you can’t be taken seriously, which is why the most sophisticated posters on here have simply gone silent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Merely defending the country from cheap unsubstantiated pot shots.  It relates to the topic because you and D want to reduce not only the Liberals but Canada as a whole to a Marxist puppet police regime.  It is none of those things.  Until you can have a more balanced and nuanced discussion, you can’t be taken seriously, which is why the most sophisticated posters on here have simply gone silent. 

We took no potshots, we just know our history, unlike you apparently.

You want to pretend that most Canadians saw themselves as Canadians before The War of 1812, and that is just factually incorrect. The vast majority of people living in what today is Canada, considered themselves to be Americans, and it wasn't until James Madison invaded and the Yanks started burning down the villages and towns in Upper Canada, that the population turned on America, and stopped seeing themselves as American.

Events that occurred afterward, that helped to form a Canadian identity, could not have happened without the War of 1812. If the Yanks had not invaded in 1812, and acted so rapaciously in enemy territory, there would be no Canada today, and thus there certainly wouldn't be a Liberal Party of Canada either.

That's not a potshot, that's just having a grasp on Canadian history that wasn't spoon fed by the CBC propaganda machine, that helps prop up The Liberal Party of Canada, even as we type.

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

We took no potshots, we just know our history, unlike you apparently. You want to pretend that most Canadians saw themselves as Canadians before The War of 1812, and that is just factually incorrect. Most people living in what today is Canada, consider themselves to be Americans, and it wasn't until James Madison invaded and the Yanks started burning down the villages and towns in Upper Canada that the population turned on America, and stopped seeing themselves as American.

Canada means home and refers to the territory that was French and British and then later completely under British control.  Upper and Lower Canada and Nova Scotia had French and English residents before the American Revolution and before the Treaty of Paris, when it was all New France and French and English Acadia.  Americans were British colonists prior to the Revolution and the Loyalists came north to the remaining British colonies after the Revolution.  They were called United Empire Loyalists.  Learn the history.  A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada means home and refers to the territory that was French and British and then later completely under British control.  Upper and Lower Canada and Nova Scotia had French and English residents before the American Revolution and before the Treaty of Paris, when it was all New France and French and English Acadia.  Americans were British colonists prior to the Revolution and the Loyalists came north to the remaining British colonies after the Revolution.  They were called United Empire Loyalists.  Learn the history.  A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  

Nothing you just said has anything to do with the point I just made, you are again stating random historical facts, that I already knew, while pretending to add something cogent to the conversation. That's not a rebuttal to what I just said, that's a complete non-sequitur.

You can state facts, sure, but you have no grasp of the big picture, and your retort to the big picture being presented, is to state facts that have nothing to do with the big picture.

Step your game up, if you are even capable of doing so, that is.

The only people who considered themselves Canadian prior to 1812, were the French in Quebec, the British North Americans, considered themselves Americans who were still loyal to the Crown, but still Americans.

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Nothing you just said has anything to do with the point I just made, you are again stating random historical facts, that I already knew, while pretending to add something cogent to the conversation. That's not a rebuttal to what I just said, that's a complete non-sequitur.

No it isn’t.  You’re trying to equate the territory that was British North America prior to Confederation in the lands now called Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia with the United States.  Loyalists fled the 13 colonies that became the US and came to territory that had been New France and English and French Acadia.  They were never American except in the way you might refer to Canadians as North American. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

No it isn’t.  You’re trying to equate the territory that was British North America prior to Confederation in the lands now called Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia with the United States.  Loyalists fled the 13 colonies that became the US and came to territory that had been New France and English and French Acadia.  They were never American except in the way you might refer to Canadians as North American. 

The British North Americans never considered themselves Canadian, until after the Americans alienated them in the War of 1812, that's the point you cannot seem to grasp.

British North Americans were in fact moving away from The Crown and towards America, prior to 1812, that is until America invaded. 

That was the gamechanger in terms of the birth of the Canadian identity outside of Lower Canada, and without that gamechanger occurring, we would be Americans today.

Not surprised you don't seem to understand that though, most Canadians don't have a clue about the grand narrative of their own history, and clearly you are no exception.

If it weren't for America, there would be no Canada, that's just a fact, but you refuse to give America the credit they deserve for making Canada what it is. Meanwhile Dougie and I know our history, and give America proper credit for their role in the creation of Canada, which you cannot abide for whatever reason.

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The British North Americans never considered themselves Canadian, until after the Americans alienated them in the War of 1812, that's the point you cannot seem to grasp.

British North Americans were in fact moving away from The Crown and towards America, prior to 1812, that is until America invaded. 

That was the gamechanger in terms of the birth of the Canadian identity outside of Lower Canada, and without that gamechanger occurring, we would be Americans today.

Not surprised you don't seem to understand that though, most Canadians don't have a clue about the grand narrative of their own history, and clearly you are no exception.

Wrong.  Lower Canada (Quebec) rejected American control after the Revolution, which is where most of the population of Canada lived, though Nova Scotia, out of which New Brunswick was carved, also had a sizeable pre-Revolution population.  Much settlement in Ontario (Upper Canada after the Revolution and before the War of 1812) did come from United Empire Loyalists who fled the US territory and always considered themselves British colonists, not American ones. 

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...