You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
Derek Sloan, the Conservative MP for Hastings-Lennox and Addington, is once again mired in controversy. In a virtual town hall with Canada’s leading gun lobby group, the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights (CCFR), Sloan unveiled his gun policy should he become the Conservative leader.
Unsurprisingly, Sloan vows to repeal the new assault weapons ban – something which all leadership candidates have promised to do. However, Sloan plans to go further than just that. The leadership candidate proposes the following changes to Canada’s gun laws:
· Making handguns a non-restricted weapon by removing the “restricted category” altogether.
· Relax laws on shooting people in self defence
· Permit the sale of silencers
· Consider ending magazine restrictions introduced by Prime Minister Mulroney
Advertisement
__________________ Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.
Ignoring my personal feelings on all of those things does it seem odd to anyone else to remove the restricted category and allow silencers but only consider ending magazine restrictions? Out of those three things that's the one that seems a little risky and needs more consideration?
Bringing my feeling back in removing the restricted category sounds like a terrible idea on a bunch of levels.
Silencers might make sense if they were only allowed at a range, but it would defeat the point as soon as 1 guy without one shows up. I don't like the idea of people being able to shoot in the bush with a silencer, other people need to be able to hear if people are shooting nearby as easily as possible.
Relaxing on shooting people in self defense is super vague but if he thinks de-restricting handguns is a good idea I'm not hopeful he's gonna have something much better here.
Magazine limits I get the history and intent of the law even if it is a little wonky, but I can't say I've heard any solid argument against it, mostly just that it's mildly inconvenient.
__________________ 1991 Toyota Celica GTFour RC // 2007 Toyota Rav4 V6 // 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee
1992 Toyota Celica GT-S ["sold"] \\ 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD [sold] \\ 2000 Jeep Cherokee [sold] \\ 1997 Honda Prelude [sold] \\ 1992 Jeep YJ [sold/crashed] \\ 1987 Mazda RX-7 [sold] \\ 1987 Toyota Celica GT-S [crushed]
Quote:
Originally Posted by maksimizer
half those dudes are hotter than ,my GF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevYouUp
reading this thread is like waiting for goku to charge up a spirit bomb in dragon ball z
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good_KarMa
OH thank god. I thought u had sex with my wife. :cry:
<-- this is my reaction to the quick interview. I'm sure everyone will just continue to reinforce whatever presumptions you already have about JT after watching the video though...
He should have said, 'Racism is a universal problem of which I have been guilty of myself in the past. We all have to be aware of our own tendencies before making platitudes about how wrong it is and offer quick fix answers. Change begins with each and everyone of us. Change begins with me.' Then have a 20 second silence of personal contrition..
We live in a world where Trump and Xi and Putin exist. And people will pile onto Trudeau for... thinking...
2020, folks
As Canadians, is it surprising that we show some vested interest in the capability and performance of our elected government leaders? I'd think not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitev70r
^ Why do you think he paused so long?
Was it because he was thinking, 'What can I say that won't make it look like I stepped on my own pile of sh*t?'
My personal guess is, you've partly hit the nail on the head. I am also willing to bet that at least for a split second, if not for a much longer duration, JT just straight up blanked out / panic mode kicked in. It is also obvious that he is thinking hard on what he can say that would not piss off the Orange Bully, unlike the time when he was making dinner / mingling jokes with other international leaders about Trump behind his back, but had the conversation inadvertently caught on camera.
At least he learned a lesson from that last time, eh?
As Canadians, is it surprising that we show some vested interest in the capability and performance of our elected government leaders? I'd think not.
My personal guess is, you've partly hit the nail on the head. I am also willing to bet that at least for a split second, if not for a much longer duration, JT just straight up blanked out / panic mode kicked in. It is also obvious that he is thinking hard on what he can say that would not piss off the Orange Bully, unlike the time when he was making dinner / mingling jokes with other international leaders about Trump behind his back, but had the conversation inadvertently caught on camera.
At least he learned a lesson from that last time, eh?
How would you deal with Trump? Considering no matter what you think of him, he's the leader of your biggest ally by far.
You have to deal with him, despite the fact that he is literally evil.
If you "put him on blast" then you have to deal with the incoming potentially dangerous tantrum
If you praise him, you are praising some abhorrent, disgusting, vile actions and statements.
So what do? You have 5 seconds or some people are going to make fun of you on the internet for putting too much consideration into your actions and words.
I don't think he spaced out at all, it seemed completely pre-meditated to me.
Silence is a tactic often used by leaders to make powerful points. He could have just launched straight into his diatribe about difficulties in Canada and USA blah blah blah but to stand there and say nothing about Trump says an awful lot.
It's about the most you're going to get from a Canadian PM where USA is concerned. History will show you this, rarely does anyone speak up against the USA and there's never been more reason than to do it now.
It's absolutely impossible to imagine that his advisors wouldn't have prepped him for such a question. Totally not possible.
<-- this is my reaction to the quick interview. I'm sure everyone will just continue to reinforce whatever presumptions you already have about JT after watching the video though...
Everyone I know in the states, sent me a link to this speech today, and they're all singing his praises
It isn't so much the content of what he actually said in response to the question -- I'm sure it did not go un-noticed by everyone that the blurb he blurted out after that 22 second dead air was absolutely meaningless. Simply put, there was no content to it. Half the time when reporters ask questions -- and for that matter, the same thing happens during job interviews as well -- it isn't so much the reply that matters. Instead, it is the reaction or the way the question was approached in response that sheds more light on the subject.
To a certain extent, I sympathize with how JT was put under the spotlight -- the reply needed to be given based on the difficult circumstances that Canada faces. On the other hand, this is practically what politicians and government officials are paid to do -- they are asked the difficult questions where they need to immediately provide an appropriate reply. The best politicians will give you a fantastic response, sometimes ones that lead back to the same rhetoric that they have always been rooting for -- Obama did that on a regular basis, and I'd imagine (Bill) Clinton being able to come up with that sort of thing too. Seasoned career politicians will give you a solid response. There may not be much content to it, and you'd recognize it as a the sort of reply that leads you around in circles, but the reply would be near immediate. Nobody except someone who is thoroughly incompetent would just pause there for 22 seconds' worth of dead air.
JT is not cut out to be a political leader. And he is most certainly unqualified to be our Canadian Prime Minister.
While I thoroughly agree that silence is a useful tactic in a lot of different situations, it seems unreasonable to me that a full 22 seconds of dead air, complete with a number of barely audible ahs and ums, as well as a number smacking lips / moistly speaking is the pre-rehearsed plan from his advisors.
I also agree that there is no way his advisors had not previously prepared him for questions like that. But that goes back to the incompetency that I was mentioning -- I would not at all be surprised that he was freaking out inside because he had forgotten what his advisors had briefed and rehearsed him on, and he was desperately trying to recall what had been said, how bits and pieces from what he did remember could be strung back together, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 68style
I don't think he spaced out at all, it seemed completely pre-meditated to me.
Silence is a tactic often used by leaders to make powerful points. He could have just launched straight into his diatribe about difficulties in Canada and USA blah blah blah but to stand there and say nothing about Trump says an awful lot.
...
It's absolutely impossible to imagine that his advisors wouldn't have prepped him for such a question. Totally not possible.
As I said in the video post, I think the video will just reinforce whatever presumptions we already have about JT after watching the video. I have always thought JT is thoroughly incompetent, so his extended silence reinforces that. For others who like him, the long silence will just reinforce how meticulously cautious and aware he is on the delicate nature of the Canada-US relations.
For people who are pre-disposed to dislike Trudeau, nothing he could have said or done would have made them happy. Some clearly have their minds made up, so there's little to be gained in going back and forth about what Trudeau could have done better.
These are not easy times for a country like Canada. At least for the moment, sanity and sober thought still prevail in this country.
I don't think he spaced out at all, it seemed completely pre-meditated to me.
Silence is a tactic often used by leaders to make powerful points. He could have just launched straight into his diatribe about difficulties in Canada and USA blah blah blah but to stand there and say nothing about Trump says an awful lot.
It's about the most you're going to get from a Canadian PM where USA is concerned. History will show you this, rarely does anyone speak up against the USA and there's never been more reason than to do it now.
It's absolutely impossible to imagine that his advisors wouldn't have prepped him for such a question. Totally not possible.
That's a good point. It definitely could be seen as a "wink" to Americans saying "yeah you know I want to say more about this clown, but you know what that would lead to. So we support you and hope other people who can make change will actually listen"
It's not like he sat there all flustered either
To criticise him for it is pretty revealing that's for sure. I can't wait to see all the new memes tomorrow from my old high school friends on facebook
For people who are pre-disposed to dislike Trudeau, nothing he could have said or done would have made them happy. Some clearly have their minds made up, so there's little to be gained in going back and forth about what Trudeau could have done better.
These are not easy times for a country like Canada. At least for the moment, sanity and sober thought still prevail in this country.
This, exactly.
Traum, you really have an issue with him taking a few seconds to compose his response? You sure you're not letting your bias against him does not perhaps cloud your judgement in terms of your reaction there?
As some said above, it's clear his intent there, the silent pause was to emphasize his response on the matter, speakers do this all the time.
White, you really think he's going to mention his blackface? Come on man. I'm black myself, his blackface was a stupid move, but not once have I felt Trudeau is a racist, hence the whole subject became a nothing burger to the general public (outside of Conservatives who pretend they care about the subject as a means to dismiss Trudeau).
We have a guy in the white house encouraging the setting of vicious dogs on protesters, instructing police to use extra means of force and abuse on the public (even before these protests), and yet we have some Canadians complaining about a 20 second pause on a serious topic?
Jesus Christ, no wonder blacks have no hope on this subject.
Some food for thought given the recent issues of race coming to the forefront.
Quote:
Canadian multiculturalism conceals a power struggle waiting to happen
J.J. McCullough
Global Opinions contributing columnist
November 2, 2018 at 4:10 p.m. PDT
When Maxime Bernier launched a new political party in September fueled by resentment of immigration, few backers of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau seemed worried. It is an article of faith among Canadian progressives that campaigning against diversity doesn’t work in Canada, a country said to be at peace with its multicultural identity.
Yet even if Bernier’s quixotic bid to be prime minister fizzles, prolonged Liberal rule does not mean racial and cultural tensions will be absent from Canadian political life. Trudeau’s party is buoyed by a diverse coalition of voters with conflicting interests and priorities, and its ability to retain cohesion beyond next year’s general election can’t be taken for granted. It’s a situation comparable to the state of the Democratic Party in the United States, which, as the Atlantic’s Reihan Salam recently documented, relies on a similarly uneasy coalition whose triumphalist rhetoric masks fragility. Canada’s progressive coalition looks even shakier, given its reliance on a more explicit hierarchy of peoples.
At the top of the Canadian progressive pyramid remains a white elite pulled from the affluent and proximate urban centers of Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. This group considers itself the most aware of Canadian history, law, economics and political institutions, and thus the natural holders of the country’s leadership positions, which they disproportionately occupy. This elite is “bicultural” — equally comfortable around Canada’s so-called two founding peoples, the French and English. Fluency in both languages, a rare skill that’s often the byproduct of a bicultural upbringing or a privileged education, is their exclusionary standard for upward mobility.
Below are monocultural French Canadians, the understood first-among-equals in Canada’s multicultural mosaic. The notion that accommodating the distinctions of the French Canadians should be Canada’s essential demonstration of liberal tolerance stretches back centuries. Liberals erected much of Canada’s modern political architecture around the goal of French Canadian accommodation, including the aforementioned bilingual, bicultural ruling class. Correspondingly, every Liberal administration since Confederation has had a large Quebec parliamentary delegation as its backbone.
A tier lower are Canada’s indigenous peoples, whose importance to Canadian liberalism has grown rapidly in recent decades.
While the prime minister’s father once preached that aboriginal ambitions were best realized through an inclusive Canadian citizenship, his successors champion a less integrationist ideal. Under a new postcolonial frame, aboriginals are not considered subjects of the Canadian state but a community equal to it — “a nation-to-nation relationship,” as Trudeau often quips. Born from contemporary progressive consensus that the establishment of Canada on occupied land was the country’s defining crime, restorative justice for Canada’s more than 1.6 million indigenous residents has become a moral priority.
Last in formal importance are immigrants of color and their descendants, the faction of the Canadian progressive coalition that’s more often seen than heard. Immigrant communities are useful for Liberals to mobilize in the context of the Canadian electoral system, which relies on mass recruitment of party members to nominate candidates and features numerous minority-majority parliamentary districts. The result has been a rise in minority and immigrant members of Parliament, more than 80 percent of whom are Liberals. Yet the lack of power ordinary MPs enjoy means many of these politicians serve their party primarily as diversity symbols or get-out-the-vote strategists. They remain largely shut out from more authoritative positions, such as the Canadian Supreme Court, which has never had a nonwhite member.
As with all hierarchies, the rainbow coalition of Canadian liberalism can work only so long as there exists internal agreement on the wisdom of its power imbalances.
Pro-diversity progressives must learn to rationalize that their coalition’s goal of encouraging French Canadian distinctiveness often means enabling Quebec chauvinism, for instance. At a time when white progressives in the English provinces are removing statues and renaming buildings in the name of inclusivity, Quebec just concluded an election in which all parties supported the idea that immigrants should face more pressure to speak French and that those receiving public services be less “ostentatiously religious” in dress. Quebecker opinions on social welfare may be left of the Canadian norm, but when it comes to preserving their European identity, the French Canadian center sits in a place that liberals elsewhere in the country would not hesitate to decry as racist and xenophobic. As tensions rise between Quebec’s Francophone-dominated government and growing immigrant population, so too will national progressive anxieties about whether Quebec’s cultural empowerment remains a worthy objective.
European identity, the French Canadian center sits in a place that liberals elsewhere in the country would not hesitate to decry as racist and xenophobic. As tensions rise between Quebec’s Francophone-dominated government and growing immigrant population, so too will national progressive anxieties about whether Quebec’s cultural empowerment remains a worthy objective.
Indigenous Canadians similarly expect to preserve their cultural cohesion amid Canada’s growing diversity. This can take the form of policing who is or isn’t a “true” aboriginal, given that aboriginal self-identification has been rising rapidly, and official “Indian” status remains a gateway to sovereignty from the state. An exclusionary indigenous nationalist movement with an objective of self-governance and sequestration from the Canadian mainstream clashes uncomfortably with Trudeau’s stated dream of a “postnational” country.
Danger looms that Canadian immigrants will resent liberalism’s preoccupation with indigenous concerns. Like appeasement of French Canadians, aboriginal reconciliation takes for granted that Ottawa should spend a lot of time adjudicating disputes between descendants of peoples that inhabited Canada centuries ago. The result is that Canadians of color find their own substantial, historically rooted desires for social justice subordinate to this dated schedule of priorities. Efforts to entrench the hierarchy of grievance, such as the Trudeau government’s proposal to make new Canadians swear allegiance to Indian treaties, feel counterproductive in their bluntness.
Amid these fault lines, Canadian liberalism’s greatest compensating asset is confidence. In contrast to the American left, which is increasingly prone to self-pity, the leaders of Canada’s progressive coalition are skilled at asserting that their politics of ordered multiculturalism simply work, and will continue to, so long as trust remains. Much is riding on the persuasiveness of that claim. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ing-to-happen/
__________________ LEAFS!
Last edited by Bouncing Bettys; 06-03-2020 at 12:15 PM.
Traum, you really have an issue with him taking a few seconds to compose his response? You sure you're not letting your bias against him does not perhaps cloud your judgement in terms of your reaction there?
I wouldn't have an issue with him taking a moment to compose his response. But 22 freaking seconds? It is either bad acting that has been overdone, or he is just incompetent.
Looking further into his response for the 2 questions that he had been asked, the contents of his 2 replies were absoutely meaningless. There was a lot of words being uttered and strung together, but there wasn't anything of substance. He was beating around the bush the whole time, repeating some stuff he has already said before, and stuff that wasn't even relevant to the questions being asked. If that is the quality of the pre-composed answers his advisors had prepared for JT, then the whole team of advisors need to be fired for their incompentence. I find it difficult to imagine how any prepared replies on an expected question can be this bad, so that means the issue lies with JT and his delivery.
As I said in the video post, I think the video will just reinforce whatever presumptions we already have about JT after watching the video. I have always thought JT is thoroughly incompetent, so his extended silence reinforces that. For others who like him, the long silence will just reinforce how meticulously cautious and aware he is on the delicate nature of the Canada-US relations.
I don't like him, and I think he has been incompetent at times, but I see the long silence as an intentional move. If he was just buying time to think of something or listening to advisors through an earpiece he'd be doing the usual politician thing of talking in circles.
__________________ 1991 Toyota Celica GTFour RC // 2007 Toyota Rav4 V6 // 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee
1992 Toyota Celica GT-S ["sold"] \\ 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD [sold] \\ 2000 Jeep Cherokee [sold] \\ 1997 Honda Prelude [sold] \\ 1992 Jeep YJ [sold/crashed] \\ 1987 Mazda RX-7 [sold] \\ 1987 Toyota Celica GT-S [crushed]
Quote:
Originally Posted by maksimizer
half those dudes are hotter than ,my GF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevYouUp
reading this thread is like waiting for goku to charge up a spirit bomb in dragon ball z
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good_KarMa
OH thank god. I thought u had sex with my wife. :cry:
lol deviating his jaw was apparent he was in stumbling mode
anyways that's hardly something to be critical about right now...as much as i shit on ottawa we are staying afloat and not becoming 100% dysfunctional, for now
I don't like him, and I think he has been incompetent at times, but I see the long silence as an intentional move. If he was just buying time to think of something or listening to advisors through an earpiece he'd be doing the usual politician thing of talking in circles.
Yeah, I think he knew that question was coming look at the way it was asked. All of it was intentional, planned out before the interview even started at least that's my opinion.
__________________
“The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place... and I don´t care how tough you are, it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently, if you let it. You, me or nobody, is gonna hit as hard as life. But ain't about how hard you hit... It's about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward... how much you can take, and keep moving forward. That´s how winning is done. Now, if you know what you worth, go out and get what you worth.” - Rocky Balboa
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has condemned Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's failure to call out the "reprehensible" actions of U.S. President Donald Trump as protests escalate over anti-black racism.
Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet said Trudeau "needs a spine" and should show more courage in the face of aggressive actions by a U.S. leader that are fuelling chaos on the country's streets.
"His silence reveals hypocrisy," Singh said during a news conference in Ottawa this morning.
Singh said that's not good enough. He said for too long people have been "passive bystanders," enabling hate and racism to flourish. People in positions of power, such as the prime minister, must lead by example, he said.
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has condemned Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's failure to call out the "reprehensible" actions of U.S. President Donald Trump as protests escalate over anti-black racism.
Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet said Trudeau "needs a spine" and should show more courage in the face of aggressive actions by a U.S. leader that are fuelling chaos on the country's streets.
"His silence reveals hypocrisy," Singh said during a news conference in Ottawa this morning.
Singh said that's not good enough. He said for too long people have been "passive bystanders," enabling hate and racism to flourish. People in positions of power, such as the prime minister, must lead by example, he said.
I actually agree with this argument more then your original one. Trudeau has never been an expert orator, but I agree with Singh, I think his words could have been more strong in fact, and carried more condemnation, but that's Trudeau, he plays things "safe". He's the great "appeaser of all".
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
<-- this is my reaction to the quick interview. I'm sure everyone will just continue to reinforce whatever presumptions you already have about JT after watching the video though...
Come on man. I'm black myself, his blackface was a stupid move, but not once have I felt Trudeau is a racist, hence the whole subject became a nothing burger to the general public (outside of Conservatives who pretend they care about the subject as a means to dismiss Trudeau).
