Trudeau and Liberals invite actual SS Nazi to House of Commons

[Nickdfresh]

Right now Conservatives lead the polls considerably here in Canada.

Read this:

https://www.pollara.com/how-much-do-canadians-trust-different-media-outlets/

As you can see, there is a distrust (and with good reason) of most legacy media from those other than Liberals.

But since we are so hyper focussed on polls and stats here in this thread, if the majority of Canadians support the Conservatives today, and only 22% of them support the CBC as trustworthy, then it appears that I do indeed speak for most Canadians.

At a minimum, it’s not a minority.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17319[/ATTACH]

Well I guess you skipped the part where 78% of Liberals" do trust them. What's your point?

[Nickdfresh]

I know at least one person in this thread loves a good poll, so here we go...

"A survey by two Kyiv pollsters released on Sept. 11 found that 78 per cent of Ukrainians hold Zelenskyy accountable for government corruption. A related poll found that 55 per cent believe Western military aid should be conditional on fighting corruption."

There you have it!!! Ukrainians agreeing with my take!!!!!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukrain...orts-1.6972301

Well yeah, what other administration is there? The gov't in power endures the most of any controversies. But Zelensky didn't create the corruption pandemic in the Ukraine. The pro-Russian/Soviet oligarchs did. It was that corruption that led to the "Orange Revolution" or Handmaiden and the continued manipulations of the Russian gov't under Putin and Yeltsin before.

As for your "take" I think most Ukrainians would find it dumb and unnuanced. Because 91% of Ukrainians AGREE with Zelensky and hold him in high regard as a leader. Most would also think you are a solid A-hole for implying we should all cut off aid to the Ukraine...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukrain...orts-1.6972301

lol..."Only Russia was rated more corrupt" Remember, ZERO oversight in the funds we are giving them...

Volodymyr Zelenskyy's other challenge? Fighting persistent Ukraine corruption


Stephen Grey, Dan Peleschuk · Thomson Reuters · Posted: Sep 20, 2023 6:05 AM PDT | Last Updated: September 20

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been lauded as a wartime leader since Russia began its full-scale invasion in February 2022. But some continue to question his commitment to making good on his pledge to fight graft.

Ukraine consistently ranks in the bottom half of Transparency International's annual Corruption Perceptions Index. Only Russia was rated more corrupt in Europe in the 2022 rankings from the non-government organization.

Billions of dollars of aid earmarked for Zelenskyy's government, as well as ambitions to join the European Union, ride on Ukraine proving that it is serious about fighting corruption and embracing good governance.

,,,
In an assessment of Ukraine's chances of EU membership, published in June 2022, the European Commission described corruption as "a serious challenge that requires continued attention."

CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices|About CBC News

Well NO SHIT! There is corruption in the Ukraine, and I have mentioned that like three times here, again what's your point? Ukraine came out of the USSR and collapsed into oligarchy just like the Russians did. They whole point in the revolution was to pull away from Russian dominance in Ukrainian politics and economy, something Putin has resisted through everything from targeted murders to outright invasion.

So again, what's your point with this Op-ed that also clearly acknowledges that Zelinsky IS fighting corruption and graft. The problem is he is also fighting and existential war of annihilation so maybe baby-steps...

Aid IS monitored: https://www.csis.org/analysis/ensuri...us-aid-ukraine

Is some grafted? Of course! But there are people watching. The bullets and tanks are certainly going where they are supposed to be. But corruption is an eternal problem. There was corruption in the US war effort in WWII. Should we not have fought it?

[Nickdfresh]

This is a great article just posted :

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/stephen-moore-the-malignant-narcissism-of-justin-trudeau/ar-AA1hwgO1?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=5b0dffa945fb40ed85f036fd6453c44a&ei=33

Frankly its the consensus opinion of Trudeau now. Last election, he only received 33% of the popular vote.

Thankfully, better times are in store for us by the next election.

Such an appropriate and accurate title: The malignant narcissism of Justin Trudeau

I could care less about Trudeau. I can't vote for or against him and yeah, probably time for another leader to step up and take the mantle. But your article is a repost of a partisan Op-Ed in the Nat'l Post, something like Canada's Nat'i Review. Something you seem to love. You're just echo-chambering here, and that's fine. But I suspect there seems to be more of a wishful thinking element in these articles than actual facts...

[Rikk]

I know at least one person in this thread loves a good poll, so here we go...

Oh my God, shut up!

The problem with you, RD, is that you make all these "nutjob on a box" posts, raving on that you know how people feel. You almost constantly talk about how people feel. You make comments like "the majority of Canadians"... THEN, naturally, someone will call you out on your bullshit by posting the results of a poll. AND THEN...you completely ignore the fact that the poll results completely contradict your point and instead say, "Wow, you love polls, don't you?"

Because, what is a more scientific/logical way of discussing how people feel?

ROMEO DELIGHT: "The majority of people feel..." (you just pulling that out of your ass, like the rest of your posts featuring broad generalizations and zero evidence, with the odd editorial link)
MOST PEOPLE DEBATING: Polls. You say "the majority of people feel," people who actually like to call you out on your bullshit simply prove you wrong by providing poll results.

I know facts are pesky for you when arguing because they undermine your "gut feeling" arguments, saying all sorts of moronic things without evidence, like "The Ukrainians have had no elections." And, when someone points out how full of shit you are, as I did when I listed Ukrainian National Elections since 1991, you ignore it and make some sort of irrelevant complaint, like "Wow, you like polls."

Try this one on for size. Try five posts, actually citing data, polls, dates, numbers...without one single post to which you simply provide links to five biased editorials.

Let's see if you can do it.

I'm not saying Nick & I never post links to articles, but it's one of the only plays in your playbook.

Someone says something you don't like, so you find an editorial. An opinion.

When someone posts facts, poll results, numbers, etc., you simply ignore it and then repeat your argument.

Let me ask you this: were you wrong when you claimed that Ukraine is far-right and also has not had any elections?

[Rikk]

Nickd wanted to get into a debate about who is a real Nazi and who should be punished. I successfully avoided that rabbit hole...

How? You didn't avoid a rabbit hole. You just ignored his point.

It's what you do.

You've done that with at least five direct questions I gave you after providing evidence that contradicted you.

I get it. You don't like Trudeau. I don't live in Canada anymore and pay little attention to him. I can say that none of my friends or family still in Canada support the guy. In fact, every time I do my annual cottage weekend with the guys in Ontario, they don't stop raving on about him.

BUT...you make big arguments about Trudeau supporting a "Nazi." But when Nick asks you questions about what constitutes a true "Nazi," you say, "I'm not going down that rabbit hole." But that's the problem. If you attack someone for supporting a Nazi, and someone else points out that you seem to support other people who have no problems with Nazis, you can't just say, "I'm not going down that rabbit hole."

That's absolute hypocrisy and bullshit. You want to call someone out for "supporting a Nazi," don't avoid the issue when someone points out that you're very seemingly supporting someone else who supports Nazis.

You don't seem like a dumb guy. So, even YOU can see that.