- Reaction score
- 7,829
- Points
- 1,160
Polygraph maybe?
Waterboarding.
Polygraph maybe?
It's not waterboarding if you use diesel.Waterboarding.
Thumbtack in your shoe, plus puckering your ass.Polygraph maybe?
I think they can be admissible in civil court and used for gathering and corroborating other evidence.Thumbtack in your shoe, plus puckering your ass.
It's not science, it's not admissible in court. Polygraph is as trustworthy as political promises.
There's apparently a case where a police force put a colander on a suspect's head, had a sheet of paper saying "you're lying" on the bed of a photocopier, and every time the suspect spoke they'd press the Copy button and show him the printout that said "you're lying".I think they can be admissible in civil court and used for gathering and corroborating other evidence.
We may not be able to throw an MP in jail for failing a polygraph but where there's smoke there's fire.
No it doesn’t. The clearance itself opens the door to ‘right to know’ (which must be in co junction with ‘need to know’), but what actually increases the legal jeopardy in Canada is being Permanently Bound to Secrecy under FISOIA. That opens up disclosure or confirmation offences under sections 13 and 14.It also offers up a lot more punishment options for leaks - but also increases people without need to know to get access.
A polygraph is simply a prop used by a skilled and experienced interviewer to try to push harder for truth. It is, however, an accepted tool for certain employment screenings and security clearances.Thumbtack in your shoe, plus puckering your ass.
It's not science, it's not admissible in court. Polygraph is as trustworthy as political promises.
Did it work though?There's apparently a case where a police force put a colander on a suspect's head, had a sheet of paper saying "you're lying" on the bed of a photocopier, and every time the suspect spoke they'd press the Copy button and show him the printout that said "you're lying".
Picking and choosing won’t get you anywhere. We can compare a whole lot more like abortion, health care, supply management, religious issues etc. It isn’t on everything but it is much closer ideologically than the GOP on a lot of policy issues but not all.Oh, sure, the CPC is "in alignment" with the US Democratic party.
Approximately unchecked illegal immigration.
Massive deficit spending.
Catch-and-release law enforcement.
Higher taxes.
Defence spending cuts to pay for social programs.
Carney can't talk to reporters without stressing, what the hell makes anyone think he can talk to president Trump?
You missed the point I was making. The CPC is ideologically in sync with the Democrats on abortion. Not the GOP.Claiming the CPC is going to reverse abortion rights in Canada is a polite version of Goodwin's Law. People only trot that out once any legitimate argument they had has been trounced.
Carney on guns, the only thing I like is saying the RCMP should be the ones classifying, but the damage is already done. If he truely believes that, he needs to revoke every OIC ban then just say "The RCMP will review their classification"
On one hand the liberals target the wrong things, on the other hand the CPCs plans are plainly unconstitutional. We get two extremes, seems like no one knows how to deal with crime properlySo nothing on Bail Reform but keep targeting lawful Canadians.
Right that makes the most sense. LPC ideologically incapable of change on this front.
Point for point our Conservatives are basically the Democrats which is why it is funny when people who cheer for the Democrats attack the Conservatives. If anything there isn’t really much common ground with the Republicans at all.You missed the point I was making. The CPC is ideologically in sync with the Democrats on abortion. Not the GOP.
On one hand the liberals target the wrong things, on the other hand the CPCs plans are plainly unconstitutional. We get two extremes, seems like know one knows how to deal with crime properly
I don't understand the argument when people talk about the Conservatives "playing to their base"What's a good debate, and how is the war room defining it?
I don't think there's enough time (or an appetite) to redefine Poilievre in any sort of way that will land as genuine. And I don't think the two of them have the faintest clue as to actually sell their vision and bring undecided voters into wanting a Poilievre government on it's merits.
That leaves only one path- convince the undecided that they would rather have a Poilievre government than a Carney one. And that's not going to be accomplished with the same approach as playing to their base.