Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

[Furniture]

But if someone’s calling for or implying judicial punishment from said “bribery” or “treason,” (especially when folks on the socials talk about “we know what happens to traitors”) the bar needs to maybe be higher than “you KNOW what I mean by x.”

I agree, which is why I made the same distinction in my post.

The tendency to jump immediately to legal definitions, when the person using the language isn't explicitly calling for legal actions, stifles discussion and results in pointless derailing of topics. This current derailing is a perfect example.

The LPC clearly are bribing/attempting to bribe people to cross the floor, it's not illegal, but it is unethical in the eyes of some posters. Trying to turn the discussion into a cut-rate episode of Suits or Matlock serves no purpose but to protect a favoured side, or try to make people duck out of the conversation.

 

[brihard]

I agree, which is why I made the same distinction in my post.

The tendency to jump immediately to legal definitions, when the person using the language isn't explicitly calling for legal actions, stifles discussion and results in pointless derailing of topics. This current derailing is a perfect example.

Fair, I’ll try to be more mindful of that in future.

The LPC clearly are bribing/attempting to bribe people to cross the floor, it's not illegal, but it is unethical in the eyes of some posters. Trying to turn the discussion into a cut-rate episode of Suits or Matlock serves no purpose but to protect a favoured side, or try to make people duck out of the conversation.

With that said- when words used match those of specific, serious criminal offences, it’s a reasonable place to go. I want to make it clear I’m never turning to legal definitions to try to stifle discussions or anything like that. I’m just a cop; when discussion of wrongs uses terms that fit that specific paradigm, that’s just where my mind goes. In future I’ll try to ask up front if people are using terms to suggest crimes or not. Though I may not simply give a pass on uses of terms that implicitly point to crime if it’s clearly not there. Maybe I can save some time on analyses though.

 

[HavokFour]

Another good measure.

Federal government plans to ban crypto ATMs to stop scammers from defrauding Canadians​

 

[Czech_pivo]

I agree, which is why I made the same distinction in my post.

The tendency to jump immediately to legal definitions, when the person using the language isn't explicitly calling for legal actions, stifles discussion and results in pointless derailing of topics. This current derailing is a perfect example.

The LPC clearly are bribing/attempting to bribe people to cross the floor, it's not illegal, but it is unethical in the eyes of some posters. Trying to turn the discussion into a cut-rate episode of Suits or Matlock serves no purpose but to protect a favoured side, or try to make people duck out of the conversation.

Try using the word ‘enticing’ instead of bribing.

Enticing is the art of persuasion or attraction.

Bribing is the inducing of improper behaviour or breech of trust.

 

[MilEME09]

Try using the word ‘enticing’ instead of bribing.

Enticing is the art of persuasion or attraction.

Bribing is the inducing of improper behaviour or breech of trust.

A competitive offer, or a sweetened deal, unless their is evidence of attempting to corrupt the judgment of an MP by switching sides i wouldnt call these bribes.

 

[lenaitch]

To a point. They are building fibre and 5G towers on Ellesmere Island.....

We don't have the density of Europe. But the telcos also don't cover the majority of Canada's territory either. Just most of the settled area.

I don't know. Look at their coverage maps and they are fairly extensive in a lot of low population density areas.

 

[lenaitch]

I agree, which is why I made the same distinction in my post.

The tendency to jump immediately to legal definitions, when the person using the language isn't explicitly calling for legal actions, stifles discussion and results in pointless derailing of topics. This current derailing is a perfect example.

The LPC clearly are bribing/attempting to bribe people to cross the floor, it's not illegal, but it is unethical in the eyes of some posters. Trying to turn the discussion into a cut-rate episode of Suits or Matlock serves no purpose but to protect a favoured side, or try to make people duck out of the conversation.

Where it does make a difference is when one side makes a formal complaint to the police who are pretty much compelled to commit to some level of response, and when the inevitable conclusion is returned that there is no evidence of criminality, it simply reinforces supporters that the fix is in.

Tossing allegations of rampant criminal activity by political opponents takes us down the road the US has been on for a few years, where the party in power weaponizes their justice system against their opponents. It's a rinse-and-repeat on four year cycles. There was a time when bipartisanism existed behind the bluster. We haven't weaponized our justice system - yet, but the various sides certainly have weaponized social media, where rage is a currency.

 

[Furniture]

Fair, I’ll try to be more mindful of that in future.

In fairness, I don't think anyone is intentionally trying to stifle discussion, but it has that effect at times.

With that said- when words used match those of specific, serious criminal offences, it’s a reasonable place to go. I want to make it clear I’m never turning to legal definitions to try to stifle discussions or anything like that. I’m just a cop; when discussion of wrongs uses terms that fit that specific paradigm, that’s just where my mind goes. In future I’ll try to ask up front if people are using terms to suggest crimes or not. Though I may not simply give a pass on uses of terms that implicitly point to crime if it’s clearly not there. Maybe I can save some time on analyses though.

Fair point, and as I said, when it wanders into the realm of suggesting that a crime has been committed, it is very useful to have people around here who have the knowledge and experience to refute those claims.

My point isn't to try to stifle people with more specific knowledge from chiming in, more so to maybe get people to view the comment from the perspective of a lay-person, in the context of common language usage.

Try using the word ‘enticing’ instead of bribing.

Enticing is the art of persuasion or attraction.

Bribing is the inducing of improper behaviour or breech of trust.

Depends on the dictionary you prefer...

Bribe: Merriam-Webster

Bribe: Dictionary.com

Bribe: Oxford Learner's Dictionaries

In common usage in North America, bribe is often just a word to describe offering something to get an outcome you want.

 

[ytz]

I don't know. Look at their coverage maps and they are fairly extensive in a lot of low population density areas.

Sure. But they still only cover settled areas, where there are people (who are paying customers). Many of their proponents would have you believe they cover the majority of our geography when they cite how big Canada is.

At the end of the day, Rogers and Bell being top 10 on operating margin among the world's telcos says it all. If we're supposedly so expensive to service, how are they making such large margins?

 

[lenaitch]

Sure. But they still only cover settled areas, where there are people (who are paying customers). Many of their proponents would have you believe they cover the majority of our geography when they cite how big Canada is.

At the end of the day, Rogers and Bell being top 10 on operating margin among the world's telcos says it all. If we're supposedly so expensive to service, how are they making such large margins?

People, but low density. Either that or there are more people in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia than I thought.

Bell Canada Network Coverage & Service | Bell Mobility | Bell Canada

Check Bell Canada's network coverage for fast mobile service. Enjoy reliable connections across Canada. See availability near you.

www.bell.ca

 

[ytz]

Again. They may have higher expenses. But their profits more than make up for it. That's my point.

Average TTM margin among 200 telcos: 15.55%

Rogers: 35.12%

Bell: 31.44%

Top telecommunication companies by operating margin

companiesmarketcap.com

I understand compensating them for investments. But getting profits on par with monopolies elsewhere in the world can only happen because of protectionism.

Will add too that Canada ranks 45th in the world with mobile data speeds and 16th on broadband speeds.

Canada's Mobile and Broadband Internet Speeds - Speedtest Global Index

Canada ranked 45th in the world for mobile speeds and 16th for fixed broadband speeds during March 2026.

www.speedtest.net

So not only do we pay some of highest rates in the world, which leads to them having some of the highest profitability in the world (for their sector), they also provide mediocre service (by global standards).

And they get away with it, because Canadians are so readily duped by the excuse that it's our geography. Rogers and Bell just have to cite geography and Canadians line up to make their shareholders rich. Meanwhile, since the digital economy is so dependent on connectivity, this literally is a drag on national productivity.