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

[Furniture]

and thus in lies the problem, it not about actually being something wrong with the situation, a lot of the attacks on the government right now are all about using the average canadians ignorance of the system to push half truths to stoke anger at the liberals. It may not be a bribe but enough buzz words and they can convince canadians about the illusion of bribe could be there, is enough to stoke anger with public opinion even if it isn't true.

I'm with @Halifax Tar on this one. If the bar for discussing behaviour is criminality, let's just shut down this part of the forum. Attempts to limit discourse with legalizing everything is just gatekeeping dressed up in pedantry.

There is a difference between saying "that's bribery", and saying "the RCMP must investigate the LPC for criminal bribery". Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

People can be bribed without crossing a legal line. People can be treasonous without meeting all of the requirements of the specific act of parliament. Outside of a courtroom, bribery is commonly understood to be the use money or gifts to encourage someone to take your side or take a specific action.

 

[MilEME09]

I'm with @Halifax Tar on this one. If the bar for discussing behaviour is criminality, let's just shut down this part of the forum. Attempts to limit discourse with legalizing everything is just gatekeeping dressed up in pedantry.

There is a difference between saying "that's bribery", and saying "the RCMP must investigate the LPC for criminal bribery". Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

People can be bribed without crossing a legal line. People can be treasonous without meeting all of the requirements of the specific act of parliament. Outside of a courtroom, bribery is commonly understood to be the use money or gifts to encourage someone to take your side or take a specific action.

Legal definition, or text book definition both are dubious. Which is my act point, people think its one thing when its not, its become another buzz word devoid of actual meaning

 

[Halifax Tar]

Legal definition, or text book definition both are dubious. Which is my act point, people think its one thing when its not, its become another buzz word devoid of actual meaning

Corruption is corruption, it's doesn't have to be criminal.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Corruption is corruption, it's doesn't have to be criminal.

Our government has a lot of experience setting up the game board so they don't fall too hard.

 

[MilEME09]

Corruption is corruption, it's doesn't have to be criminal.

And there is actually corruption and precieved corruption. The CPC is fantastic at spinning the later. Has the LPC committed the former? Sure has, and covered its butt well enough to prevent an rcmp investigation. Not everything actually is corruption of any kind though, just opportunists seeding doubt based on past events both to undermine the LPC and in some cases our democratic institutions. As example the attacks on elections canada during the last election that were completely unfounded accusing the LPC of rigging the vote.

 

[Halifax Tar]

And there is actually corruption and precieved corruption. The CPC is fantastic at spinning the later. Has the LPC committed the former? Sure has, and covered its butt well enough to prevent an rcmp investigation. Not everything actually is corruption of any kind though, just opportunists seeding doubt based on past events both to undermine the LPC and in some cases our democratic institutions. As example the attacks on elections canada during the last election that were completely unfounded accusing the LPC of rigging the vote.

I say this coming from a headspacing of comradeship and love.

Twist yourself into what ever knot you'd like to make yourself comfortable my friend.

I understand you are a devout follower of the church of Carney in the Archdiocese of LPC. When this all crumbles, and it will, and he runs away to his American house, family, money and business I want you to remember this.

These people, politicians, are all scum bags. And they exist to solely siphon from this country.

Tick tock.... Tick tock...

 

[MilEME09]

I say this coming from a headspacing of comradeship and love.

Twist yourself into what ever knot you'd like to make yourself comfortable my friend.

I understand you are a devout follow of the church of Carney in the Archdiocese of LPC. When this all crumbles, and it will, and he runs away to his American house, family, money and business I want you to remember this.

These people, politicians, are all scum bags. And they exist to solely siphon from this country.

Tick tock.... Tick tock...

And yet here we are still voting for them, scum or not. We have many MPs who should of resigned long ago, such as our current public safety minister, or Andrew Scheer for that matter, he should of been forced out 10 years ago after lying about being an insurance broker.

 

[Halifax Tar]

And yet here we are still voting for them, scum or not. We have many MPs who should of resigned long ago, such as our current public safety minister, or Andrew Scheer for that matter, he should of been forced out 10 years ago after lying about being an insurance broker.

Maybe you do. I don't think I could make my mark if an election was held today.

Let's look at my options:

LPC: Old, tired, caused this mess, trying to take my property away..

CPC: Couldnt organize gangbang in a whore house with a thousand dollar bill.

NDP: Thinks dudes are chicks and chicks are dudes and wants all my money.

Bloc: Actually not bad, but hates Canada.

PPC: Racist xenophobes.

Not a one of them deserves my vote.

 

[Altair]

Maybe you do. I don't think I could make my mark if an election was held today.

Let's look at my options:

LPC: Old, tired, caused this mess, trying to take my property away..

CPC: Couldnt organize gangbang in a whore house with a thousand dollar bill.

NDP: Thinks dudes are chicks and chicks are dudes and wants all my money.

Bloc: Actually not bad, but hates Canada.

PPC: Racist xenophobes.

Not a one of them deserves my vote.

I resent that you make the CPC seem like the fun ones in this scenario, however incompetent

 

[Halifax Tar]

I resent that you make thw CPC seem like the fun ones in this scenario, however incompetent

No one is more fun to party with that a sinning conservative.

 

[MilEME09]

No one is more fun to party with that a sinning conservative.

It is unfortunate the rules make it incredible difficult to start a political party and actually challange any of the big three in an election

 

[Halifax Tar]

It is unfortunate the rules make it incredible difficult to start a political party and actually challange any of the big three in an election

What we don't need is more political parties. They're way to full of politicians.

 

[MilEME09]

What we don't need is more political parties. They're way to full of politicians.

I understand you are cynical and pessimistic however the alternative would be something akin to an autocracy.

Many regions of the country could benefit from more parties, encourage more debate through differnce of opinions and increase accountability

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'm with @Halifax Tar on this one. If the bar for discussing behaviour is criminality, let's just shut down this part of the forum. Attempts to limit discourse with legalizing everything is just gatekeeping dressed up in pedantry.

There is a difference between saying "that's bribery", and saying "the RCMP must investigate the LPC for criminal bribery". Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

People can be bribed without crossing a legal line. People can be treasonous without meeting all of the requirements of the specific act of parliament. Outside of a courtroom, bribery is commonly understood to be the use money or gifts to encourage someone to take your side or take a specific action.

If we’re talking plain adjective use of the terms in bar-chat-level discussion, 100%.

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.”

 

[Halifax Tar]

If we’re talking plain adjective use of the terms in bar-chat-level discussion, 100%.

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.”

Lol man.

 

[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.