Though I do think that something like a petition having the power to actually revoke a person’s citizenship is draconian, and should never actually happen in Canada, I do support the sentiment.
You can rest easy, there’s no mechanism for a petition to do anything except draw attention from those who can.
Obviously the petition is to compel Parliament, or whoever is responsible, to take action to do so. I see this sentiment but I think it’s misplaced. The petition is to bring it to the attention of politicians who typically have a blind spot on these things and may not understand or be aware of public sentiment.
There’s no mechanism for a petition to do anything directly. But we all know that. I’m personally immediately suspicious of any attempts to create confusion on this issue. It seems to be disinformation.
This isn’t stupidity, it’s intentional and calculating.
This bare-faced, obvious hypocrisy IS the point. It’s right in our faces, and it forces his supporters to defend it. But it’s the thin edge of the wedge…you defend this, and it shifts your tolerance window a bit, and the next one is a bit more egregious, and you defend that, then a bit more, and so on until you are defending felons and rapists who dismantle the government against your interests, because it supports your guy and hurts people you hate.
At the same time Poilievre’s opponents become even more indignant and angry, and it further divides into two sides - the team, and the other. This is all intended to firm up the cult and further divide out the other.
FUCKIN A RIGHT BUD. We all needed this. One hell of a game, too.
These tech broligarchs are the whiniest fucking piss baby weenies on the planet. These are the representatives of American power right now. What a fucking disgrace.
Yes, by MAGA’s own vernacular it does.
You can’t spell hatred without red hat.
(I can’t take credit for this, I saw this comment on this same story elsewhere, and I thought it was so obvious that I can’t believe it isn’t more widespread)
I assume this is a rhetorical question.
I get your sentiment, but I rather think the comedy above arises from the rhetorical flourishes.
It’s ok, I don’t actually believe this.
Twist ending: Trump comes out as the ultimate leftist neoglobalist. His entire life has been dedicated to cultivating the most unabashed narcissistic piss baby entitled con man personality, as a front, just so he can convince America to share its wealth and power, collapse American hegemony, and permanently destroy conservatism. He’s the only one that has the special Yank whisperer powers to convince an entire nation of dumbfucks to act against their own self interest.
At this point nothing would surprise me.
We had tshirts made for Canada Day, with the Canadian flag, and the words “Proud Canadian…not a douchebag”.
Remarkably everyone we met, and I mean everyone, knew which douchebags we were referring to.
Ok but we’re talking about Nazis, and the principle stands.
I have to look him up on Wikipedia, so he doesn’t really matter to me. He’s not a Nazi though, so maybe?
Sorry it’s just the way it is with Nazis. The only good one is a dead one. Just accept it.
Every life matters
You started from a faulty assumption. Nazi lives don’t matter.
Because AXE THE TAX, LIBERAL CUCK!!
The problem with this quote is that everyone thinks they’re the strong men. In other words, it’s mostly useless rhetoric that doesn’t really identify the problem.
All of this bullshit because some fucking guy couldn’t properly set his windage.
Yeah, a carbon tax that results in perhaps a percent of price inflation is just nowhere near as serious - neither in kind nor degree - as 25% across the board tariffs. And if we need to have emission reduction measures in place to trade with the EU, and trading with the EU is now an existential priority, then frankly he can sit down and shut up. The adults are talking.
(the above assumes all the talk of economic annexation is bluster, which is no longer a foregone conclusion)
both leaders here keep talking about how we Canadians fought hand in hand in <insert war>, took in Americans in 9/11 etc.
I agree they are all saying this, but I sense a difference in intent between Poilievre and the rest.
Maybe it’s my bias, but I feel that Poilievre is saying these things with the intent to convince the Americans - i.e., it’s for the American audience. By contrast, Carney and others are saying these things more for the Canadian audience - to explain why it’s justified to be angry at the Americans and we need to grow up and kick them to the curb.
For Carney and others, it’s a rallying cry; for Poilievre it’s an attempt at appeasement.
A key problem humanity seems to have, which is exploited by politicians everywhere, is the affinity for black and white thinking.
Capitalism and even neoliberalism are not necessarily categorically terrible. Unregulated versions of these certainly are terrible and unsustainable. And some versions and implementations of ideologies or frameworks are net worse than others.
Absolute austerity, unregulated neoliberalism, unregulated capitalism, unopposed communism, etc, are all terrible, damaging and unsustainable. Unfortunately finding sustainable solutions is difficult and requires thought, time and dedication. And it requires vision and unifying leadership to sell it to the people.