The last time Trump was in power, he passed a tax bill that is estimated to have had a net negative impact on the 72% lowest earning people in America. Some of those changes stay in effect until 2028. I don't imagine he will have less of an impact this time around.
GreyEyedGhost
joined 1 year ago
Yeah, that's fair.
Like I said, plenty of smaller scandals and ethics violations. Proroguing parliament was something the PM could always do, and it is only a delay, not a complete removal of the democratic process. I absolutely agree it was unethical and an abuse of power, but not necessarily on the scale of some of the other things I mentioned. I'm sure we could all pick our favorite abuse or scandal, there were plenty, and the aggregate could be argued is worse than any of the specific ones I listed for other leaders.
You could give them a sedative. They pass out and can't hold their breath, then you administer nitrogen. You could probably even find an acceptable oral medication so you wouldn't require a doctor to administer it. I'm in no way saying this is acceptable, but it isn't that difficult.
This is the difference between a gun and a bomb. A gun has all these fine tolerances and requirements, and then you get this tiny focused result. A bomb just requires a bunch of explosives and something to hold it.
TLDR; wrecking things is always easier than operating them in a controlled and predictable manner.
Moreover, Twitter/X is a company, not a person. There are no feelings to be hurt or rights to be protected. If their owner picked a stupid name, they deserve to be laughed at. If they picked a vague name, it deserves to be ignored.
Jean Chretien, Shawinigan scandal.
Brian Mulroney, Airbus scandal.
Oddly, I couldn't find a really big thing for Stephen Harper, but there are many lists of smaller things he did that are objectionable to one degree or another. My biggest gripe was him calling coalition governments undemocratic. When your whole philosophy goes against working with other groups to achieve the goals of the citizens that you believe the whole concept has to be wrong, it says more about you than the people you're complaining about.
Justin Trudeau had the lavalin scandal, as well as some very hypocritical situations in the first year of his leadership, as well as either botching or throwing the voting reform promise.
Pierre Poilievre has already gone on the record as intending to pass laws he knows are unconstitutional, and using the notwithstanding clause to keep them in force, which, while not illegal, I feel is deplorable, and he isn't even in power yet.
I miss the days when conservatives fought for freedom and not control. I'm willing to admit the difference may be my perception and not their intentions.
Breezy on F-Droid, maybe Google Play, is pretty nice.
The single biggest reason I don't think anything she did was actionable is that the likely people who are complaining are lawyers. If they thought they had a clear case, they would have sent a C&D or filed a harassment suit, especially with Canada's less stringent requirements. If she was contacting individuals, they can block her. It seems pretty clear none of these things happened, or the police would have been more forceful. So at best we're wasting police resources, at worst having the government engage in intimidation when no crimes were committed.
😭
First time I used that emoji, but it fits perfectly.
Well, all you've said is that you think it should be verifiable. What reasons do you have to support your argument? If you've read the theory, you should be able to point me in the right direction or give me an answer.
It really is amazing what one can do when the obstructionists are on your side.