Attitudes towards the Liberals

[JLB50]

Does Chinese influence and intimidating voters count towards creating an unlawful election? If so then yes.

What you're failing to acknowledge is the LPC, and especially Trudeau, stoking division, vilifing Canadians, and very likely instigating people purpose to take advantage of their reaction.

I’m not failing to acknowledge it. Which is why Canada needs a fully independent investigation of events over the last 20 or so years. I’ve long been advocating it, although in recent months the situation has gotten worse.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Like it or not, pal, it suggests to me that the majority don’t accept your views. So are you suggesting those in the minority should impose their views on the majority?

An interesting question, but not the one I'm concerned with, which is "what does the minority do when the majority imposes itself"? A doctrine of unlimited might-makes-right is a non-starter for me, which leaves a spectrum all the way down to pure laissez-faire. What majoritarian impositions are unreasonable; how unreasonable does an imposition have to be to warrant all-other-means-exhausted responses?

 

[Jarnhamar]

So you disagree with most officials, all leaders of the opposition including Pierre Poilievre that the outcome was not affected? It’s ok if you do but just wondering.

I appreciate your consent to disagree, my friend And yes I do.

For starters, in no way shape or form could Pierre Poilievre suggest the outcome of the election was unlawful. The Liberal party would crush each other racing to associate Pierre with Trump. Then accuse Pierre of being anti-safety for causing injuries in the workplace.

If they're saying the outcome was not affected that's fine. I doubt they have the whole picture yet and may very well change their opinion if more evidence comes out. Similar to Trudeau's never being briefed about Chinese influence which changed a few times as more evidence came to light.

Our ethics accountability in the government is next to non-existent. What constitutes unlawfulness in elections is probably just as weak and even with Chinese influence and interference, still counts as "lawful" in their technical definition. As for unaffected it sounds like the CCP influenced their candidates to get elected as MPs. Maybe the election itself wasn't technically affected by interference but the CCP sure sound like they manipulated the landscape.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Like it or not, pal, it suggests to me that the majority don’t accept your views. So are you suggesting those in the minority should impose their views on the majority?

A majority counts in elections but not ethics.

I’m not failing to acknowledge it. Which is why Canada needs a fully independent investigation of events over the last 20 or so years. I’ve long been advocating it, although in recent months the situation has gotten worse.

Roger.

 

[Remius]

I appreciate your consent to disagree, my friend And yes I do.

For starters, in no way shape or form could Pierre Poilievre suggest the outcome of the election was unlawful. The Liberal party would crush each other racing to associate Pierre with Trump. Then accuse Pierre of being anti-safety for causing injuries in the workplace.

That does not seem like his style. By that reasoning we shouldn’t take anything PP says at face value no? While I agree that if he did state the outcome was in question that it would cause blow back I disagree that he would put aside his beliefs for political expediency in this case.

If they're saying the outcome was not affected that's fine. I doubt they have the whole picture yet and may very well change their opinion if more evidence comes out. Similar to Trudeau's never being briefed about Chinese influence which changed a few times as more evidence came to light.

Of course as evidence comes out it changes opinions. Mine have been changed when more info comes out on a variety of things. They may not have the whole picture yet and neither do you or I. A few things on both sides of the argument seem to have been inaccurate.

Our ethics accountability in the government is next to non-existent. What constitutes unlawfulness in elections is probably just as weak and even with Chinese influence and interference, still counts as "lawful" in their technical definition. As for unaffected it sounds like the CCP influenced their candidates to get elected as MPs. Maybe the election itself wasn't technically affected by interference but the CCP sure sound like they manipulated the landscape.

I would say they attempted to manipulate the landscape as opposed to being successful. Agreed about ethics and accountability but it seems to permeate throughout the political class.

 

[Jarnhamar]

That does not seem like his style. By that reasoning we shouldn’t take anything PP says at face value no? While I agree that if he did state the outcome was in question that it would cause blow back I disagree that he would put aside his beliefs for political expediency in this case.

What does it hurt him to say the election was unaffected and wait for more concrete evidence to come out while wisely avoiding the OMG Trump! reaction? Again maybe the elevation wasn't specifically affected per say, but the interference still shaped the landscape giving the Liberals a clear advantage. Chinese Canadians are saying they've been pressured and intimidated by Chinese agents. How many were told their families in China faced the Uyghur Treatment if their riding didn't vote Liberal?

Of course as evidence comes out it changes opinions. Mine have been changed when more info comes out on a variety of things. They may not have the whole picture yet and neither do you or I. A few things on both sides of the argument seem to have been inaccurate.

Which supports Pierre's safe stance that it wasn't affected. I think all the interference, intimidation, and propaganda did affect the election by giving Liberal MPs an advantage.

I would say they attempted to manipulate the landscape as opposed to being successful. Agreed about ethics and accountability but it seems to permeate throughout the political class.

Han Dong secretly met with a Chinese diplomat in Vancouver under an ambiguous reason for travel and failed to inform the PMO as per protocol. Han Dong also conveniently avoided votes about Uyghur genocide in the parliament twice. Ducking out and coming back after. I'm comfortable with a where there's smoke there's fire view.

 

[Remius]

What does it hurt him to say the election was unaffected and wait for more concrete evidence to come out while wisely avoiding the OMG Trump! reaction? Again maybe the elevation wasn't specifically affected per say, but the interference still shaped the landscape giving the Liberals a clear advantage. Chinese Canadians are saying they've been pressured and intimidated by Chinese agents. How many were told their families in China faced the Uyghur Treatment if their riding didn't vote Liberal?

Because as of yet there is nothing saying the election outcome would have been any different. He’s stating it as a fact. Are you saying he really believes that it was affected but isn’t saying it because he fears the repercussions of doing so? I’m not denying that interference happened but so far nothing shows that the outcome would have been any different.

Which supports Pierre's safe stance that it wasn't affected. I think all the interference, intimidation, and propaganda did affect the election by giving Liberal MPs an advantage.

You are welcome to think that. Opinions are opinions. It isn’t a safe stance, it is a reasonable stance. When he unequivocally said that I nodded in agreement. He didn’t stoop to bottom barrel politics. Good on him. If evidence comes out that the election outcome was compromised then I expect him to call it out. So far nothing points to that.

Han Dong secretly met with a Chinese diplomat in Vancouver under an ambiguous reason for travel and failed to inform the PMO as per protocol. Han Dong also conveniently avoided votes about Uyghur genocide in the parliament twice. Ducking out and coming back after. I'm comfortable with a where there's smoke there's fire view.

And now a defamation suit has been filed as the news agency that published that may have made a few mistakes. Another news agency wisely opted not to run with the same story due to the unreliability of the sources.

 

[JLB50]

An interesting question, but not the one I'm concerned with, which is "what does the minority do when the majority imposes itself"? A doctrine of unlimited might-makes-right is a non-starter for me, which leaves a spectrum all the way down to pure laissez-faire. What majoritarian impositions are unreasonable; how unreasonable does an imposition have to be to warrant all-other-means-exhausted responses?

Very true. I’m all in favour of dissent. But then what do you think should be done? Should one go outside the law? Should one commit acts of violence against the state? In another thread I remarked on an essay (A Plea for Captain John Brown) by Henry David Thoreau who argued that there are times when the state is morally wrong (e.g. slavery) and that violence against the state may sometimes be the only recourse available to end that wrong. In the case of the 1850s U.S., slavery was still an accepted institution in many states.

But do you feel that the minority opinion here is so direfully oppressed that an election will never work? Mind you, if all else fails at least there’s the option of secession for some. I do, however, agree with using protests to change public opinions providing the protests don’t get out of hand. Some would say the Black Lives Matter movement (especially in response to George Floyd’s murder) or the Freedom Convoy protesters were right, while others would argue they were wrong and went too far. I think both had valid points that needed to be expressed. From my standpoint, however, I saw too many such protests, especially the anti-war protest, turning into riots when I was attending university in the U.S. in the late ‘60s. Many of those who led the protests were pretty hard core individuals who wanted to bring down the government totally. Regardless, innocent people got hurt or killed; I happened to know the sister of one of the four students who were killed by the National Guard at Kent State University.

It may be that, as a result of what I saw or people I knew who were affected, I am personally somewhat biased against many acts of disobedience. So you can take that into account in deciding if or how much I’m full of crap.

 

[Good2Golf]

Because as of yet there is nothing saying the election outcome would have been any different. He’s stating it as a fact. Are you saying he really believes that it was affected but isn’t saying it because he fears the repercussions of doing so? I’m not denying that interference happened but so far nothing shows that the outcome would have been any different.

The slippery slope.

Critical thought should include consideration as to why, and let’s accept this to be true for the moment, the election outcome wasn’t affected? Does this mean that the elections (‘15, ‘19, ‘21) would have had the same outcome in the sense of majority/minority for the LPC? Or do some people think there would have been a similar outcome at the riding level?

Or an even more challenging question, were the outcomes the way they were because there was some element of protective action that took place? Just good luck? Deliberate action by the CCP to only interfere ‘so much?’

Some of the latter questions above then beget further consideration…what if the CCP ‘throttled’ its efforts for some grander plan…testing the waters at first to see how accepting/compliant Canadians would be once it became known that the Chinese Government had conducted illegal action (and interference in an election is illegal, not a ‘oh, only XX seats we affected, so it’s either a misdemeanor/non-criminal or just a naughty thing), perhaps? If it was adjusted and tuned by the CCP, who’s to say it couldn’t be dialed up next time to impact the election more substantively?

That many people believe that simply saying “well, it didn’t make a difference anyway so it really isn’t such a bad thing — people are making a mountain out of a molehill” is an incredibly naive and dare I say irresponsible position to take. The apologists shouldn’t be surprised years down the road if inaction leads Canada into de facto vassal statehood. It certainly isn’t something I want some of us to be correct in saying “we told you so.”

 

[QV]

So you disagree with most officials, all leaders of the opposition including Pierre Poilievre that the outcome was not affected? It’s ok if you do but just wondering.

You say that like leaders of all kinds at all levels have never lied about something because the truth would be very damaging.

 

[Jarnhamar]

.Are you saying he really believes that it was affected but isn’t saying it because he fears the repercussions of doing so? I’m not denying that interference happened but so far nothing shows that the outcome would have been any different.

I can't read his mind of course. I think it's quite plausible. He's not stupid and knows how to play the game.

You are welcome to think that.

Okay.

If evidence comes out that the election outcome was compromised then I expect him to call it out. So far nothing points to that.

Here's to hoping. I know we disagree on the suitability of the Special Rapporteur picked to investigate.

And now a defamation suit has been filed as the news agency that published that may have made a few mistakes. Another news agency wisely opted not to run with the same story due to the unreliability of the sources.

That will be fun to watch. Claiming innocence and filing a lawsuit does little to make me think he's innocent, time should tell.

If I can change gears and circle back to something I said above- Han Dong.

Why do you think he omitted (I'd say hid) the fact he met with a Chinese diplomat under ambiguous travel reasons and why do you suppose he skipped out on that Chinese genocide vote, twice?

 

[Remius]

You say that like leaders of all kinds at all levels have never lied about something because the truth would be very damaging.

Leaders of all stripes have lied sure.

This is a curious line of thinking though.

So you think he’s lying? Your comment seems to indicate he might be. More importantly is lying like that justified to avoid something damaging?

Would you ascribe then that same line of thinking when he said he was pro choice? To avoid something damaging? Plenty of people may think that he is.

Just an FYI I don’t think he is lying in either case. It’s something I respected him for in both cases even if I don’t like him much at this time.

He’s very vague at times and avoids questions but I’m not sure he’s lied yet.

 

[ArmyRick]

@Remius "avoids questions but ..."

On that note

@Jarnhamar "Why do you think he omitted (I'd say hid) the fact he met with a Chinese diplomat under ambiguous travel reasons and why do you suppose he skipped out on that Chinese genocide vote, twice?"

Ahem?

 

[Remius]

I can't read his mind of course. I think it's quite plausible. He's not stupid and knows how to play the game.


Okay.


Here's to hoping. I know we disagree on the suitability of the Special Rapporteur picked to investigate.

True we did, my thought on that has actually changed given actual facts that came to light that I was not aware of. Do I think he is a good good character and capable, yes. But given the fact that he was on that board and apparently a childhood friend of the family, he is in hindsight not the best choice. My opinion can shift you know.

That will be fun to watch. Claiming innocence and filing a lawsuit does little to make me think he's innocent, time should tell.

That’s fair.

If I can change gears and circle back to something I said above- Han Dong.

Why do you think he omitted (I'd say hid) the fact he met with a Chinese diplomat under ambiguous travel reasons and why do you suppose he skipped out on that Chinese genocide vote, twice?

No clue. Yet.

But there is also a lot out there about PP softening the CPC (ie O’toole’s) stance China for reasons I assume are similar.

I’m not saying he’s innocent, I think there is smoke and should be investigated further but I’m not quite where I was when this first broke and was thinking he was guilty. I’ve gone from “this doesn’t look good” to “maybe there is more to it.”

 

[QV]

Leaders of all stripes have lied sure.

This is a curious line of thinking though.

So you think he’s lying? Your comment seems to indicate he might be. More importantly is lying like that justified to avoid something damaging?

Would you ascribe then that same line of thinking when he said he was pro choice? To avoid something damaging? Plenty of people may think that he is.

Just an FYI I don’t think he is lying in either case. It’s something I respected him for in both cases even if I don’t like him much at this time.

He’s very vague at times and avoids questions but I’m not sure he’s lied yet.

I think Trudeau and everyone in positions to know who state the CCP election interference did nothing is lying because the truth would be catastrophic.

On that subject, PP is not fully in the know and is taking the safe road by agreeing with those who ought to know, because if he didn't he'd be vilified as Trump north by stating the election outcome was changed absent publicly available evidence.

 

[Remius]

@Remius "avoids questions but ..."

On that note

@Jarnhamar "Why do you think he omitted (I'd say hid) the fact he met with a Chinese diplomat under ambiguous travel reasons and why do you suppose he skipped out on that Chinese genocide vote, twice?"

Ahem?

Where did I avoid a question?

 

[ArmyRick]

Not now. Thanks. Your all caught up.

 

[QV]

But there is also a lot out there about PP softening the CPC (ie O’toole’s) stance China for reasons I assume are similar.

I’m not saying he’s innocent, I think there is smoke and should be investigated further but I’m not quite where I was when this first broke and was thinking he was guilty. I’ve gone from “this doesn’t look good” to “maybe there is more to it.”

I'm guessing PP softened the stance on CCP because he knows the CPC will have a hard time getting elected so long as the CCP is helping the LPC and continuing to get away with it.

 

[ArmyRick]

I don't think some here appreciate PP political tactical ability

 

[Remius]

Not now. Thanks. Your all caught up.

What?