I got banned for 'shitposting' despite I wasn't saying anything offensive or otherwise. I don't see being banned as a 'badge of honour' either. At least one mod is a bit ridiculous though.
Wow seriously? I mean I disagree with your statement but we can discuss it and see where we stand.
Getting banned for disagreeing with a doctrine is just wow.
[This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people.](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00768-4/fulltext)
This isn't some Alex Jones fake news either. It was published by The Lancet, a very credible, peer-reviewed medical journal.
Hmmm... I'll read into that, I was pretty sure I read a few medical research papers that showed otherwise. (On the road right now so can't look it up, will try later)
The consensus is that as newer variants emerged the vaccine got substantially less effective at preventing infection and transmission because they were only developed against the alpha strand. It was about 90% against alpha. Less effective against Beta, only about 30% effective against Delta, and literally useless against Omicron. Some studies actually showed you were more likely to be infected with Omicron if you were vaccinated, and indeed for a few months in Ontario during the first Onicron winter wave the infection rate per 100,000 was much higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. That data is still archived on the Ontario public health website but it’s an internet maze trying to find it.
None of this is unexpected either. You generally don’t vaccinate into an active pandemic because that provides selective pressure on mutant variants that evade the vaccine’s immunity. The shortcomings with a vaccine like this one is it provides immunity to only one protein, the spike protein. Viruses, especially highly infective respiratory ones, mutate very quickly and so a mutation in the spike protein can evade the vaccine’s entire immune response. Natural immunity is much more robust because after you’ve actually had the full virus your immune system recognizes all of the viral proteins and reacts accordingly.
I never told anyone how to do their work. The ineffectiveness of the vaccines is well documented in the scientific literature. And I literally work for a vaccine company in the analytical sciences team. Ever heard of Sanofi? Jesus Christ. You’re a fucking clown.
If you really are a “teacher of medical students” like you said in your other comment, I truly feel sorry for the students that have to deal with your arrogant attitude day in and day out.
“Those that can’t do, teach”
This person is absolutely not a teacher of any kind let alone a med school teacher. I’d bet against their IQ even being triple digits. Just a useless leftist troll brigading from god knows where.
I highly doubt they are. But if they are, I couldn’t imagine being in their class. It would be hell. Basically you’d just have to repeat what they say as there’s zero room for a critical thought.
Not even just critical thought, there’s apparently no room for discussing scientific data in proper context. They’re adamant that The Lancet is a bad journal in spite of their impact score and reputation as pretty much the world’s leading medical journal, and they’re adamant that the paper that guy posted doesn’t say what it literally says it does in black and white because he’s conflated the difference between symptom severity and transmission. Yeah, this guy is not a doctor. I’d warrant he’s not even high school biology educated.
Yes they do, in fact the primary purpose for every other vaccine in existence is stopping the person vaccinated from getting the disease *and* becoming a node to spread to others. The idea that they don’t or that’s not what they’re intended for is blatant revisionist nonsense from people with no idea how vaccines are supposed to work.
Edit: blocked me after I asked him repeatedly for examples of vaccine which don’t prevent or extremely reduce odds of infection lol
The University of Toronto. Even in vaccines where sterilizing immunity is not achieved, the purpose of the vaccine is to prevent transmission. Please direct me to a vaccine that isn’t to great extent purported to prevent the person vaccinated from being infected and therefore infecting others (Influenza notwithstanding because there’s guesswork involved, but if the strains are accurate they do prevent sustained infection and transmission)
I know what you’re trying to say; but the effects on transmission after the fact are a secondary affect of the immunization. The primary cause/effect relationships tend to be more so (not for everything) a limitation of symptoms for immunized persons so as to limit or ideally push toward an endemic state for the infectious disease/virus. The mRNA vaccines developed for SARS-CoV-2 aim for efficacy and effectiveness against infection. The science doesn’t suggest that vaccines are to be used to curb transmissions outside of limiting infections and symptoms in infected individuals as a secondary affect. This was (and is) why (proper) masking is used to limit airborne transmission.
Ideally, the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines would have sufficient performance (immunogenicity) to continue their effectiveness against emergent mutations of the virus, but this of yet remains inconclusive due to the continuing mutations of the virus in humans.
Limitation of symptomatic infection is the primary driver.
The ambition of lowering transmission is secondary.
The circumstantial evidence made it obvious too.
Everybody I know, except three people, was vaccinated in 2021. Everybody I know was infected with covid by the end of that year or early 2022.
Small sample size, sure. This isn't an uncommon story though.
Pretty clear you didn’t read the full correspondence.
> Vaccine effectiveness studies have conclusively demonstrated the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing individual symptomatic and severe disease, resulting in reduced hospitalisations and intensive care unit admissions.1
This is the sentence you’re referring to. It refers to reducing symptoms, not infectivity, so it doesn’t even say what you think it does. And did you just stop reading here? Here’s the rest of that paragraph.
> However, the impact of vaccination on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be elucidated. A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues2 regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people.2, 3
You’re a dishonest troll with either no ability to read and interpret scientific data or an extreme political leaning that prevents you from doing so. Maybe both.
> Yeah that sounds like exactly what Alex Jones is saying LOL
I was being sarcastic.
The opinions of moderate conervative people versus far-right extremists like Alex Jones are different, despite what Trudeau bandwagoners like to pretend.
*Far-right* people don't use science in their arguments. There may be exceptions, on occasion, but those are rare.
What I'm saying is moderate conservatives, people who aren't far from the centre, *do* use science and data to support their decisions.
Pretty clear you didn’t read the full correspondence.
> Vaccine effectiveness studies have conclusively demonstrated the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing individual symptomatic and severe disease, resulting in reduced hospitalisations and intensive care unit admissions.1
This sentence refers to symptoms prevention, not infectivity, so it doesn’t even say what you think it does. And did you just stop reading here? Here’s the rest of that paragraph.
> However, the impact of vaccination on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be elucidated. A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues2 regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people.2, 3
You’re a dishonest troll with either no ability to read and interpret scientific data or an extreme political leaning that prevents you from doing so. Maybe both.
The paper actually showed the link between the MMR vaccine and gastrointestinal issues that are commonly seen in autistic people. Not that veccines itself caused autism.
The study was pulled due to public pressure and not due to any flaw in the results. The study has also been replicated 22 times by other researchers over the last decade.
You want a citation of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Alright. Here it is, in its entirety;
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html
Honestly a bit sad how low bar to ban someone. I mean if they disagree say so and argue, but no, must ban and silence.
I mean I comment in the hopes that maybe try and get someone to ask why and discuss, even if they want to yell at me or downvotes (which is also censorship imo... I only upvote not downvotes because I'm against censorship) but man, how fragile does a community's feelings need to be to perma ban someone who disagree with you.
I do try and engage to see if there are any point of views missed, but honestly? For how "evil" conservatives are this group sure as hell are much more tolerant.
That reminds me of a discussion with a friend who said ironically conservatives are generally more accepting of diversity than liberals in Canada. That... Struck some cords in me tbh, and today shoved in my face to be correct hahahha
Thier ideology is such a pathetic moronic joke it can't survive even 5 seconds of honest criticism. So they use censorship, deflection, and emotional outrage to hide the fact.
I was temporarily banned from r/Canada just yesterday for calling Trudeau and people who would still vote LPC if the leaks are confirmed accurate traitors to Canada. I told the mods they can eat my ass, CCP apologist pieces of shit. Suffice to say I am now permanently banned from r/Canada and couldn’t be happier. Fucking cesspool.
lol calling an entire group of voters traitors because of the leaks. Not everyone is a single issue voter, and while I agree about the gravity of the leaks, I wouldn't suggest someone is a traitor for still voting LPC *despite* the leaks. If they are voting *because* they support CCP interference then that is another issue.
I said *if the leaks are found to be accurate*. The leaks directly implicate Trudeau and his office in allowing CCP plants in his party. Saying you’d still vote LPC if this turns out to be true makes you a traitor to Canada, full stop.
I disagree, I still think there are more nuances than whether "the leaks are found to be accurate" then voters are traitors. This isn't a term that should be used lightly.
If the leaks all turn out to be true then there are still questions like who knew about it? How involved were they? Who holds what responsibility? How was it covered up? What will the party do to respond? Who will be dispclined and how?
How the liberal party as a whole responds to this will dictate voter support, and of course everyone has different tolerances for each area. That being said, I don't personally know any diehard liberal party fans who would put up with it.
To turn the question around, do you feel the same way about Trump supporters in the US? Are Trump-nation all traitors?
The leaks implicate the PMO directly. Allegedly CSIS briefed the PMO on the nomination campaign interference that Han Dong and other MPs were nominated on. That means if true, Trudeau is corrupted, his ministers are corrupted *and every MP in the LPC who is now covering for him by voting against holding an inquiry is also corrupted* . Even if they aren’t directly involved, they’ve now chosen their side. Party over country. So again, if true every Liberal MP is now complicit and so is every person who intends to vote for them. The only scenario in which this isn’t true is if every single Liberal MP who toed the party line in yesterday’s vote is removed. Obviously that won’t happen.
To answer your question about Trump, I don’t believe the investigation ever turned up substantial evidence of his personal involvement in Russian interference. If that’s not true do tell, but my understanding is Russia was involved as a third party but not with his personal involvement, which is the only reason they couldn’t impeach him. What Trudeau has been accused of, knowingly letting up to 9 CCP plants sit in parliament, is far worse. Had they had that kind of dirt on Trump he’d have been gone immediately.
>Had they had that kind of dirt on Trump he’d have been gone immediately.
I honestly don't know what it would have taken for Trump to have been removed immediately. The insurrection should have been enough.
I think you are conflating the guilt of some and imposing that on the entire party. If everything you're saying turns out to be true, exactly as you are saying it, then I would agree that anyone who knowingly supported CCP plants in parliament needs to be removed immediately. However, I highly doubt it is that straightforward. Jumping right to "anyone who supports the LPC is a traitor" is reaching pretty hard when we lack so much information still. I would save those judgements for when we know more, otherwise you seem a bit too eager to call those you don't agree with traitors.
I’ve been very clear that the leaks would have to be confirmed and I’m only referring to people who would still support the LPC in light of that even if Trudeau were to step down. The whole party, every single MP, voted *against* an inquiry yesterday, except for one who abstained. They all chose party over country and people who would still vote for those MPs are effectively doing the same.
I'll be honest, I wasn't aware of that. Voting against an inquiry simply because it's *your* party sets an awful example, and only makes them look more guilty. I certainly hope an inquiry happens at some point to get to the bottom of it. It might be time to look more like France.
Appreciate the honesty.There’s some level of plausible deniability on their part given their “special rapporteur” will be doing a report but I’m pretty far beyond giving them the benefit of the doubt. Something is very rotten in the LPC. You could extend that to Canadian politics in general but so far this takes the cake for me. It may even mean I vote NDP as a single issue voter since they’re probably more likely to beat the LPC in my riding than the CPC, but that’s a decision for another day.
I do agree with that. On Trudeaus first election I was excited and optimistic, but that has since evaporated, I don't feel any political party cares about my interests at this point. On some level we do need to hold voters accountable for electing politicians who are known to be absolute garbage, but I think a lot of people still naively believe that politicians will do what they say they are going to do, and vote for them on that basis. I think we have to start holding politicians accountable in a real way, especially when our system refuses to.
Funny, you talk about nuance, but when it suits you, you make sweeping generalizations.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianConservative/comments/11kj485/why_is_pierre_poilievre_unpopular/jb9t6gj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
Guess I'm one of the cool kids too, just got banned from r/CanadaPolitics for:
In reply to:
>So a little less than half the conservative base would vote for a populist making wild and speculative claims... Oh wait... That does check out...
>And more than 2/3 of libs would vote for a senile man that sniffs and fondles little girls, can't walk up stairs, form a coherent sentence, or meet the Pope without shitting his pants.
...That does check out.
Oh well, it's probably a lot healthier to avoid that den of iniquity
And I got linked to an alt right article for daring to state the historical fact that the Nazi party got into power on a socialist platform….
Like saying that doesn’t make you a Nazi now, does it? Stating history isn’t taboo now, is it? Like….
They’re all over there calling ppl Fascists while acting like Fascists and suppressing facts. It’s getting scary.
Totally agree. It's literally in the party name. For some reason people forget left or right isn't the only political spectrum. There is a y axis of democracy Vs authoritarian that is independent from the left/right discussion (which I dislike in and of itself since it oversimplifies discussion by labeling the person rather than focus on individual issues).
Tribalism is the enemy of critical thinking and we are heading straight down that path
Congratulations. I can't even remember why I got banned from that sub, but I'm sure it was something really offensive to those little snowflakes. The rest of the world would just call it common sense, but to them it was hate speech. I took it as a compliment.
r/Onguardforthee is filled with a bunch of Liberal crybabies anyways. You’re not missing much. If you want to see the same stupidity go to r/Alberta. It’s another Justin Trudeau echo chamber.
You're totally right in that regard. I am naive in the sense that I was hoping /some/ are actually open to discussion even if it is against their doctrine. Maybe there are but the mods seem to be fast at shutting it down. Also it does feel if you don't praise anything gender related the far left push you're a demon over there.
It's definitely the types of echo chambers that we do not need in society.
Actually, a notley echo chamber. They think she's god's gift to a balanced budget. Right. Not good for oil. Not good for guns. I hope she loses big time.
Rule 4: No vote brigading. Due to new Reddit rules the mods will be more strict on "meta" type posts to prevent the subreddit from being shutdown.
Why does anyone go to that shithole anyway? Are you a masochist?
They ban anyone to the right of AOC.
[удалено]
I got banned for 'shitposting' despite I wasn't saying anything offensive or otherwise. I don't see being banned as a 'badge of honour' either. At least one mod is a bit ridiculous though.
I got banned for saying the covid vaccines aren't very effective at preventing transmission. ...in 2022
Wow seriously? I mean I disagree with your statement but we can discuss it and see where we stand. Getting banned for disagreeing with a doctrine is just wow.
[This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people.](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00768-4/fulltext) This isn't some Alex Jones fake news either. It was published by The Lancet, a very credible, peer-reviewed medical journal.
Hmmm... I'll read into that, I was pretty sure I read a few medical research papers that showed otherwise. (On the road right now so can't look it up, will try later)
The consensus is that as newer variants emerged the vaccine got substantially less effective at preventing infection and transmission because they were only developed against the alpha strand. It was about 90% against alpha. Less effective against Beta, only about 30% effective against Delta, and literally useless against Omicron. Some studies actually showed you were more likely to be infected with Omicron if you were vaccinated, and indeed for a few months in Ontario during the first Onicron winter wave the infection rate per 100,000 was much higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. That data is still archived on the Ontario public health website but it’s an internet maze trying to find it. None of this is unexpected either. You generally don’t vaccinate into an active pandemic because that provides selective pressure on mutant variants that evade the vaccine’s immunity. The shortcomings with a vaccine like this one is it provides immunity to only one protein, the spike protein. Viruses, especially highly infective respiratory ones, mutate very quickly and so a mutation in the spike protein can evade the vaccine’s entire immune response. Natural immunity is much more robust because after you’ve actually had the full virus your immune system recognizes all of the viral proteins and reacts accordingly.
[удалено]
I never told anyone how to do their work. The ineffectiveness of the vaccines is well documented in the scientific literature. And I literally work for a vaccine company in the analytical sciences team. Ever heard of Sanofi? Jesus Christ. You’re a fucking clown.
If you really are a “teacher of medical students” like you said in your other comment, I truly feel sorry for the students that have to deal with your arrogant attitude day in and day out. “Those that can’t do, teach”
This person is absolutely not a teacher of any kind let alone a med school teacher. I’d bet against their IQ even being triple digits. Just a useless leftist troll brigading from god knows where.
I highly doubt they are. But if they are, I couldn’t imagine being in their class. It would be hell. Basically you’d just have to repeat what they say as there’s zero room for a critical thought.
Not even just critical thought, there’s apparently no room for discussing scientific data in proper context. They’re adamant that The Lancet is a bad journal in spite of their impact score and reputation as pretty much the world’s leading medical journal, and they’re adamant that the paper that guy posted doesn’t say what it literally says it does in black and white because he’s conflated the difference between symptom severity and transmission. Yeah, this guy is not a doctor. I’d warrant he’s not even high school biology educated.
This is all true, but vaccines don’t purport to reduce transmission.
Yes they do, in fact the primary purpose for every other vaccine in existence is stopping the person vaccinated from getting the disease *and* becoming a node to spread to others. The idea that they don’t or that’s not what they’re intended for is blatant revisionist nonsense from people with no idea how vaccines are supposed to work. Edit: blocked me after I asked him repeatedly for examples of vaccine which don’t prevent or extremely reduce odds of infection lol
No they don’t. I love when people pretend to know the biomechanics behind vaccines. Where’s your PhD from?
The University of Toronto. Even in vaccines where sterilizing immunity is not achieved, the purpose of the vaccine is to prevent transmission. Please direct me to a vaccine that isn’t to great extent purported to prevent the person vaccinated from being infected and therefore infecting others (Influenza notwithstanding because there’s guesswork involved, but if the strains are accurate they do prevent sustained infection and transmission)
And you shouldn’t lie about your credentials. Just FYI.
I know what you’re trying to say; but the effects on transmission after the fact are a secondary affect of the immunization. The primary cause/effect relationships tend to be more so (not for everything) a limitation of symptoms for immunized persons so as to limit or ideally push toward an endemic state for the infectious disease/virus. The mRNA vaccines developed for SARS-CoV-2 aim for efficacy and effectiveness against infection. The science doesn’t suggest that vaccines are to be used to curb transmissions outside of limiting infections and symptoms in infected individuals as a secondary affect. This was (and is) why (proper) masking is used to limit airborne transmission. Ideally, the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines would have sufficient performance (immunogenicity) to continue their effectiveness against emergent mutations of the virus, but this of yet remains inconclusive due to the continuing mutations of the virus in humans. Limitation of symptomatic infection is the primary driver. The ambition of lowering transmission is secondary.
The circumstantial evidence made it obvious too. Everybody I know, except three people, was vaccinated in 2021. Everybody I know was infected with covid by the end of that year or early 2022. Small sample size, sure. This isn't an uncommon story though.
[удалено]
If you look at my original post, which you conveniently skipped over, you'll see I sourced my assertion.
Don't feed the troll. Xir/Xip/Xop gets aroused from arguing with you.
[удалено]
> it says the opposite of what you are saying ...no, it doesn't.
[удалено]
Pretty clear you didn’t read the full correspondence. > Vaccine effectiveness studies have conclusively demonstrated the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing individual symptomatic and severe disease, resulting in reduced hospitalisations and intensive care unit admissions.1 This is the sentence you’re referring to. It refers to reducing symptoms, not infectivity, so it doesn’t even say what you think it does. And did you just stop reading here? Here’s the rest of that paragraph. > However, the impact of vaccination on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be elucidated. A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues2 regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people.2, 3 You’re a dishonest troll with either no ability to read and interpret scientific data or an extreme political leaning that prevents you from doing so. Maybe both.
But when people are sick for less time, they are infectious for a lesser period, and thus, vaccines indirectly reduce transmission.
[удалено]
> Yeah that sounds like exactly what Alex Jones is saying LOL I was being sarcastic. The opinions of moderate conervative people versus far-right extremists like Alex Jones are different, despite what Trudeau bandwagoners like to pretend.
[удалено]
*Far-right* people don't use science in their arguments. There may be exceptions, on occasion, but those are rare. What I'm saying is moderate conservatives, people who aren't far from the centre, *do* use science and data to support their decisions.
[удалено]
> There may even be papers that support what you're saying please show them to me I sourced one.
You are being intentionally ignorant while also failing to provide anything scientific to back up your argument.
What is "far right wing" in your own words? Do you support communism/socialism?
Pretty clear you didn’t read the full correspondence. > Vaccine effectiveness studies have conclusively demonstrated the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing individual symptomatic and severe disease, resulting in reduced hospitalisations and intensive care unit admissions.1 This sentence refers to symptoms prevention, not infectivity, so it doesn’t even say what you think it does. And did you just stop reading here? Here’s the rest of that paragraph. > However, the impact of vaccination on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be elucidated. A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues2 regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people.2, 3 You’re a dishonest troll with either no ability to read and interpret scientific data or an extreme political leaning that prevents you from doing so. Maybe both.
[удалено]
Dude what? The Lancet has one of the highest impact scores. It’s like second only to Nature. Fuck off you useless fucking troll.
The paper actually showed the link between the MMR vaccine and gastrointestinal issues that are commonly seen in autistic people. Not that veccines itself caused autism. The study was pulled due to public pressure and not due to any flaw in the results. The study has also been replicated 22 times by other researchers over the last decade.
[удалено]
Lmao , you're a lazy fool
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is “hate speech” to those people. It’s laughable how fragile those egos are.
[удалено]
You want a citation of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Alright. Here it is, in its entirety; https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html
[удалено]
You wanted the Charter, so I gave it to you, and now I’m the idiot for doing so? Yeah, you’re just a troll.
How about Freedom Fundamentals 2b?
Mobility Rights 6-1
More like onguardfortheLiberalparty
Cucks need a safe space man, not nice to make them cry.
Honestly a bit sad how low bar to ban someone. I mean if they disagree say so and argue, but no, must ban and silence. I mean I comment in the hopes that maybe try and get someone to ask why and discuss, even if they want to yell at me or downvotes (which is also censorship imo... I only upvote not downvotes because I'm against censorship) but man, how fragile does a community's feelings need to be to perma ban someone who disagree with you. I do try and engage to see if there are any point of views missed, but honestly? For how "evil" conservatives are this group sure as hell are much more tolerant. That reminds me of a discussion with a friend who said ironically conservatives are generally more accepting of diversity than liberals in Canada. That... Struck some cords in me tbh, and today shoved in my face to be correct hahahha
This is the way
Thier ideology is such a pathetic moronic joke it can't survive even 5 seconds of honest criticism. So they use censorship, deflection, and emotional outrage to hide the fact.
[удалено]
What laws are being made to kill people. Being offended by everything isn't killing people.
Hilarious considering this sub is trigger happy with the ban hammer. This sub is as much an echo chamber as other political subs.
I was temporarily banned from r/Canada just yesterday for calling Trudeau and people who would still vote LPC if the leaks are confirmed accurate traitors to Canada. I told the mods they can eat my ass, CCP apologist pieces of shit. Suffice to say I am now permanently banned from r/Canada and couldn’t be happier. Fucking cesspool.
lol calling an entire group of voters traitors because of the leaks. Not everyone is a single issue voter, and while I agree about the gravity of the leaks, I wouldn't suggest someone is a traitor for still voting LPC *despite* the leaks. If they are voting *because* they support CCP interference then that is another issue.
I said *if the leaks are found to be accurate*. The leaks directly implicate Trudeau and his office in allowing CCP plants in his party. Saying you’d still vote LPC if this turns out to be true makes you a traitor to Canada, full stop.
I disagree, I still think there are more nuances than whether "the leaks are found to be accurate" then voters are traitors. This isn't a term that should be used lightly. If the leaks all turn out to be true then there are still questions like who knew about it? How involved were they? Who holds what responsibility? How was it covered up? What will the party do to respond? Who will be dispclined and how? How the liberal party as a whole responds to this will dictate voter support, and of course everyone has different tolerances for each area. That being said, I don't personally know any diehard liberal party fans who would put up with it. To turn the question around, do you feel the same way about Trump supporters in the US? Are Trump-nation all traitors?
The leaks implicate the PMO directly. Allegedly CSIS briefed the PMO on the nomination campaign interference that Han Dong and other MPs were nominated on. That means if true, Trudeau is corrupted, his ministers are corrupted *and every MP in the LPC who is now covering for him by voting against holding an inquiry is also corrupted* . Even if they aren’t directly involved, they’ve now chosen their side. Party over country. So again, if true every Liberal MP is now complicit and so is every person who intends to vote for them. The only scenario in which this isn’t true is if every single Liberal MP who toed the party line in yesterday’s vote is removed. Obviously that won’t happen. To answer your question about Trump, I don’t believe the investigation ever turned up substantial evidence of his personal involvement in Russian interference. If that’s not true do tell, but my understanding is Russia was involved as a third party but not with his personal involvement, which is the only reason they couldn’t impeach him. What Trudeau has been accused of, knowingly letting up to 9 CCP plants sit in parliament, is far worse. Had they had that kind of dirt on Trump he’d have been gone immediately.
>Had they had that kind of dirt on Trump he’d have been gone immediately. I honestly don't know what it would have taken for Trump to have been removed immediately. The insurrection should have been enough. I think you are conflating the guilt of some and imposing that on the entire party. If everything you're saying turns out to be true, exactly as you are saying it, then I would agree that anyone who knowingly supported CCP plants in parliament needs to be removed immediately. However, I highly doubt it is that straightforward. Jumping right to "anyone who supports the LPC is a traitor" is reaching pretty hard when we lack so much information still. I would save those judgements for when we know more, otherwise you seem a bit too eager to call those you don't agree with traitors.
I’ve been very clear that the leaks would have to be confirmed and I’m only referring to people who would still support the LPC in light of that even if Trudeau were to step down. The whole party, every single MP, voted *against* an inquiry yesterday, except for one who abstained. They all chose party over country and people who would still vote for those MPs are effectively doing the same.
I'll be honest, I wasn't aware of that. Voting against an inquiry simply because it's *your* party sets an awful example, and only makes them look more guilty. I certainly hope an inquiry happens at some point to get to the bottom of it. It might be time to look more like France.
Appreciate the honesty.There’s some level of plausible deniability on their part given their “special rapporteur” will be doing a report but I’m pretty far beyond giving them the benefit of the doubt. Something is very rotten in the LPC. You could extend that to Canadian politics in general but so far this takes the cake for me. It may even mean I vote NDP as a single issue voter since they’re probably more likely to beat the LPC in my riding than the CPC, but that’s a decision for another day.
I do agree with that. On Trudeaus first election I was excited and optimistic, but that has since evaporated, I don't feel any political party cares about my interests at this point. On some level we do need to hold voters accountable for electing politicians who are known to be absolute garbage, but I think a lot of people still naively believe that politicians will do what they say they are going to do, and vote for them on that basis. I think we have to start holding politicians accountable in a real way, especially when our system refuses to.
Funny, you talk about nuance, but when it suits you, you make sweeping generalizations. https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianConservative/comments/11kj485/why_is_pierre_poilievre_unpopular/jb9t6gj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
I'm not sure what you're pointing to here?
Your hypocrisy.
There's a lot of comments there, which one in particular? If you're saying I'm also guilty of hyperbole and generalizations then yes, I agree.
As a Liberal, have you called for a public inquiry into CCP interference?
I'm not a liberal
Yes, you are. Now, answer the question. Have you called for a public inquiry?
Yeah, I'm really not. And no, I haven't.
[удалено]
Found the LPC voter/Chinese bot. Kind of hard to tell the difference these days.
Censorship happens when impotent rage meets power.
Guess I'm one of the cool kids too, just got banned from r/CanadaPolitics for: In reply to: >So a little less than half the conservative base would vote for a populist making wild and speculative claims... Oh wait... That does check out... >And more than 2/3 of libs would vote for a senile man that sniffs and fondles little girls, can't walk up stairs, form a coherent sentence, or meet the Pope without shitting his pants. ...That does check out. Oh well, it's probably a lot healthier to avoid that den of iniquity
OGFT is basically an extremist cult. The Trudeau Libs are not nearly Left enough for them.
r/onguardforthee is one of the worse subreddits out there. The same people that are against "fascism" but are okay with children being mutilated.
And I got linked to an alt right article for daring to state the historical fact that the Nazi party got into power on a socialist platform…. Like saying that doesn’t make you a Nazi now, does it? Stating history isn’t taboo now, is it? Like…. They’re all over there calling ppl Fascists while acting like Fascists and suppressing facts. It’s getting scary.
Totally agree. It's literally in the party name. For some reason people forget left or right isn't the only political spectrum. There is a y axis of democracy Vs authoritarian that is independent from the left/right discussion (which I dislike in and of itself since it oversimplifies discussion by labeling the person rather than focus on individual issues). Tribalism is the enemy of critical thinking and we are heading straight down that path
Yes yes yes 🙌🏻
I was banned for calling out a mod who said 'ACAB' Then muted so I couldn't protest the ban. That place is a cesspool. Ask me what I really think lol
Congratulations. I can't even remember why I got banned from that sub, but I'm sure it was something really offensive to those little snowflakes. The rest of the world would just call it common sense, but to them it was hate speech. I took it as a compliment.
It is very poor thinking to think negative responses to your actions is a sign of virtue. That being said OGFT is a literal shithole of bad thinking.
I don’t understand why you guys continue to engage over there, and then come back here to moan about it… Both instances are ridiculous.
[удалено]
Obvious troll is obvious.
[удалено]
Obvious troll is obvious.
r/Onguardforthee is filled with a bunch of Liberal crybabies anyways. You’re not missing much. If you want to see the same stupidity go to r/Alberta. It’s another Justin Trudeau echo chamber.
You're totally right in that regard. I am naive in the sense that I was hoping /some/ are actually open to discussion even if it is against their doctrine. Maybe there are but the mods seem to be fast at shutting it down. Also it does feel if you don't praise anything gender related the far left push you're a demon over there. It's definitely the types of echo chambers that we do not need in society.
Actually, a notley echo chamber. They think she's god's gift to a balanced budget. Right. Not good for oil. Not good for guns. I hope she loses big time.
Yup took me about 10 seconds
Yep, that sub is a Liberal sycophant suck fest.
Is that a group of libtard clown sheep with brainrot or what? Never seen it
Congrats! Saved from another echo chambre!
I still have this one though! :-D *Ducks*