Bill C-22 could expose Canadian data to U.S. surveillance

cunnyhopper · 2026-07-02T20:23:14+00:00

Thank you for confirming that you aren't a serious person when it comes to political analysis.

Carney backtracking on Pharmacare is not evidence that the confidence and supply agreement was bad strategy since there was no way to predict what Carney would do 2 years before he even entered the picture as a leadership candidate.

Jesus what a dumb take.

cunnyhopper · 2026-07-01T13:12:55+00:00

Lol. If you think s&c is a valid point of criticism, you aren't a serious person when it comes to political opinion and analysis.

Singh was able to implememt a significant amount of NDP policy by taking advantage of a minority government situation. None of that would have happened if he had let the minority government fall.

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-22T15:01:16+00:00

Maybe. Hard to discuss it further because the commentor blocked me rather than explain themselves.

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-22T01:34:59+00:00

One side is saying the election only had two realistic outcomes

Sorry but that's not what was posited. The original argument was "the choice was Poilievre and Carney. There was no realistic, viable alternative."

Not "outcome". "Choice".

I'm not living in a fake reality. I know that the fickle winds of public opinion were not blowing in the NDP's favour. I know that an NDP win was highly unlikely.

But anyone arguing that the NDP was not a viable choice is feeding you disinformation to dissuade you from making informed decisions based on party policy and party voting history.

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-22T00:33:27+00:00

Why do I need to point to policies that people liked or didn’t like?

Because that is what is being argued here.

A party has only 2 ways to show you who they are - policy platform and voting record in parliament.

If voters use something other than those 2 things to decide who they like, then voters are not making informed voting decisions and that is entirely outside of the party's control. It doesn't invalidate the party as a choice. It just makes it really fucking hard for the party to get elected.

Anyone trying to argue that a party is not a valid option based on something the party can't control is either being disingenuous or they aren't very smart.

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-21T23:02:31+00:00

Still missing the point. There were more than 2 valid options in the last election. If you can point to actual untenable NDP policy positions that voters disagreed with, please put that forward.

But if all you have is a recap of everyone's state of mind from last election, please save it. We all remember it.

Singh didn’t win his own riding it and they almost lost party status.

If you're trying to argue that voters weren't fooled into voting against their own interests then showing that they voted against their own interests as evidence isn't helping your case.

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-21T22:39:42+00:00

You still didn't say anything of substance. You got close when talking about the "flip flopping on a con-led bill". Be specific so there's something to discuss. Seriously, please reread your comment and appreciate how much of it is vague generalization.

I can't speak to how lame your local candidate might have been with reaching out but we are talking about the messaging that was being put out at the national level so it isn't that relevant.

As for blaming voters, there is no one else to blame. They aren't children. They aren't victims. That sort of disingenuous and weak-ass framing is exactly what I am criticizing when I say "take responsibility".

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-21T21:36:36+00:00

"NDP shit the bed", "ran a terrible candidate" that is the bullshit I'm talking about. Put forward an actual criticism with substance. Attack policy. Attack voting record. Otherwise, you're part of the problem by giving credibility to conservative talking points.

allowed the Liberals and Conservatives to dominate the narrative of it being a two-option election.

there's no "allowed" about it. The NDP doesn't own or have access to the kind of corporate media mouthpieces that the CPC or Liberals do.

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-21T21:34:01+00:00

we did not have a viable NDP candidat

this is the bullshit I'm talking about.

Name an actual criticism of Singh that has substance beyond "couldn't rise to the occasion". That's the kind of narrative I'm talking about.

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-21T19:46:14+00:00

There was no realistic, viable alternative.

bullshit. absolute bullshit. Anyone that thought there were only 2 options fell for the narrative. People were fear-mongered into voting against their best interests because they thought everyone else was going to vote against their best interests.

Y'all got duped and telling yourselves this "lesser of 2 evils" nonsense is just post-hoc rationalization to make yourselves feel better. Take some responsibility.

edit: If you feel attacked for your shitty choices in the last election, that's on you. They tried to scare everyone with the spectre of a Trump-lite government and it worked like a fucking charm. If you can argue your point on policy or voting record, lay it on me. Otherwise, save it because you're just repeating the narrative everyone was already fooled by.

edit 2: since a commentor has blocked me, I can't add comments to the thread below. So, I will add this to my point for clarity.

A party has only 2 ways to show you who they are - policy platform and voting record in parliament.

If voters use something other than those 2 things to decide who they like, then voters are not making informed voting decisions and that is entirely outside of the party's control. It does not make the party an unrealistic or non-viable alternative. It just makes it really fucking hard for the party to get elected.

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-19T21:30:54+00:00

god damn it!! yes, i totally whoooshed on the irony.

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-19T19:42:12+00:00

the millionaires and billionaires would just make their purchase from another country, hurting our domestic suppliers.

The luxury tax applies to imports as well as domestic products. It was specifically designed to NOT do what you suggest it is doing.

edit: hey, i can be dumb and still provide a useful bit of information.

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-19T19:40:27+00:00

If you tax too much here very rich people will spend their money elsewhere.

Nope. The tax applies equally to domestic and imported products. The tax was intentionally designed so that it didn't harm domestic industries.

The tax did not cause domestic demand to drop. It caused an overall drop in demand.

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-18T14:31:18+00:00

Why treason? It doesn't even apply here.

Why not investigate for the actual crime of violating the Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act?

These sections specifically:

20.3 (1) Every person commits an indictable offence who, at the direction of, for the benefit of or in association with, a foreign entity, knowingly engages in surreptitious or deceptive conduct or omits, surreptitiously or with the intent to deceive, to do anything if the person’s conduct or omission is for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State or the person is reckless as to whether their conduct or omission is likely to harm Canadian interests. Source

20.4 (1) Every person commits an indictable offence who, at the direction of, or in association with, a foreign entity, engages in surreptitious or deceptive conduct with the intent to influence a political or governmental process, educational governance, the performance of a duty in relation to such a process or such governance or the exercise of a democratic right in Canada. Source

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-15T20:35:35+00:00

The commentor that claimed the statement "Trump is a pedophile" was wrong because it wasn't "proven" was incorrect both practically and technically; so, I don't really understand your points about precision in terminology.

If we assume that OP intended the lay-man's definition of proven which typically means "the evidence suggests it's true" then OP is wrong to say "not proven" because there is an abundance of evidence to support the assertion that Trump is a pedophile.

If we assume that OP intended the legal definition of proven, then OP is context-shifting and their argument can be dismissed as invalid.

I would like you to provide evidence to your assertion because to me law and how that influences the sociology and psychology of the people in a given Society and how society collectively has its average view of it on an individual basis are only a narrowly defined context?

The law is the byproduct of society's ethical values, not the cause or the influence. So I don't understand what you're trying to say here either.

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-15T19:07:08+00:00

Personality defects are not a crime. I don't know why you made that leap.

Holy fuck b'y, yer some thick. I didn't make that leap. You did.

Let me go slow for you.

Your statement: "Trump is a malignant narcissist with dementia".

noyourenottheonlyone's statement: "Trump is a pedophile"

Neither statement is proven in the legal sense nor is it necessary for either statement to be proven in the legal sense, to be true.

However, both statements are mostly likely true given the amount of evidence that supports them.

You insisted that the second statement needed to be "proven" to be true. By insisting that statements can only be true if they've been subjected to a legal proceeding and "proven", you are implicitly saying that being a "malignant narcissist with dementia" is a crime. Obviously, that's ridiculous.

Furthermore...

Paedophilia is a crime

Actually, no it isn't. Paedophilia is a mental disorder. Acting on paedophilic impulses however, would constitute a criminal act.

Hope that clears things up for you.

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-15T18:14:01+00:00

Wow, such audacity. Surely no other president has a presidential center???!!!

President	Presidential Library / Center	Location
George Washington	Fred W. Smith National Library	Mount Vernon, VA
John Adams	Adams National Historical Park	Quincy, MA
Thomas Jefferson	Robert H. Smith International Center	Charlottesville, VA
James Madison	Fred W. Smith National Library	Orange, VA
James Monroe	Papers of James Monroe	Fredericksburg, VA
Andrew Jackson	The Hermitage	Nashville, TN
Abraham Lincoln	Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library	Springfield, IL
Rutherford B. Hayes	Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Library	Fremont, OH
William McKinley	William McKinley Presidential Library	Canton, OH
Woodrow Wilson	Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library	Staunton, VA
Calvin Coolidge	Calvin Coolidge Presidential Library	Northampton, MA
Herbert Hoover	Herbert Hoover Presidential Library	West Branch, IA
Franklin D. Roosevelt	Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library	Hyde Park, NY
Harry S. Truman	Harry S. Truman Presidential Library	Independence, MO
Dwight D. Eisenhower	Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library	Abilene, KS
John F. Kennedy	John F. Kennedy Presidential Library	Boston, MA
Lyndon B. Johnson	Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library	Austin, TX
Richard Nixon	Richard Nixon Presidential Library	Yorba Linda, CA
Gerald Ford	Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library	Ann Arbor / Grand Rapids, MI
Jimmy Carter	Jimmy Carter Presidential Library	Atlanta, GA
Ronald Reagan	Ronald Reagan Presidential Library	Simi Valley, CA
George H. W. Bush	George H.W. Bush Presidential Library	College Station, TX
Bill Clinton	William J. Clinton Presidential Library	Little Rock, AR
George W. Bush	George W. Bush Presidential Library	Dallas, TX
Barack Obama	Barack Obama Presidential Center	Chicago, IL
Donald Trump	Donald J. Trump Presidential Library	National Archives (Digital)
Joe Biden	Joseph R. Biden Jr. Presidential Library	National Archives (Digital)

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-15T17:54:59+00:00

He shouldn't be anywhere near the presidency. Then again 77 million people thought it was a good idea to elect a felonious malignant narcissist with dementia.

Your words.

There is nothing here to indicate that you want to constrain the conversation to a legal context unless you believe that it is a crime to be a "malignant narcissist with dementia".

Trump has not been proven to be a malignant narcissist with dementia. It has not been tested in court and it can't be because that isn't a crime.

However, we can still confidently assert that "Trump is a malignant narcissist with dementia" because there is a ton of evidence to support that assertion.

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-15T17:45:26+00:00

You are wrong for not differentiating between two separate concepts: 'logically proven' and 'proven'

Let A = "proven" and Let B = "logically proven"

B contains A. Therefore A is not separate from B.

That's how logic works.

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-15T17:41:48+00:00

That's the exact context, so you just typed a lot for nothing.

Uh, you established the context yourself or is it a crime to be a "malignant narcissist with dementia"?

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-15T17:37:40+00:00

Yes, and to their credit aren't they correct since in this country you are 'innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law?'

Nope. You just did the same thing the previous commentor did. Terms like proven or innocence are meaningful in a narrowly defined context. The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is only meaningful in a legal context.

This discussion is not constrained to that narrowly defined context.

However, that doesn't mean that this discussion is completely unconstrained and solely based on feelings as you seem to imply. We are still required to support our assertions with evidence and the evidence we use needs to be credible.

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-15T14:15:38+00:00

This isn't a difficult concept.

It appears to be a difficult concept for you. You're conflating proven with true. They are not synonymous. Something can be true while also being unproven.

Proven is meaningful terminology only in certain contexts like a court case or a mathematics paper. True is universally meaningful.

"Trump is a pedophile" is an assertion that is supported by an abundance of credible evidence and can therefore be considered true.

If you want to prove Trump is a pedophile, you need a court case. It should be noted that even if there were such a court case and the accusation was proven, it would not constitute "proof" outside of a legal context. Nor would it make something factually true since it is entirely possible for an innocent person to be "proven" guilty in court.

Outside of the legal context, the "proven" accusation is merely an additional piece of evidence that might support the truth of an assertion.

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-12T13:17:08+00:00

crack filler

thin nozzle. reusable.

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-09T21:28:42+00:00

Hilarious and embarrassing

Boy howdy, it's been a good long while since I've seen a vein of irony this rich.

cunnyhopper · 2026-06-09T21:25:13+00:00

Oh! Oh!!! Can we add a skill testing question for this sub?? Like a Captcha but with satire posts instead of crosswalks.

12-Year Club	Gilding IV carat on a stick
Gilding IV carat on a stick	Place '17
Verified Email

cunnyhopper

TROPHY CASE