Stand on Guard - Conservative Party of Canada

[u/GhostProtocolGaming]

https://www.conservative.ca/stand-on-guard-2/

The bill makes important changes to Section 34 of the Criminal Code so that force is presumed to be justified if used against an illegal intruder. Conservatives first announced the ‘Stand on Guard’ principle back in August, asking the government to introduce legislation in the fall session.

[u/Lumindan]

Please. All the conservatives had to do was take a hard stance on the US threats like Carney did. Instead they hid from cameras for a week because US corporations are their donors.

You mean to tell me the Liberals monopolized on a self made crisis and people like you ate it up? yeah that sounds about right. But sure, Conservatives bad.

Man said he'd sell us out for a shit NAFTA deal and everyone noticed.

Negotiating a deal is not the same as “selling out,” by that standard, Carney going hat in hand to the states and letting trump say whatever he wants should be held to the same standard no?

But you won't agree to that because he's your guy.

You're also just ignoring the majority of what happened during the election but hey, PP bAd CoNs BaD.

[u/The_King_of_Canada → u/Lumindan]

You mean to tell me the Liberals monopolized on a self made crisis and people like you ate it up? yeah that sounds about right.

Self made? How on earth was it self made? Trump enacted tariffs for bull shit reasons. Then the LPC tried to placate him and he still kept referring to us as the 51st state and kept the tariffs up.

Negotiating a deal is not the same as “selling out,” by that standard,

It is when it's a terrible deal with no real protections from Trump violating it, again. How can we work out a trade deal with someone not willing to honour it if the mood strikes him?

You're also just ignoring the majority of what happened during the election

Enlighten me.

[u/Lumindan → u/The_King_of_Canada]

Self made? How on earth was it self made? Trump enacted tariffs for bull shit reasons. Then the LPC tried to placate him and he still kept referring to us as the 51st state and kept the tariffs up.

You answered your own comment. Pick a lane, are we standing upto Trump or placating him? It's almost like the smart play was to ignore Trump entirely instead of feeding into the media frenzy.

It is when it's a terrible deal with no real protections from Trump violating it, again. How can we work out a trade deal with someone not willing to honour it if the mood strikes him?

Yeah the states is just ignoring all it's major trade agreements at this very moment. Oh wait no it's not, it's just posturing to feed his base.

Enlighten me.

You're skipping over the Bloc falling apart and the NDP imploding and framing it entirely as "Well the CPC is bad and PP is lame". But sure, keep pushing that narrative you're so desperate to cling to.

[u/The_King_of_Canada → u/Lumindan]

You answered your own comment.

No. I didn't.

It's almost like the smart play was to ignore Trump entirely instead of feeding into the media frenzy.

They're our largest trading partner and we did ignore the comments. Then he put tariffs on us.

Yeah the states is just ignoring all it's major trade agreements at this very moment. Oh wait no it's not, it's just posturing to feed his base.

He is though. A free trade agreement means no tariffs. Tariffs violate the agreement. So he's violating the deal.

You're skipping over the Bloc falling apart and the NDP imploding

I didn't skip over it at all. The CPC lost with a 22 point lead. That's not a narrative. That's fact.

[u/Lumindan → u/The_King_of_Canada]

No. I didn't.

Reading comprehension is hard. It's okay buddy, just stick to your CPC bad talking points. Nuance is clearly lost on you.

They're our largest trading partner and we did ignore the comments. Then he put tariffs on us.

No we really didn't. We full sent in media feeding frenzy.

He is though. A free trade agreement means no tariffs. Tariffs violate the agreement. So he's violating the deal.

Wrong again, good ol surface level analysis at work. A free trade agreement doesn’t mean “no tariffs ever under any circumstance.” CUSMA/USMCA still allow countries to impose tariffs.

If you actually understood the agreement, you'd know that they can cite national security powers as a reason and then impose tarrifs, is it fair? No. Is it a violation of the agreement? Not per the terms of it.

I didn't skip over it at all. The CPC lost with a 22 point lead. That's not a narrative. That's fact.

So ignoring it then? Cool stuff.

[u/The_King_of_Canada → u/Lumindan]

Nuance is clearly lost on you.

You're saying the LPC poked the bear? Feel free to explain yourself.

We full sent in media feeding frenzy.

That's the media. You against freedom of expression now?

A free trade agreement doesn’t mean “no tariffs ever under any circumstance.”

It does mean no tariffs on traded goods that were being traded for an agreed upon price.

So ignoring it then?

Not at all. Why do you love the CPC so much?