this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
67 points (93.5% liked)

politics

19093 readers
4705 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 27 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Good. That little asshole is a threat to Canada.

[–] Windex007 20 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I agree he's an asshole and a threat to Canada.

But this is a political stunt, designed to energize his base: which polling says is enough to win.

He doesn't need to sway any new voters, just convince te ones he already has to show up.

So... Not good. He laid bait, it was snapped up.

[–] themeatbridge 23 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

I hear you, and I don't think you're wrong.

But the dipshits are out-numbered. We can, and should, treat them with the contempt they so justly deserve. Coddling them because we don't want to seem "elitist" or "intolerant" or "unstatesmanlike" will only foster their ignorance and feed their outsized sense of self-worth.

[–] RainfallSonata 11 points 6 months ago

This. Learn from the US' mistakes.

[–] Windex007 5 points 6 months ago

The dipshits are NOT outnumbered. The conservatives have like a 20 point lead. They're on track for a BLOWOUT win.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago

If calling the PM wacko is allowed, we are mere weeks away from all the HoC question periods eroding into nothing but name calling. The speaker was right, unparliamentary language bans are a long standing part of our system of governance. Bye bye PP. Bye bye.

[–] Son_of_dad 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Every election the cons go out of their way to find the most unlikable, snobby, "old stock Canadian" dick they can find. Then they wonder why they lose to Trudeau.

Everything I've seen from this guy is, shouting at journalists like he's Marjorie Taylor Greene, and being a snobby asshole with a shit eating grin.

Trudeau needs to go, but there's no alternative. Jagmeet Singh is sitting in a corner hoping Canadians don't notice him and crying.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

Election 2025: Wakko vs. Skippy

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

We used to be able to disagree on things but still work together, Conservatives have decided working together is a bad idea and complete control is the only way forward.

It's already happened in the US and its worked its way up north.

[–] poo 5 points 6 months ago

Conservatives are such children

[–] dhork 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The article is unclear, was the guy booted out for just the day, or permanently? I assume just for the day, otherwise it would be a bigger story.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

He was booted out for the rest of the day
for refusing to apologize, retract or rephrase the statement.

ALL media surrounding this is a nothing burger designed to forment unrest and get a far right, even more pro business leader elected. And he's already fundraising as if he's the victim of a dictatorship.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

From the article:

Fergus told Poilievre he was disregarding the speaker’s authority and, in an unusual move, said: “I order to you to withdraw from the House … for the remainder of this day’s sitting.

[–] dhork 3 points 6 months ago

Right, but then he left and pressed on, and then the article uses "ejected". It wasn't cleared to me whether "withdrawn for a day's sitting" was the same as "ejected".

[–] Gradually_Adjusting 0 points 6 months ago

On yer bike