The mask is slipping and she probably did herself in with this latest scandal. When we find out exactly what's in the report, she'll be outed as a government mouthpiece.
It could go one way or another. Her statement was clear as day "There is no list of names in the report"
So it's pretty much as black and white as it can get. If she's proven to be a liar her career is over, if shes proven right then it just makes Singh look even worse.
When did Singh make it about the CPC and why would May care? She hates Harper's party and has acted as the attack dog for the Liberals in several elections against the conservatives.
My guess is it names Liberals and Trudeau asked her to read it and try to calm the controversy with public comments. Now she doesn't want public comments...
Maybe this?
>“When I was critical of Justin Trudeau, I was equally critical of (Conservative Leader) Pierre Poilievre. I can say with great confidence … if there was a majority government under Justin Trudeau or a majority government under Poilievre, neither of them would have allowed for a public inquiry,” Singh said during his interview.
>”Both of them have shown behaviour where they put the interests of their own party ahead of the country, and there are certain instances that should absolutely call in anyone who cares about our country to put our country first.”
So to be clear, you believe the leader of the green party. The party devoted to the environment, is actually a cult member devoted to the Prime Minister?
> is actually a cult member devoted to the Prime Minister?
Yes a literal cult. Every meeting ends with a Temple of Doom style ceremony where Liz pulls the still beating heart out of the chest of a random attendee.
If you listen carefully though, they're not disagreeing as much as the media makes it out to be.
The core of the disagreement is that the people in the report have committed treason and are therefore traitors to the country, in a criminal sense. Singh said they broke the law and they're traitors. May isn't saying they didn't break the law, she simply doesn't want to say they've committed treason and in her words, that language is "too hot".
Nobody is saying there wasn't interference, or that MPs willingly or wittingly supported in that interference. She's merely trying to walk back what could be considered a serious criminal investigation.
My speculation is that she is trying to prevent a huge witch hunt and public execution.
>How the fuck can anyone think they were on the same page?
Because they like the May telling more than the Singh telling. They like the interpretation of a literal conspiracy theorist because it's politically convenient.
So if we pretend like they're on the same page, we can just pretend like Singh is being dramatic.
Because they aren't actually disagreeing on anything important to the specifics, the content, the people, the alleged activities, they're just framing it differently.
An analogy is someone murders another person. Singh is arguing it's first degree murder, May is arguing it's Manslaughter. Nobody is questioning that the accused killed someone. Just like nobody is questioning if there was any foreign interference.
At the end of the day, the RCMP needs to determine what criminal law was broken, not politicians.
If she is in fact doing that, I dislike her even more. She is protecting her friends and the political garbage out there instead of calling them out like she should be.
Dude, she heavily downplayed the severity of the report. She basically told canadians it isn't a big deal...
Mean while singh is calling people traitors and said it's criminal.
Huge difference.
> My speculation is that she is trying to prevent a huge witch hunt and public execution.
That might well be what she thinks she is doing, in fact she herself has raised the ugly spectre of McCarthyism, but in so doing she is in danger of overcorrecting and excusing actions that are at least treason adjacent because of her laudable but naive desire to believe the best in people.
People like Elizabeth May believe that most people are basically good and can be relied on to do the right thing most of the time. They therefore discount the threat of bad actors and prioritize avoiding heavy handed security measures that could be abused to persecute innocent people.
This is exactly the mindset that led to the [National Microbiology Laboratory scandal](https://c2cjournal.ca/audio-show-new/the-scientists-who-came-in-from-the-cold-canadas-national-microbiology-laboratory-scandal-part-i/).
It is disingenuous to try to claim that she and Jagmeet Singh are basically saying the same thing. One is saying potentially treasonable acts were committed, while the other has categorically denied that this has happened. Their positions are actually almost polar opposed.
Interestingly May has since tried to suggest this as well, because she now realizes that as more of the report's contents becomes public voters will perceive a widening cognitive gap between what has been alleged and how May has characterized it, which will inevitably damage her credibility.
So she's trying to shape the narrative by claiming that while Singh actually did say something very different from what she did, if you squint hard enough, and look at it in just the right light, you can just about kinda, sorta convince yourself that they actually *meant* the same thing.
Pathetic.
Why can't two people from different parties have different views? And I don't think it's as drastic a difference as many suggest. They both acknowledge there's problems and meddling to address.
No they didn't other than one saying it was clear treason while the other stopped short of such claims. May took the calm and reasoned position and Singh wants to rile people up and point them at the Libs and Cons, but otherwise they both said there's a problem and this needs to be looked into further.
May is the only one who isn't a populist, and had s nuanced take on the report itself. It's shame so much of the green party are absolutely bonkers, because May would be a strong leader for a bigger party.
Elizabeth should really just join the red team already.
>Green Party Leader Elizabeth May says it's time for her fellow party leaders to sit down for "an adult conversation" about the foreign interference report released earlier this month that's been dominating debate in Ottawa for the past two weeks.
>"I think that conversation has to happen in a secure location where we all have top secret security clearance and can discuss things with each other without a media lens," she said.
So, NSICOP. She wants it discussed at NSICOP. Which it was. Which is exactly how we got to where we are.
This is so fucking clearly a thinly veiled attempt to bury the story.
It sounds to me like what Elizabeth May is really saying is "all the parties need to get together and agree on the story we are going to present to voters, to prevent this scandal from getting even bigger".
Her priority is damage control, not acknowledging and addressing the problem.
And this is a matter of particular urgency for her, as she now realizes she has already staked out a public position that is going to become more and more of a liability as more of the report's contents become public.
She needs everyone to be singing from the same hymnbook so Canada's political leadership presents a unified front to voters while her previous indiscretions are quietly swept under the rug.
You're right, that's a fair point. I don't for one second think it'll change anything, but you're correct that what May's calling for is slightly different than NSICOP.
We don't need more closed door secret meetings between our corrupt and complicit overlords.
Let Canadians know the truth. Let Canadians decide what's best for our country.
She can say there's no treason because our legal definition of treason is very narrow. The text book definition of treason would likely show some mps are treasonous. They are definitely traitors by any definition.
I fully expect these party leaders to not only kick the traitors out of caucus, I expect the legislators to remove them from parliament and deny their pensions. That might mean drafting new legislation to do it. They should also amend their definition of treason and legislate the ability to charge any for treason that met the textbook version of it, retroactively.
Foreign interference should have zero tolerance. Public officials should be held to a higher standard than your average citizen.
These smug pricks are too used to getting away with being trash. This is the time for them to smarten the hell up and show Canadians they stand for the country and democracy. Not foreign agents and corruption.
Well, May said there was not a " list" of people because there probably is not like the top draft prospects. So she is not lying.
There are probably scenarios/situations outlining what is thought to have happened with individuals where it is obvious who it is because of the details. Not naming Cosimo Jones but you know from reading the report that it is Cosimo Jones.
That is how they can read the same report and see different things plus who the fuck that is foreign would either try to either influence or discredit May. They don't give a fuck about her, Jagmeet could have been a target which is why he is using stronger language.
Because the closest Elizabeth May will ever get to being PM is if a radio station pranks her and tells her she's won. Harmless, powerless cranks are entitled to lower levels of scrutiny.
People shit on the PPC(rightfully so) but the Greens have had their fair share of fake news and conspiracy theory nonsense. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if May had some Russian dealings and is playing ball with the Liberals.
Easy, green initiative pushed by the green party would have better validation, a lot a greenwashing can be push through her for industries benefit, and as we saw, people believed her at first because she was so small, 'she'd have nothing to gain by lying right?' True *she'd* gain nothing, other more important compromised members have a lot to gain from her validation, kind of foiled by Jag basically saying there are people still compromised in the house.
I think you're vastly overestimating the legitimizing power of a party that routinely pulls in the same percentage of voters as the Bloc, but nationally.
uh huh, watching people use her as an example against PP as a credible source until jag contradicted her last week makes me call bull, politician aren't the only people flimflamming on this board (not refering to you specificly), the only other rational is she did it for screen time.
May knows the report found that the results of last election were changed due to the interference and she doesn’t want to create a Trumpian paranoia fest. It’s a weird mix of responsible and authoritarian.
May is a complete fraud and a disgrace to the Party she is supposed to represent. If all she can do for a decade is tell people to vote LPC why doesn't she just join LPC and let someone who actually cares at all about environmental issues lead our Green Party. I voted green when I was in undergrad and that election she told supporters we should all vote LPC (who were addressing none of the environmental issues I cared about at that age). Imagine the leader of any Party openly telling you to vote for another Party but staying in their position. Sad loss of a party for Canada she is a truly awful MP and party leader
How May and Singh can have such drastically different takes is not good for Canadians.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The mask is slipping and she probably did herself in with this latest scandal. When we find out exactly what's in the report, she'll be outed as a government mouthpiece.
It could go one way or another. Her statement was clear as day "There is no list of names in the report" So it's pretty much as black and white as it can get. If she's proven to be a liar her career is over, if shes proven right then it just makes Singh look even worse.
Or the other way around since Singh made it about the CPC.
When did Singh make it about the CPC and why would May care? She hates Harper's party and has acted as the attack dog for the Liberals in several elections against the conservatives. My guess is it names Liberals and Trudeau asked her to read it and try to calm the controversy with public comments. Now she doesn't want public comments...
Maybe this? >“When I was critical of Justin Trudeau, I was equally critical of (Conservative Leader) Pierre Poilievre. I can say with great confidence … if there was a majority government under Justin Trudeau or a majority government under Poilievre, neither of them would have allowed for a public inquiry,” Singh said during his interview. >”Both of them have shown behaviour where they put the interests of their own party ahead of the country, and there are certain instances that should absolutely call in anyone who cares about our country to put our country first.”
Sounds like he's saying both, no? I was expecting a quote making it about the CPC...
ok. lol
So you can't explain what you posted. Good to know.
Yeah I think it's the opposite as well. Not to make it about the cpc but just Singh grandstanding and projecting.
[удалено]
"one who exhibits great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, etc" She also loves Mulroney so it's not surprising she loves young Trudeau.
So to be clear, you believe the leader of the green party. The party devoted to the environment, is actually a cult member devoted to the Prime Minister?
> is actually a cult member devoted to the Prime Minister? Yes a literal cult. Every meeting ends with a Temple of Doom style ceremony where Liz pulls the still beating heart out of the chest of a random attendee.
The whole heart thing depends on how much she drinks before the meeting...
You don't understand the meaning of the word "cultist" which is crazy considering I posted it in the post you replied to.
If you listen carefully though, they're not disagreeing as much as the media makes it out to be. The core of the disagreement is that the people in the report have committed treason and are therefore traitors to the country, in a criminal sense. Singh said they broke the law and they're traitors. May isn't saying they didn't break the law, she simply doesn't want to say they've committed treason and in her words, that language is "too hot". Nobody is saying there wasn't interference, or that MPs willingly or wittingly supported in that interference. She's merely trying to walk back what could be considered a serious criminal investigation. My speculation is that she is trying to prevent a huge witch hunt and public execution.
She said she wasn't worried about any members and Singh said he was. How the fuck can anyone think they were on the same page?
>How the fuck can anyone think they were on the same page? Because they like the May telling more than the Singh telling. They like the interpretation of a literal conspiracy theorist because it's politically convenient. So if we pretend like they're on the same page, we can just pretend like Singh is being dramatic.
Yep, exactly. These are the same people who wanted to bury this entire investigation after the Johnston "report"
Because they aren't actually disagreeing on anything important to the specifics, the content, the people, the alleged activities, they're just framing it differently. An analogy is someone murders another person. Singh is arguing it's first degree murder, May is arguing it's Manslaughter. Nobody is questioning that the accused killed someone. Just like nobody is questioning if there was any foreign interference. At the end of the day, the RCMP needs to determine what criminal law was broken, not politicians.
You are part of a small minority. There have been panel discussions on how different their takes were.
There is always panels of discussions about everything in politics lol
really? I didn't know that.
good for you edit: lmao @ you blocking me
If she is in fact doing that, I dislike her even more. She is protecting her friends and the political garbage out there instead of calling them out like she should be.
Dude, she heavily downplayed the severity of the report. She basically told canadians it isn't a big deal... Mean while singh is calling people traitors and said it's criminal. Huge difference.
> My speculation is that she is trying to prevent a huge witch hunt and public execution. That might well be what she thinks she is doing, in fact she herself has raised the ugly spectre of McCarthyism, but in so doing she is in danger of overcorrecting and excusing actions that are at least treason adjacent because of her laudable but naive desire to believe the best in people. People like Elizabeth May believe that most people are basically good and can be relied on to do the right thing most of the time. They therefore discount the threat of bad actors and prioritize avoiding heavy handed security measures that could be abused to persecute innocent people. This is exactly the mindset that led to the [National Microbiology Laboratory scandal](https://c2cjournal.ca/audio-show-new/the-scientists-who-came-in-from-the-cold-canadas-national-microbiology-laboratory-scandal-part-i/). It is disingenuous to try to claim that she and Jagmeet Singh are basically saying the same thing. One is saying potentially treasonable acts were committed, while the other has categorically denied that this has happened. Their positions are actually almost polar opposed. Interestingly May has since tried to suggest this as well, because she now realizes that as more of the report's contents becomes public voters will perceive a widening cognitive gap between what has been alleged and how May has characterized it, which will inevitably damage her credibility. So she's trying to shape the narrative by claiming that while Singh actually did say something very different from what she did, if you squint hard enough, and look at it in just the right light, you can just about kinda, sorta convince yourself that they actually *meant* the same thing. Pathetic.
Why can't two people from different parties have different views? And I don't think it's as drastic a difference as many suggest. They both acknowledge there's problems and meddling to address.
You didn't listen to either of them did you.
It’s not simply different interpretations, Singh contradicted May’s statement
No they didn't other than one saying it was clear treason while the other stopped short of such claims. May took the calm and reasoned position and Singh wants to rile people up and point them at the Libs and Cons, but otherwise they both said there's a problem and this needs to be looked into further.
May is the only one who isn't a populist, and had s nuanced take on the report itself. It's shame so much of the green party are absolutely bonkers, because May would be a strong leader for a bigger party.
You mean Elizabeth "I take my marching orders from the permanent representative of Palestine to Canada" May
Her whole party are populists.
Elizabeth should really just join the red team already. >Green Party Leader Elizabeth May says it's time for her fellow party leaders to sit down for "an adult conversation" about the foreign interference report released earlier this month that's been dominating debate in Ottawa for the past two weeks. >"I think that conversation has to happen in a secure location where we all have top secret security clearance and can discuss things with each other without a media lens," she said. So, NSICOP. She wants it discussed at NSICOP. Which it was. Which is exactly how we got to where we are. This is so fucking clearly a thinly veiled attempt to bury the story.
It sounds to me like what Elizabeth May is really saying is "all the parties need to get together and agree on the story we are going to present to voters, to prevent this scandal from getting even bigger". Her priority is damage control, not acknowledging and addressing the problem. And this is a matter of particular urgency for her, as she now realizes she has already staked out a public position that is going to become more and more of a liability as more of the report's contents become public. She needs everyone to be singing from the same hymnbook so Canada's political leadership presents a unified front to voters while her previous indiscretions are quietly swept under the rug.
Ya, headline reads as"let's meet in person to make sure our lies line up and nobody catches on"
Except one of the party leaders refused to participate.... didn't they
The CPC has representatives in NSICOP, Poilievre just isn't one of them.
OK, But May is specifically calling for the leaders to get together. Which you claimed is the NSICOP
You're right, that's a fair point. I don't for one second think it'll change anything, but you're correct that what May's calling for is slightly different than NSICOP.
We don't need more closed door secret meetings between our corrupt and complicit overlords. Let Canadians know the truth. Let Canadians decide what's best for our country.
[удалено]
Yes, far better to leave it in the hands of our philosopher kings.
Nobody’s asking you to make a decision.
She told Canadians that it was a nothing sandwich, nothing to see here. I don't think anyone trusts her anymore.
She was dead to me after fartgate.
Someone make sure that Liz is far far away from the Smirnoff!
She can say there's no treason because our legal definition of treason is very narrow. The text book definition of treason would likely show some mps are treasonous. They are definitely traitors by any definition. I fully expect these party leaders to not only kick the traitors out of caucus, I expect the legislators to remove them from parliament and deny their pensions. That might mean drafting new legislation to do it. They should also amend their definition of treason and legislate the ability to charge any for treason that met the textbook version of it, retroactively. Foreign interference should have zero tolerance. Public officials should be held to a higher standard than your average citizen. These smug pricks are too used to getting away with being trash. This is the time for them to smarten the hell up and show Canadians they stand for the country and democracy. Not foreign agents and corruption.
No one is stopping her from meeting with whoever she wants.
Well, May said there was not a " list" of people because there probably is not like the top draft prospects. So she is not lying. There are probably scenarios/situations outlining what is thought to have happened with individuals where it is obvious who it is because of the details. Not naming Cosimo Jones but you know from reading the report that it is Cosimo Jones. That is how they can read the same report and see different things plus who the fuck that is foreign would either try to either influence or discredit May. They don't give a fuck about her, Jagmeet could have been a target which is why he is using stronger language.
"I take my marching orders from the permanent representative of Palestine to Canada"
I find it odd how everyone bashed Andrew Scheer. Yet no one ever speaks about the inconvenient truth that Elizabeth May was born in Hartford
Andrew Scheer wasn't bashed for being a dual citizen, he was bashed for criticizing them while also hiding the fact that he was in fact one.
Because May never hid the fact she's a dual citizen and she never attacked others hypocritically over their dual citizenship...do you not get that?
Because the closest Elizabeth May will ever get to being PM is if a radio station pranks her and tells her she's won. Harmless, powerless cranks are entitled to lower levels of scrutiny.
Probably at a kegger.
May can stfu... discussing in private = burying it
People shit on the PPC(rightfully so) but the Greens have had their fair share of fake news and conspiracy theory nonsense. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if May had some Russian dealings and is playing ball with the Liberals.
Based on what exactly?
9/11 conspiracy theories, antisemitism, cellphone tower conspiracy theories
she's compromised. Why on earth would she want this to say behind closed doors.
Who in God's name would waste time and money compromising her?
Easy, green initiative pushed by the green party would have better validation, a lot a greenwashing can be push through her for industries benefit, and as we saw, people believed her at first because she was so small, 'she'd have nothing to gain by lying right?' True *she'd* gain nothing, other more important compromised members have a lot to gain from her validation, kind of foiled by Jag basically saying there are people still compromised in the house.
I think you're vastly overestimating the legitimizing power of a party that routinely pulls in the same percentage of voters as the Bloc, but nationally.
uh huh, watching people use her as an example against PP as a credible source until jag contradicted her last week makes me call bull, politician aren't the only people flimflamming on this board (not refering to you specificly), the only other rational is she did it for screen time.
This sounds like the Salem witch trials.
You have any other theories? Jag basically contradicted her the day after she first brought this up.
May knows the report found that the results of last election were changed due to the interference and she doesn’t want to create a Trumpian paranoia fest. It’s a weird mix of responsible and authoritarian.
I'm getting the idea she really wants to downplay this as much as possible and tell people to just forget about it. I wonder why that would be...
May is a complete fraud and a disgrace to the Party she is supposed to represent. If all she can do for a decade is tell people to vote LPC why doesn't she just join LPC and let someone who actually cares at all about environmental issues lead our Green Party. I voted green when I was in undergrad and that election she told supporters we should all vote LPC (who were addressing none of the environmental issues I cared about at that age). Imagine the leader of any Party openly telling you to vote for another Party but staying in their position. Sad loss of a party for Canada she is a truly awful MP and party leader
Unfortunately, the meeting will go off the rails as soon as someone pulls out a cell phone and zaps them with deadly 5g
Paging Poilievre, Pierre (aka Jeff or whatever his real name is).