Donald or Kamala? | Page 23 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Donald or Kamala?

Donald or Kamala?

  • Donald

    Votes: 18 51.4%
  • Kamala

    Votes: 17 48.6%

  • Total voters
    35
  • Poll closed .
If Trudeau keeps his job next election my faith in Canada and Canadians will be very diminished. His party needs to throw him overboard and steer the ship from full look to port, back towards the center.

If the fraud and theft laws would be applied to LIEberal MPs as it is to Joe Kanuck there might be a few back benchers left that weren't in on the grift (that manage to somehow get re-elected), let alone a fully functional party to 'steer towards the center'. The rest of them would be wearing ankle bracelets, at a bare minimum.
 
Could someone explain the conservative's deal on women's rights?
WTF is that all about?
Look at their platform and what they've said: they will not open the debate on abortion again, it's done for them. That won't stop the lefties from trying to pretend that the Conservatives want to turn women into baby-making slaves or something.
 
Look at their platform and what they've said: they will not open the debate on abortion again, it's done for them. That won't stop the lefties from trying to pretend that the Conservatives want to turn women into baby slaves or something.
Sort of. They said they won't reopen debate but there has been comments about restricting the states ability to decide for themselves.
 
..................It is questionable if the man is even eligible to enter Canada legally................

Would make a great episode of that old show "Border Security" Border agent says............"I'm sorry president Trump, as a felon you are inadmissible for entry to Canada and will be placed on the next flight of Air Force 1 to return you to your country of origin".

Headline next day............ "Trump orders Invasion of Canada"
 
The judge has not handed down the sentence. And in this case of Trump he not likely will.

The judge in question postponed sentencing until after the election, but said it would be done by Nov. 12............

So, we'll see what happens this coming week.
 
Sort of. They said they won't reopen debate but there has been comments about restricting the states ability to decide for themselves.

States? Pretty sure Shaman is talking about the CPC.
 
Just to clarify, every dictionary defines felon as someone found guilty/convicted of criminal charges, no mention of sentence. You CAN be found guilty of a crime and get no sentence.
...just to clarify...
How bout this then: There isn't a hope in hell Mr. Trump could run for any elected office in Canada, north of a dog catcher, given his current legal standing. It is questionable if the man is even eligible to enter Canada legally. (He CAN, but if you or I were in the same boat? NOT A HOPE) (I would grant "Trudy" points if he denied Mr. Trump entry, because Mr. Trump CANNOT, by the letter of the law, enter Canada... but that would require intestinal fortitude that "Trudy" does not possess)
...just to clarify...
It was questionable that JFK could get elected, CUZ HE WAS A CATHOLIC... and they just elected a convicted felon that has a bunch of federal charges pending. COOL COOL
Again pretty sure the letter of the law says 'may' not be granted entry. There should be wiggle room outside of a 'courtesy' extended to heads of state.
 
Here's the law: https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-21-elections/ga-code-sect-21-2-414/

(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast:
(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established;
(2) Within any polling place; or
(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.

That carve-out for "election officials discharging their duties" applies only to "establish or set up any tables or booths".

Reformatting to clarify:

No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method,

nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material,

nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector,

nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition,

nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties <emphasis mine, this is the carve-out for the description of the action which follows>, establish or set up any tables or booths

on any day in which ballots are being cast: (then go on to (1) (2) (3) describing where it applies).

If the intent had been for "other than election officials discharging their duties" to apply to ALL of the actions to which the law applies, then those words should have been put up at the beginning and the words "shall any person" taken out of the individual line items (other than one exception) - and it should read something like this:

(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, distribute or display any campaign material, nor give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector, nor solicit signatures for any petition, nor establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast:

But that's not what they did.

And I understand that "common interpretation" can differ from what's actually written. The "common interpretation" may be that election officials can hand out water (for example) within the restricted area, because nobody's going to complain and arrest them for doing that. But it isn't the way the law is written.

(I dealt with analogous situations in certain Ontario laws all the time. If you strictly complied with the Occupational Health and Safety Act as-written, not allowing for "common interpretations", you could never use a power tool in a workplace, and nothing would ever get built.)
I think you just did a bunch of work that proves my point.
 
A fairer question might be - as a convicted felon can he get a passport and be allowed to leave the country ?
 
Another reason the dems lost, weaponized biden doj fbi, the people are not dumb and seen the crapped up charges
Hiding top secret confidential files at Mar-A-Lago and refusing to surrender them is a crapped up FBI, DOJ plot ?
Let's face facts, the guy has been a grifter, swindler and crook his entire working life and the American people chose him anyway.
He blatantly lied on an average 40 times a day during his first term.
Couldn't either party come up with better choices ? It seems not.
 
Hiding top secret confidential files at Mar-A-Lago and refusing to surrender them is a crapped up FBI, DOJ plot ?
Let's face facts, the guy has been a grifter, swindler and crook his entire working life and the American people chose him anyway.
He blatantly lied on an average 40 times a day during his first term.
Couldn't either party come up with better choices ? It seems not.
And here are the issues, People choose the best of the worst, you seem to take this as the world is coming to an end moment.

Here is something you can spend some time on

 

Back
Top Bottom