politics

just fucking shoot him at that point

Canada is right MAID is the right call here

How do I make a link a spoiler

| |

but 2

Tried that didn’t update oh well if it sends it sends it’s mild nsfw anyways but who fucking cares

Post is gone for me

No idea why dolf wanted it spoilered

but I will respect that

But good one.

Idk why it said post was removed until I searched it in app myself >.>

Blocked in your state

Because porn in not porn chat

Like the rules matter

Dolf what

is it a jew thing that you see a half dead goy and think of porn

No it’s more so the milking machine on his cock

oh I didnt see that

They needed that to extinguish the fire

The one thing my governemt could possibly do that actually benifits me, Trudeau is trying to push through last minute to buy votes

40k minimum phd funding would be a nice 8k bump to what I was offered

Is Trudeau kind of getting sunset?

idk how PMs in Canada work after they stop being popular

if you keep them around or if they get quietly forgotten about

Depends on the PM and what they did

If you stop being PM you retire

and are not really relevant anymore if thats what you mean

if you mean "are they every mentioned" I mention Harper from time to time

yeah, that first part answers it

If he loses, he is done his career in politics

in some countries, they go back into politics, and join parliament etc. etc.

and then the liberals get a new face of the liberal party

He will likely win his seat, do his 4 year term in parliament

but will not run again

Leaders of parties have to run to get a seat in the house of commons, and it is super rare to loose your own riding (since you can choose where to run)

every so often they get embarrassed and lose

so it doesn't matter

yeah

major parties do not typically have the leader loose, I think the Greens had their leader loose last election which was funny

it's weird how every head of state in US/Canada/UK essentially stay in office until they become hated

Stays in office, also they can call an election early if they think they are popular enough 2 years in to win

That is usually used as a "I want to pass this thing that the opposition is blocking, if you like me enough to support this bill, vote me in again" though

I think it's universal with our three countries, that any issue people care about will never actually be resolved

so it keeps turning out the vote

Yeaah, the main issue here is housing and affordiability, literally every MP is either a landlord, or friends with some company that buys up housing to rent at high prices

Virginia has that going on right now, Republican Gov (who is term limited) basically said he'd let the Dems pass legal weed if they wanted, in exchange for some minor school bills he wants

and they refused, because they want to use it to campaign in 2025

Pika, does Canada allow handouts at voting booths?

I think whichever party is the least corrupt, should hand out a simple index card sized note to all voters, that shows the number of homes owned by politicians running in that riding

No idea.

I do not vote

In the US, both parties are allowed 1 sheet

and they use it for "vote recommendations" since most down-ticket offices have removed party affiliation from the ballot

so if you're voting for dog catcher, you don't see if they're Democrat/Republican/Libertarian

You can see the party affiliations here

also I do not think we do all the different votable positions at the same time like the US

but I do not know that as a fact

there's some convoluted way we determine which races get the (R) (D) (L) (I) markers

but idfk

here is the Canadian ballot apparently

Btw Trumps gag order is unconstitutional since a defendandts first amendment right to free speech can only be impeded if it's at the expense of someone elses constitutional rights, but none of his lawyers are bringing it up

I agree, but think it's this weird union of two different, inconsistent fundemental ideas

that in a better time, would spark discussion and debate on how to close the logical hole in our retarded legal framework

Because ultimately, a judge (as the lowest executor of judicial power) holds the authority to suspend your fundamental rights, and can do so semi-unilaterally

but we only narrowly carve out rights which they cannot infringe, to not impact your ability to be judged fairly by your peers

5th, 7th, 8th, and some other amendments

but there are GLARING omissions here, which come up in bizarre show trials like this, that are just ignored because all three institutions of power hate trump

same reason that war tribunals are a joke, and I'd say generally, by exercising their right to suspend your rights beyond what is *necessary*, its self-defeating and undermines percieved authority

Part of why Trump will win the election, despite being a fuck-up

You mean rights the defendant can't infringe or the judge can't infringe?

right to a speedy trial, right to not self-incriminate, right to counsel (lawyer), attorney-client-privilege, etc.

there's this aspect of, "we can unilaterally take away your rights", but protect certain things judges can't fuck with

As I understand it though, if it seems like the defendant is infringing on someone elses right to any of those, the judge is allowed to take away the defendants right to any of those

And I think free speech is one of those and there's precedent that gag orders infringe on free speech

that's what I mean though, I think in Trump's case it's something that *should* be protected, but isn't