Because Scheer is going to do a lot of the same shit as Trudeau

I might be convincing my lefty sisters to vote for PPC, fwiw
They don't want NDP and admit Trudeau sucks. A Scheer alternative is perfect

This could be good for the PPC really. They got a lot of media attention when they formed, but idk if it will be enough

I can't help but think of communism when I hear the People's Party

Yeah it's weird branding

C'est la vie

I get its populism and all but still

Makes me think of the Reform Party

National liberalism aka civic nationalism

Just watched Tim's vid on hillary... is it just me or is this a "Let them eat Cake" moment?

africa does not exist

The weird thing is I agree with Hilary seeing Europe need's to get it's act together.......on the other hand she was a high profile Senator in the 00's and her and Bush Jr were in a position to slam the open borders crowd down and also never let the white nationalism crowd bubble up if they had passed some fair centrist common sense immigration reform. Like her delivering that message to europe is like Chris Christie telling people eat your veges ie a bad messenger even if the message might be reasonable

Actually that's not the issue at all

I told people about this and they called it fake news

Hillary supporters literally denying it

She just wet her finger, stuck it up in the air, and gauged which way the wind was blowing. She has no guiding beliefs or convictions other than her divine right to power.

Clinton: lets stop populism by adopting populist policies!

I don't think she cares about stopping populism so much as she cares about having an avenue to power. She doesn't think the populists have a point, or that the right thing to do is to address the concerns of the people. She just thinks that populists are between her and power so they need to be defeated.

I agree on your assessment of her motivations. However I believe my previous statement still reflects her public position.

At least the true monarchies had divinely granted responsibilities along with their rights. Clinton has only entitlement, no duties she recognizes.

I think it is telling that she's testing this by speaking about Europe's problem while in Europe. It permits plausible deniability if it were to blow up. "Oh, of *course* I wasn't referring to the US situation. Why would you ever think that!"

Every time Clinton's "position" on an issue comes up, I think of Hitchens, and Superpredators, and her stance on Same-Sex Marriage

Clinton supported the wall
before she opposed it

at the end of the day, the Clintons are driven by maximizing the power of their dynasty
they've thrown everyone and everything under the bus in the process

including the Democratic party

now...
if you are willing to throw principles and party to the wolves in your blind pursuit of power,
why not democracy itself, eh?

Well, I will agree with you now. But in the late 1980's Bill Clinton was a major player in the "third way" movement within the Democratic Party after some real humdinger losses in 1984 and 1988. I think back then there were real convictions. Now, not so much.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/11/22/howard_dean_people_are_beginning_to_understand_that_trump_does_not_represent_american_values.html

> I think people are beginning to understand that Trump does not represent American values.
> He doesn’t even really represent the values of most people who voted for him.
> And so, I think people don’t actually really consider Trump a legitimate president.
...
> *He was obviously elected and all this business*, but he does not represent American values.

an "obviously elected" President
is not legitimate
because he does not represent the values of the Clinton machine

Having been in my 20's in the 1990's and very aware of events, Bill Clinton really was a bit of a counter-revolutionary in a Democratic Party that had been in the thrall of their left side since Carter's loss in 1980.

---> you couldn't make this stuff up - it's like Amazon deleting Orwell's 1984 from everyone's Kindle

^When you marinated for such a long time in self-righteousness, that you actually convinced yourself you are the living embodiment of american values.

indeed

"elected *and all this business*"
^ note the dismissive tone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBHSTPJlo4k

him, in a near future

the European Union is a shitshow

Verhofstadt is correct tho

the only thing standing in his way for his totalitarian utopia to function

I recognized that 20 years ago, or more,
when a fish monger selling fish in London
measured in pounds and ounces
was made a criminal for that heinous act

is all these pesky countries refusing to transfer all their power to him

indeed

Grosser Deutchland would be complete after the transfer

Just like before

i only see this end in conflict

the question is not if

the question is when and what kind of conflict

it could end in disinterest

if the EU fails to deliver
and member states make their own arrangements with foreign powers
it could simply decline

the EU ministers are a joke, and could be made the subject of ridicule

If the EU fails to enforce itself on its "member-states"

it can dissolve into something pointless

but if it manages to get force behind its policies

thats where i think you gonna see a real conflict happening

the whole EU is a joke at this point, a really bad authoritarian joke for that matter

Heil, Europa!

What Germany was unable to accomplish in war, it finally appears to accomplish in peace.

Pax Germanum

Hillary is quite correct on refugees and migration
that really will drive people across europe to vote out the mainstream politicians who support it

it is actually quite interesting, because HRC bears considerable personal responsibility for the refugee crisis in europe now

Libya was the buffer, and everyone knew that - including HRC

so now she's acknowledging what a mess it is,
and that the mess represents an existential threat to the globalist agenda

https://www.liberalistinternationalassociation.com/the-ember/2018/11/23/europes-eulogy-the-absolute-state-of-the-european-union

A small article regarding Verhofstadt and the EU in general

How was Libya the buffer?

@RedOblivion http://www.msnbc.com/specials/migrant-crisis/libya

> Gaddafi once proudly served as protector to his country's maritime border, promising that, for a sizable compensation from Europe, makeshift loads of human cargo would not suddenly arrive in search of refuge on Italian shores.

HRC killed him

Europe bears responsibility for Libya. France especially. We just helped Europe do dumb shit.

Not merely helped. Enabled. They would not have been able to oust Gaddafi without the US. They ran out of fucking bombs before the US got involved, and didn't have the necessary aerial refueling capability to maintain a strike tempo.

But it was France who wanted it so bad.

At the time of Gaddafi's death France had 14 tanker aircraft. The US had roughly 450.

The US was completely indispensable to the war effort.

Shifting the blame onto the Euros is bullshit.

As per usual, America was critical to any war effort it was involved in.

If France had not been so damn eager, there would have been no Libya intervention

If Hillary Clinton had not been so damn eager, there would have been no Libya intervention.

If France, but not America, no Libyan intervention. If France and America, Libyan intervention. If America, but not France, Libyan intervention.

I fail to see how this is France's fault.

You couldn't have written that worse if you tried

Could so.

The US was not going to perform the intervention. The President was clear on that. No new ground misadventures.

Just a lotta drones apparently

Drones don't have mothers to call when they die, and sweethearts to appear in the paper in their grief

if no Facebook, Libya would not have fallen

if no Twitter, Libya would not have fallen

... we can do this all day

They tend to kill people who do though

*including, in at least one case, an American citizen*

Libya was as stupid as Iraq. I'm not going to state otherwise. That said, France was the actor in this case. Would I have preferred the US to have acted like they did in 1956 and told the French and Brits NO like Ike did, oh yes. But it was still France who insisted on doing it. We were just being good allies for people who had been good allies to us in Afghanistan.

Horseshit. France did fuck all in Afghanistan. On a man-to-man basis Canada did more. And we don't owe them a 'Topple One Country Free' card for doing what they were fucking supposed to do under NATO.

You don't have a leg to stand on with Libya and you really ought to stop defending such a complete and utter debacle just because it was done under Obama's watch.

Because one evil cunt wanted to shore up her foreign policy cred prior to a presidential campaign we tore a country to shreds and we might even lose a fucking continent due to the fallout.

I'm not defending it. I'm just pointing out the circumstances of it. Iraq was dumb. Libya was dumb.

Iraq was a family grudge

I'm not defending Iraq. I'm not even defending Afghanistan and I fought there.

So we are in agreement. The US government is imperfect and does dumb things.

Right, then we can all agree that Libya was an international disaster that ruined millions of lives and those who acted to make it happen should be condemned and vilified for their acts.

No we are not in agreement. You think it was France's fault and that we were being 'good allies' by helping them. That's complete horseshit.

Obama's legacy is soaked in the blood and tears of the innocent.