@richhusky.bsky.social
Huh. Challenge someone to cite their sources and suddenly they block me. Funny how that works.
June 2, 2025 at 5:37 PM
Huh. Challenge someone to cite their sources and suddenly they block me. Funny how that works.
Not on the weekend. Since I do every day of the week for work. I checked CTV, don’t see this story. Also, they haven't met yet. That meeting is tomorrow.
Can you cite your source?
Can you cite your source?
June 1, 2025 at 4:18 PM
Not on the weekend. Since I do every day of the week for work. I checked CTV, don’t see this story. Also, they haven't met yet. That meeting is tomorrow.
Can you cite your source?
Can you cite your source?
According to which pollster? Because you'll find right leaning ones claiming one thing and left leaning ones claiming another.
Any way you slice it, Super majority of Ontarians don't want the Greenbelt being developed. And we have no right to the ring of fire.
Any way you slice it, Super majority of Ontarians don't want the Greenbelt being developed. And we have no right to the ring of fire.
June 1, 2025 at 3:52 PM
According to which pollster? Because you'll find right leaning ones claiming one thing and left leaning ones claiming another.
Any way you slice it, Super majority of Ontarians don't want the Greenbelt being developed. And we have no right to the ring of fire.
Any way you slice it, Super majority of Ontarians don't want the Greenbelt being developed. And we have no right to the ring of fire.
You are right in that the Bloq don't have enough people running to meet that criteria. But each party only needed to meet two of the three. And the Bloq met the polling % requirement while the Greens didn't.
April 18, 2025 at 2:13 AM
You are right in that the Bloq don't have enough people running to meet that criteria. But each party only needed to meet two of the three. And the Bloq met the polling % requirement while the Greens didn't.
Okay. Tried to tell you.
They never hit 4% in the polls. They don’t have 90% riding coverage. They failed 2 out of 3 criteria.
You are wrong.
They never hit 4% in the polls. They don’t have 90% riding coverage. They failed 2 out of 3 criteria.
You are wrong.
April 17, 2025 at 6:11 AM
Okay. Tried to tell you.
They never hit 4% in the polls. They don’t have 90% riding coverage. They failed 2 out of 3 criteria.
You are wrong.
They never hit 4% in the polls. They don’t have 90% riding coverage. They failed 2 out of 3 criteria.
You are wrong.
Nothing I said was incorrect. You should check the facts before you push forward.
April 17, 2025 at 5:16 AM
Nothing I said was incorrect. You should check the facts before you push forward.
There's no conspiracy. They were invited because they claimed to meet the requirements. They don't. They pulled candidates to not split the vote, and lost candidates to intimidation, and they fell short. So they lost the debate rights.
That's it.
Again, I want them there. The climate matters.
That's it.
Again, I want them there. The climate matters.
April 17, 2025 at 3:23 AM
There's no conspiracy. They were invited because they claimed to meet the requirements. They don't. They pulled candidates to not split the vote, and lost candidates to intimidation, and they fell short. So they lost the debate rights.
That's it.
Again, I want them there. The climate matters.
That's it.
Again, I want them there. The climate matters.