Shadow 🇫🇷🇨🇦🇺🇦🇮🇱

[Dr. Maalouf ‏ @realMaalouf]

This year alone, more Christians have been killed by Muslims in Nigeria than Gazans in three years of war.

Not a single Muslim or pro-Palestinian activist has protested like they do for Gaza. Weird.

[Stephano🍁Barberis @HelloStephano]

Conservatives have governed BC under the names “Social Credit” and “BC Liberals” for 52 of the last 74 years. Uninformed people should stop portraying this as the first time BC has had a right wing govt in 100 years.

[Shadow 🇫🇷🇨🇦🇺🇦🇮🇱 @Shadow48621]

@miagia Nobody asked you to fake your beauty. That’s on you

[Shadow 🇫🇷🇨🇦🇺🇦🇮🇱 @Shadow48621]

@DissentFu This has happened before and will happen again. The rioters are not interested in reform, just vendalism.

That, and the State is broke and cannot offee anything even if it wanted to.

[Shadow 🇫🇷🇨🇦🇺🇦🇮🇱 @Shadow48621]

@Ambre_emeraude Le délire marxiste continue

[Shadow 🇫🇷🇨🇦🇺🇦🇮🇱 @Shadow48621]

@RickEsenberg When they’ve built a ponzi scheme and elected not to have children, yes, they deserve nothing

[Shadow 🇫🇷🇨🇦🇺🇦🇮🇱 @Shadow48621]

@AndreasRose02 @DivingxDown Lying is when reality doesn’t align with your wishes

[Shadow 🇫🇷🇨🇦🇺🇦🇮🇱 @Shadow48621]

@Aude_Sonia Le RK ne tient pas des propos racistes. Pour vous, les propos racistes consistent à être en désaccord avec vous

[Shadow 🇫🇷🇨🇦🇺🇦🇮🇱 @Shadow48621]

@Bruno86650943 Tu t’en branles clairement de la France, hein

[Pierre Gentillet @Pierre_GTIL]

Voici la réponse du Conseil constitutionnel à la saisine des députés RN qui demandaient de constater la démission d'office de Richard Ferrand à la suite de ses prises de position sur l'article 11 de la Constitution.

Le Conseil refuse de donner suite à cette demande tout en se prononçant sur le fond du sujet (!) comme Richard Ferrand. Il faut aller directement à la seconde page de ce courrier.

D'abord, le Conseil constitutionnel affirme expressément que seule la procédure de l'article 89 permet de réviser notre Constitution "à l'exclusion de TOUTE autre", évacuant ainsi le recours à l'article 11, c'est à dire le référendum présidentiel.

Cette affirmation est importante puisque, cette fois, ce n'est plus Richard Ferrand qui s'exprime à titre personnel, mais le Conseil constitutionnel lui-même. Sans constituer formellement une jurisprudence, cette lettre fixe publiquement la position du Conseil sur le (non)-recours à l'article 11 pour modifier la constitution.

Mais surtout, le Conseil prend soin de rappeler, dans la dernière phrase, qu'il est chargé, en vertu de l'article 60 de la Constitution, de veiller à la régularité des opérations référendaires.

Ce rappel n'a, selon moi, rien d'innocent. Il constitue un avertissement à peine voilé, faisant directement écho à la jurisprudence Hauchemaille de 2000, par laquelle le Conseil s'est reconnu la possibilité de contrôler le décret de convocation d'un référendum (sans toutefois en préciser exactement la portée) sur la base de l'article 60.

Le message adressé me paraît donc assez clair : non seulement le Conseil considère qu'une révision constitutionnelle par l'article 11 est impossible, mais il laisse entendre qu'il pourrait faire usage de ses prérogatives pour s'opposer à un tel référendum (d'où la référence à l'article 60 dans le communiqué).

Nous savons désormais à quoi nous en tenir. Le Conseil constitutionnel semble se préparer à devenir le principal opposant au référendum présidentiel voulu par Marine Le Pen.

S'il commettait une pareille folie, il commettrait alors une violation manifeste de la constitution et de la souveraineté populaire. Il appartiendra à Marine le Pen, une fois élue, de rappeler, à ceux qui prétendent confisquer la volonté populaire que le peuple français est le maître de sa Constitution et que le président de la République en est le gardien (article 5).

Car il ne s'agira plus seulement d'organiser un référendum, mais de sauver la Constitution de ceux qui la violent en empêchant au peuple de s'exprimer sur son destin.

Rendez-vous en juin 2027 donc !

[John Aziz @aziz0nomics]

1/ Russian imperialism
2/ Jihad
3/ Jihad
4/ Jihad
5/ Jihad
6/ Jihad
7/ Jihad + natural resource control
8/ Drug cartels
9/ Drug cartels
10/ Jihad
11/ Jihad + natural resource control
12/ Jihadis vs Zionists

[Aurélien Véron @aurelien_veron]

LFI coche-t-elle les cases du fascisme ?
1️⃣ Interdiction des partis politiques jugés déviants ✅
2️⃣ Interdiction des médias jugés déviants ✅
3️⃣ Agression physique par des milices des opposants ✅
4️⃣ Promotion de la violence comme moyen de pression ✅
Score : 4/4 👌🏻

[Shadow 🇫🇷🇨🇦🇺🇦🇮🇱 @Shadow48621]

@ryangerritsen A party’s name doesn’t always indicate its ideology positioning on the political compass.

Carney’s Liberals are ideologically aligned with the Ontario PCs and BC Conservatives.

[Shadow 🇫🇷🇨🇦🇺🇦🇮🇱 @Shadow48621]

@be_ymikee @DivingxDown The Supreme Court doesn’t have jurisdiction to decide electoral law, only the Electoral Court does, per the Constitution.

That, and no decision of extending voting is permissible after polls closing, again, by law. The order came after 5pm.

[Rynax @RynaxFR]

@LBleuBlancRouge J'trouve que la version un peu plus longue est encore pire :D

[Shadow 🇫🇷🇨🇦🇺🇦🇮🇱 @Shadow48621]

@JackWDart The extension was never th problem

[Shadow 🇫🇷🇨🇦🇺🇦🇮🇱 @Shadow48621]

@compound248 There was cheating, but I’m not sure it was enough to change the result

[Compound248 💰 @compound248]

Brazil Election Chaos Cheat Sheet:

• Brazil provides free busing to and from voting centers

• In order to be deemed neutral, those buses are not allowed to have any political signs, etc

• In several states that skew toward Lula, the buses had "PT" stars affixed to them (PT is Lula's party). The official in charge of busing said those buses could not run unless the signs were taken down, delaying the busing. Lots of finger-pointing ensued

• There is an election tribunal in Brazil that oversees election legal issues, but Lula went around it and appealed directly to the Supreme Court

• The SC assigns a single justice to review; Lula asked for an extension specifically IN THOSE STATES (which heavily skew toward Lula)

• The Justice who made the decision was previously Lula's PERSONAL LAWYER and is a Lula appointee

• Once Bolsonaro knew Lula was asking for extensions and suspected it would be granted (given which justice was reviewing), he also requested extensions so they would be nationwide, and not just in Lula territory

• A nationwide extension was granted just AFTER the polling stations were supposed to close (5:00pm). However, once a voting machine is locked for the day, it cannot be unlocked. In practice, this meant most polling stations were not able to reopen and offer extended voting because they'd closed at 5pm

• By an AMAZING coincidence, nearly all of the voting machines that hadn't yet locked were in the four states where Lula polls well over 70% popularity (northeast)

• There are supposed to be two observers (one from each side) at all polling stations. At many of the extended stations, the word is there were not two observers

• In the first round voting (three weeks ago), Bolsonaro won 47% and Lula 45% of 119mm votes, with ~8% to third-party candidates

• Of the 8%, the candidates skewed strongly to the right (Bolsonaro); everyone assumed Bolsonaro would take the large majority of that 8% and win easily in round two (yesterday)

• As it turned out, Lula "outperformed" in basically every state

• Also, apparently 5 million more people voted in round two (yesterday) than in round one

• Lula picked up 10.5mm votes, whereas Bolsonaro picked up 3.7mm, leading to tremendous suspicion, as 3.7mm isn't even the majority of the 8% right-leaning opportunity from round one, and implies Bolsonaro received 0% of the incremental 5 million votes and less than half of the jump ball votes

• Chaos ensues. The $EWZ Brazil index ETF has been down as much as 28% this morning (mix of currency and index declines)

[Shadow 🇫🇷🇨🇦🇺🇦🇮🇱 @Shadow48621]

@be_ymikee @DivingxDown Again, thI request isn’t the issue. The illegal order bypassing the Electoral Court made after polls had closed is.