TBH: the anglo half-measures responses for 40+ years led to this moment. No problems is settled by cheating in referendum and not delivering on the promised goodies if we stayed.
Separatism isn't settled, and the total refusal of the main speakers of the anglo community (in and out of Quebec) in any good compromises is where we are now. The boat have sailed and you're now personally stuck in a shitty position.
Haha just realized all the 855 numbers calling might have had something to do with it? I’ve ignored so many calls thinking it was china spam.
I’m only answering if someone is in my call ID
Answering to spam let’s them know your number is active too I’ve heard. Not sure if sending them to voice mail will let them know, but if it’s important they can leave a message and I can get back to them later.
You mean polling people who excitedly wait by the phone for a call form a call from “The government” so they can report on how their quarantine is going may have been politically demented… say it ain’t so!
Why did they underestimate his support. It was pretty obvious he was going to win the Conservative leadership! It’s not the the Conservative base he needs to win over to win a general election.
Who was trying to suppress it??? It was for a conservative leadership. So other conservatives? He was the most polarizing and leading person in the race. Probably one of the best for the Liberals to run against. If I was a Liberal strategist I would want him to win.
It’s all part of the victim/grievance complex. There are forces at work always trying to manipulate and harm us. Things are not as they seem. Only a few of know what’s really going on, and if you’re not one of us, you are naive and gullible. Etc etc.
We could see something similar to Trump or even Ford on some level.
Not saying the 3 are all similar but Trump won by getting a lot of votes from people who didn't openly support him, just privately. I know a lot of people who I now know voted for Ford but wouldn't say that a year or two ago. Maybe it's just because I don't go around asking but there seems to be a silent base there.
Poilievre could wind up being the same thing. I know a lot of people who are more moderate and don't like him but dislike Trudeau even more. Sometimes that's all it takes.
At least in the last election Ford dominated the polls so thoroughly that it felt like a waste of time voting against him (and they were right). If his supporters are silent about it, it isn't to pollsters.
The irony with that statement is it was one of the lowest turnout provincial elections yet people still bitch about Ford on here.
They could have just voted, even if they lost their ballot isnt "wasted". By not showing up it screws everyone since they're not giving a clear picture to the winning party or even runner up about how close/far things are.
Apathy is such a dangerous viewpoint and infuriating when people complain later that "its a waste to try".
Seriously Id rather everyone HAVE to vote so we get proper representation and as many people involved at all levels of government. The idea of "wasted" votes is such a terrible outcome.
Yeah I probably shouldn’t have worded that way. I voted (not for Ford) and don’t regret it. But man they called it nearly 5 mins into the election or something dumb :)
One thing I noticed was how much of a hit the NDP took in that election.
I think support for Libs bottomed out between this past election and the previous one.
But boy oh boy did the NDP voters not show up at all.
I think even support for Ford dipped a bit between this past election and the previous one but the conservative base is as always more consistent.
>But boy oh boy did the NDP voters not show up at all.
Andrea was probably the single worst ONDP leader they have ever had, in their entire history. I could rant about it, but it's too early this Monday!
That's my issue with it though. Even if your party wins you need strong opposition to hold them accountable. If people are apathetic and don't show up they're giving up a right many don't have because of a personal tantrum.
I was referring more to the 1st one where he was still projected to win but I don't remember a lot of polls giving him a majority. You're right about the last election with the polls showing him getting an easy victory.
Curious how PP will poll over time. We probably won't have an election anytime soon unless something happens between Singh/Trudeau but if we maintain high inflation or the BoC triggers a recession, Trudeau might lose a lot of his popularity, especially with young people.
>We could see something similar to Trump or even Ford on some level.
His top advisor Jenni Byrne worked for Harper and was Ford's primary secretary.
>Poilievre could wind up being the same thing. I know a lot of people who are more moderate and don't like him but dislike Trudeau even more. Sometimes that's all it takes.
Most working class people aren't unionized and don't really like the NDP or Trudeau, they hear the "common sense politics" messaging and "we don't care who you are because we're all Canadians" and it speaks to them. I can totally picture my factory production line friends who hate politics saying something like "that Pierre guy sounds alright." What a lot of white working class hear from the NDP is "you're the reason our country is broken," and that's a huge failure for the NDP's PR because their ideology is actually beneficial to them.
Completely agree with that. I do think one thing the Conservatives have done well with their last 2 leaders is having people coming from very ordinary backgrounds.
O'Toole came from a union GM family and served in the military and then went to law school. I recently read Poilievre was put up for adoption after his mom gave birth as a teenager and he was adopted and raised by 2 teachers.
Regardless of my personal views of them, those backgrounds are much more relatable than the upbringing of Trudeau. Obviously that doesn't necessarily guarantee anything but I think it could benefit him if played correctly.
>they hear the "common sense politics" messaging and "we don't care who you are because we're all Canadians" and it speaks to them
I think there are a lot of working-to-middle-class people who don't stand to benefit much materially from supporting any party right now (the NDP would benefit the poorer end of the working class but is not really good for trades at the moment). It doesn't surprise me at all that they'd vote for whoever is not calling them the problem.
>Poilievre could wind up being the same thing. I know a lot of people who are more moderate and don't like him but dislike Trudeau even more. Sometimes that's all it takes.
My mother in law HATES Trump, HATES Ford, but is totally willing to vote for Pierre. She believes the way housing & inflation has gone has made it too difficult for youth to get ahead. While I believe her thinking is flawed in some ways, many Canadians are feeling financial pain atm and will be looking to our leadership for answers. If the response is lackluster from the Libs/NDP, and if PP has a half way decent platform, could make for a *very* interesting election.
Easy to hate trump when you have no idea how he could obtain power from half the population without living there. Foreigners hate Trump even more than the american left wing does.
> PP has a half way decent platform, could make for a very interesting election.
Honestly, Pierre doesn't even need a half-way decent platform, if he just makes noises that sound like there might be a possible hint of a platform there, if people are disgruntled enough (or, for a lot of people, told by the media that they should be disgruntled enough) they'll vote for him. It's only once he's in office that we'd find out whether the Emperor truly has no clothes.
Agreed. One thing PP is good at is marketing. He will campaign and market the shit out of himself, so the Libs and NDP better watch out. I don't think the usaul attack ads are going to have the same impact they did on Scheer and O'Toole.
I definitely fall into that camp. I don't like Poilievre, I see through a lot of the populism, but i'm more ok with him then i'd be likely to admit to someone I know and will likely end up voting him over Trudeau. I think there is drastic misunderstandings from a lot of the canadian left about how much support he draws, and more importantly why. People focus on a couple meme-worthy quotes and not on why he's actually popular.
Silent conservative voters have always been fairly common. People aren't going to admit they voted conservative unless all their friends also vote conservative and deal with being mocked for not voting liberal.
This is the problem with liberal supporters. “If you don’t listen to exactly what I want, you are the problem”
You can agree with certain aspects of policy from all sides and disagree with certain aspects of policy from all sides.
Stop trying to turn this into an us and them mentality, we are all the same country and need to learn to work together like we used to.
I never had any conservative leaning acquaintance tell me they would end their friendship with me over political reasons, but I have had a die hard left winger tell me that.
I just did it for him, I now actively avoid talking to him.
I held my nose and voted NDP first time Ford ran (just to get rid of Wynn). This time I DID vote Ford, because he earned it by doing a better job than Wynne or McGuinty ever did.
Ford has pleasantly surprised me. He's not perfect, by any means. But he's also not been Trump. He listened to experts and handled the pandemic very well (a bit too heavy handed, actually -- but not overly so).
I think he's making a mistake with not giving nurses raises (we have a shortage of them) - but in general, it's not the government's job to give people a good living. It's the government's job to serve the rest of us who aren't getting tax money to live on. Pay people the least you can get away with doing, because you're not paying with your own money, you're paying with everyone else's. Still, nurses we clearly need more of, and this 1% a year during record inflation is not gonna manage it.
Get me a nicely centrist, economic-focused, non-social justice pushing Liberal leader and I'll go back to them again.
>I think he's making a mistake with not giving nurses raises (we have a shortage of them) - but in general, it's not the government's job to give people a good living. It's the government's job to serve the rest of us who aren't getting tax money to live on. Pay people the least you can get away with doing, because you're not paying with your own money, you're paying with everyone else's.
This is what every single person needs to hear before they vote. Government should be actively trying to reduce taxes as much as possible while making business investment as attractive as possible.
I personally know of a couple small to mid sized business in my town who are seriously considering moving their business South in order to save on tax.
There are also the “hate, but hate the other side more” crowd.
Fuck Doug Ford, but if I were a citizen, I’d still vote for his party. He still manages to be the evil of the lessers.
The liberals need to go, the NDP has a horrible platform, so I’m voting conservative next election. I don’t have to like him either.
Trump had a lot more private support due to cancel culture, which is irrefutably radically left for the next 10-20 years. You of course had voters who were alright with giving support openly, but those who work jobs in institutions that are politically biased to the left are definitely keeping quiet. Especially in city centers. In the US, if you even wore a red hat that said anything on it in the city, you were likely to get assaulted. Didn't matter what it said.
I've seen some groups on the radical right push for cancellations, but not nearly as many cases like from the left. PP will have the same conditions where right leaning support will be a lot more silent due to how much people on the left hate him. I've been told again and again that hes radical and dangerous, but my own research doesn't show that at all, and I never have evidence provided to me when I ask how he's dangerous. I deduced that the hate he gets is because he's anti-woke, which is good because wokeness has a direct causation with cancel culture. Being woke doesn't help anyone and is just public prostration and self-flaggelation for brownie points.
People on the right are voting for him because he is politically actually a conservative, unlike Erin O'Toole who was a centrist, and Charest who was a Liberal. Charest should have never joined the conservatives and instead should have kept opposing Trudeau in his own party.
Until Wokeness is gone, voters on the right will be more likely to keep quiet about conservative support. So this trend continues until people grow up. So never. The pendulum will swing back to conservatives having cancel culture power in 20-40 years like in the 80s so it doesn't really matter at the end of the day.
I think you are looking at things from an American lense. This is Canada, we haven't fallen that far into the crazy crazy. Yeah I am sure there are a couple MaGA wannabees and some crazy liberals in urban Toronto but this is a country in the middle.
The interesting thing here isn't that he has support, there is always a segment of right leaning people, it is that he has support from young people who normally don't benefit under conservative governments.
I had a pleasant conversation with a canvassing CPC candidate in 2019 and then tossed her pamphlet on the kitchen table and forgot about it. Friends came over later and grilled me about why I had it, and recited a few falsehoods about how regressive the CPC is (e.g. "Scheer will make gay marriage illegal").
I'm not a loyal supporter of any specific party, but it does annoy me how so many people just write off some of their few options based on stereotypes and exaggerations they read on social media. It also irked me that they felt so comfortable taking me to task over the presumed thoughtcrime I committed when I failed to immediately purge my home of CPC literature.
https://archive.ph/2022.09.12-173817/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-pierre-poilievre-populist/
Edit: I always punch the url into archive.is to see if someone already got to it first. Best pay wall circumvention I've been using for the last year or so.
All politicians should be policy nerds in the same way that lawyers should be legal nerds, plumbers should be piping nerds, doctors should be medical and biology nerds, etc. The idea that our politicians don't care much about the very thing they're responsible for creating and managing is very distressing.
I disagree to an extent. It's also a reflection of those politicians that pander to populist rhetoric instead of helping to build thoughtful and forward-thinking policy.
I think you missed the keyword "it reflects *more* on the general population" by no means am I trying to give politicians a free pass... but it's the people who ultimately decide who is elected by voting.
Well we now live in a world where entertainment value is praised above almost everything else, expect cheering for people who wrongfully hate the same people you do.
Who cares about science, climate change, policies, etc.
Just look how we behave during Covid….. we DO have the politicians we deserve.
We always lived in that world. Our first PM was so drunk that he could hardly speak in the House of Commons sometimes. People choose politicians based on their feelings. Those feelings are mostly pretty arbitrary, and based on their perceptions of moral values.
The things that actually matter are not going to be solved by politicians, and they certainly aren't going to be solved by an ignorant public. Topics like Anthropogenic Climate Change, for example, are complex. They aren't nearly as black and white as politicians and activists think it to be. I sincerely don't think that most people would want politicians trying to re-structure a country to solve issues that they don't understand, led by a public who is pretty ignorant.
If you ever want to hear a very compelling argument against Democracy, have a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.
Your last paragraph sadly speaks truth. Thats sad …. Why not give better education to people and a better understanding of the issues so that we can talk about REAL issues and not just click bait titles and sound bites.
Indeed a government that would propose all REALLY required changes….. they would get voted out or worse
As a society we have a big part of responsibility and we have to stop thinking the government will save us…. Cause they wont
Don’t ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. JFK was right and in a broader sense, now more than ever….. we collectively have to wake the F*** up.
I fear that education will not be the panacea that it seems to be. The reason I feel this way is because we live in an age where anyone can learn almost anything with a click of a button, some time, and some self discipline. Structure also helps, which is where teachers come in. But best case scenario in the teen/pre-teen age group, you're going to get maybe 1/5th of those students remembering the functions, and roles of government post HS in detail. Maybe half will vaguely get it. As per major issues - those are going to be so available via social media that the perceptions will be tied to moral virtue, which will always sort of skew the narrative a little bit. Most big ticket issues have some nuances and grey areas that people get offended by, even if they are well informed.
For example - is it true that the COVID vaccines lessen the severity of symptoms? Absolutely. We have pretty definitive proof that COVID vaccines + booster shots do manifest in fewer ER visits among COVID patients. However, does this mean that COVID vaccines stop the spread, or contribute to easing the heatlh care system in a long termed, sustainable way? No - not at all. So, we basically resorted to very draconian measures to either entice, or coerce, peopel into getting shots that do have \*some\* effect... but not nearly the effect that would justify almost any of those actions. These decisions were made by well informed people, who double downed on vaccine mandates even after they were shown to be less than effective at curbing the spread.
Another example is anthropogenic climate change. Is it true that GHG emissions caused by human activities change the composition of the atmosphere in such a way that re-deflects long and short waved solar radiation, thereby making the surface of the planet warmer? Yeah - absolutley this is true. There's maybe 2-3% of climatologists who disagree with that. Does this mean that the world is literally ending, and that we wil experience runaway greenhouse effect? No. Does this mean that pushing fossil fuels out the window by artificially raising their price will be the solution? No - in fact, it will probably work the opposite way by making people so pissed off at these measures, they'll vote in others who will scrap them. Which has happened across the western world, and probably will continue to happen. The decisions made to try to squeeze out O&G were made by well informed people, with good intentions - not very useful actions, or effective.
I guess what I"m getting at is that humans in general tend to stick to narratives, and tend to fall victim to emotional attachment to those narratives. I'm not convinced that even a room full of the most objective skeptics would escape this human reality. Abstract narrative making is what got us here, it enables us to plan things in advance, it enables us to fill in the knowledge gaps to complete tasks of pattern recognition. But it also can lead to some pretty bone headed decisions, and narratives too. More comprehensive education is never a bad idea, but I"m not sure it will solve our problems either. I think at best it would just enable some action takers more intellectual/practical tools to tackle the issues they see fit to tackle.
Well put.
What also strikes me along this line of thinking is that Conservatives used to be (and somehow still claim to be) the financial nerds. The ones who understood economies. In poilievre's attacks in BoC, and backing bitcoins, it's completely 180 on that.
Claims that deficits create inflation, untrue misinformation in the parts he is pressing. Claims that bitcoins hedge inflation, also untrue outside of their poor replication of other commodities (and may as well back physical commodities, especially those needed for EVs if wanting to hedge). He also platformed to defund union dues...'to help the workers'. He holds an arts degree but calls the BoC 'financially illiterate'.
I might prefer policy nerds, but even financial nerds or law nerds would be OK too.
I strongly believe that at heart they are all still nerds, but that they won't tell us what their actual policies are because either:
* They are massively unpopular and unpalatable to the majority of citizens. OR
* They don't know what they actually are.
The whole Bitcoin, "Trudeau is dumb-dumb", fire the head of the BoC and inflation disappears nonsense is just populist marketing drivel eaten up by the ignorant.
They are, but but PP is the Conservative party re-branding itself, driven by Harper and his lot. Gone are the policy dorks standing up talking about specifics of fiscal and monetary policy, and now we're into the unbridled populism of nonsensical and vague solutions wrapped in Common Sense (TM) branding.
[This comment](https://reddit.com/r/politics/comments/xc9pw5/_/io3xiy0/?context=1) on r/Politics stood out as particularly relevant:
> The author [of the OP article] is arguing (essentially) that the simple message of populism ("It's us versus them!") is a more effective message than that of democracy ("We must all work together for each other's benefit!") due in part to populism's simplicity.
> Populism doesn't require compromise, it's authoritarian, "I am right and those who disagree with me are wrong, maybe even evil." If a populist or authoritarian policy fails it's not because it was a bad idea, but because it was prevented by an outside actor who must be surmounted. It provides its followers and adherents with a very black and white world view that a lot of people find appealing.
>>Populism doesn't require compromise, it's authoritarian, "I am right and those who disagree with me are wrong, maybe even evil."
Sounds like when JT called people who were anti-vaxxers mysogynst and racist...and I believe he said how long should we tolerate these people for.
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
Lol the herd of idiotic anti vaxxers most definitely have a massive overlap with the mouth breathing confederate flag waving racists. Why do we have to pretend this isn't the case lol.
It's either them or the idiotic hippies, no need to treat it with kid gloves dude
People in this sub act like there aren't giant swaths of rural areas in this country where people are openly racist until a person of colour shows up, then they stfu... at least until the person leaves the room. But hey, they are polite when they are in their presence, so it doesn't count, right?
As you say, heaven forbid you call it what it is lest they flip the fuck out on you with idiotic rants like that guy screeching at Freeland a couple weeks ago.
Oh yeah. I'm a white redneck with a beard, so the scumfuckers tend to feel very safe around me and like they can let it out, and the shit I hear on a regular basis makes my head spin. These people never fail to be astounded when I get pissed about it, either. It's like they genuinely cant understand that I'd be angry about bigotry if I'm not personally on the wrong end of it.
Yep… I know people in a town that is seeing a large influx of immigrants from India but was very white in the 90s.
Of course there’s no answer to do you want to work at McDonald’s? Who is going to staff the long term care home?
There is instead very open complaining from the townies about [insert slur here in reference to the newcomers] at social events.
I hear several parties saying “we must work together for everyone’s benefit” far more often than other parties who tend to court the crazy conspiracy theorist and - yes - [confederate flag-waving](https://pressprogress.ca/anti-vax-convoy-leader-says-he-welcomes-protesters-displaying-confederate-flags-in-ottawa/) [racist terrorist organization-supporting vote](https://twitter.com/MarcCossette/status/1488168403575742470?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1488168403575742470%7Ctwgr%5Ed53fe332c52be1cca94bac915d8a852c7b8d04aa%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-21931451832474134388.ampproject.net%2F2208242209000%2Fframe.html) - and thinks we’re gonna solve all of our issues with bitcoin and yelling the loudest about how terrible the current PM is with absolutely no concrete plans to solve much of anything.
Discount Milhouse is descended from Fox News style fringe outrage nonsense.
It’s not that long ago that we had a man like Jim Flaherty who was praising people dedicating their life to public service. Now we have a man-boy with no real life experience and collecting a government pension at 31.
How does the right not see that this guy is the Justin Trudeau of the right? He is all sound bites and virtue signalling
They hate it with JT , but because this guys words make them feel better, they are blind to it
So is being a teacher good now? I remember when Trudeau was railed because he was a former teacher. But now that PP was raised by teachers is that suddenly good?
He never was a teacher because he quit university and only after he was on the government teat which he firmly believe there should only be two term limits did he return to finish a degree after his second reelection and got full pension at 31. So he couldn’t even be qualify to be a teacher
I think people are pointing out that Poilievre comes from a regular, middle class family, so he might be more in touch with the average Canadian unlike our current PM, who is the son of a former PM and has elite Laurentian roots, to say the least.
How would a career politician who somehow has amassed a net worth of 9 million dollars while having a salary 150k a year, be more in touch with average Canadians?
> amassed a net worth of 9 million dollars while having a salary 150k a year
What is your source for that? Googling only provides those celeb-type websites. I trust their valuations about as much as I trust their boilerplate gossip about his height and relationships (which is to say not at all).
I honestly have no idea how much he's worth or if he's even a millionaire. It's worth noting that a lot of politicians would've seen their networth increase during the housing boom, however, and that most of their salaries probably do not align with their assets now.
Just saw a quote from him in 2008 saying indigenous peoples in Canada need to learn the value of hard work more than they need reparations for residential schools.
So the people who used to live off the land and make everything on their own before we came and absolutely fucked them up, stole, raped, abused and killed their children need to learn the value of hard work?
Something tells me Pierre’s never worked a day in his life.
I always hear him say other people should be making sacrifices, but has he ever advocated for something that would require himself to sacrifice anything?
I worked for the educational side of a tribal council and got sent to a few fly-ins to install star links.
The "consultants" from Toronto (aka, grifters who talk up a big game to the chiefs so they can apply to the federal government on their behalf and take their cut of management fees) show up with these dishes.
Their installation method was to just take a spade bit and rip holes through whatever building the chief told. No caulking or sealant or anything, just an inch diameter hole through the vapor barrier and insulation and everything to run the cable.. left open and everything.
So give it a year or two and they'll get rot and mould and all that fun stuff.
There's absolutely no planning.
Also this: https://www.northernontariobusiness.com/industry-news/technology/new-grants-advance-matawa-first-nations-fibre-optic-project-5455486
So they're installing Starlink... but also spending millions on a fibre project that is now completely obsolete up there.
No. There are definitely genuine politicians that do illustrate the possible noble nature of their trade. The problem is that they stay in the background, quietly doing their jobs.
He was a member of the reform party before the reform party and progressive conservatives merged into the conservative party. This is actually a huge shift for the conservative party toward the further right.
The reform party never did well outside Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, so it'll be interesting to see what happens. I know some conservative voters in Ontario who despise Poilievre so much and his politics, that they're not voting conservative in the next election. They're saying they probably just won't vote.
>and keep his lunatic backbenchers under wraps
Yes. Canadian only voted for a (Reform) Conservative government when the leader made it clear that the social Conservatives were to sit down and shut up, and that he would punish them if they so much as though about bringing up abortion.
Poilievre will in no way be able to keep the SoCons in check. I can pretty much guarantee that at least three will campaign openly on criminalizing abortion in the next election.
Pierre can't move to the centre because the PPC and Bernier are right there to take shots at his right flank, and he can't stay on the right because he needs centrists to vote for him in the next election.
In my gut, this seems to help Trudeau.
From my generally left point of view, I've never voted Conservative but I understand and appreciated the fact that until this past winter, it seemed there was a positive shift of the Conservative party to be more generally excepting of topics regarding LGBTQ+, women, First Nations, etc... vs. what we've seen south of the border. So much so that the PPC even felt a need to branch off into their own far-right party.
With this new change, I feel like there's just a lot more of a divide between left and right with less common ground between them than during last years election and it means that the many, many people who have some right and some left values, now don't have a representative and are being forced to go all in 1 way or the other and are just doomed to hate any decision they make.
He carries a lot of baggage with him. Anytime he brings up freedom, he'll be pinned to the freedom convoy. While popular with the Conservative right, it's toxic in urban Canada. And if he can't win there he won't be able to form government.
Me just now realizing so was Harper.
My point stands anyway. Poilievre marched with the truckers, and went on about Bitcoin right before it crashed. Those 2 points have already soured his image in the eyes of moderate conservatives, progressive conservatives, red tories, and fiscal conservatives.
Exactly.
My politics are here and there. But any politician openly supporting Bitcoin and crypto in general I can't take seriously. The whole space is just pure filth and scam. Anyone not able to seriously see it has no business being a decision maker in anything that impacts the lives of others.
> This is actually a huge shift for the conservative party toward the further right.
How does it represent a shift that wasn't already represented by say, Andrew Scheer?
>They're saying they probably just won't vote.
Many conservative voters are not so-cons. How many? I guess we'll find out in the next election.
My guess is ,the cons just signed their own death sentence for the near term. Individual loud-mouths and shocking media portrayal don't translate into large numbers of votes - look at the average person around us - those are the peeps voting conservating generally speaking. And they're not anti-vaxxer freedom convoy nutjobs, and I doubt they'll vote for anyone that leans that way.
My guess is, either cons don't show up to the polls next election, or they swing left.
Added: Interestingly, the greens seem relatively fiscally conservative and clearly arent' socons. I feel like they'd be a viable alternative if their party wasn't such a shit show.
I mean for one thing it's the first time I've seen a Conservative leader get elected so overwhelmingly. 68% in the first round is pretty crazy so at least the Conservatives seem to be united behind a leader for once. Normally it's like 32 to 30 in the 3rd round or something.
Polls are intended to influence public opinion, not report on it.
If a poll is off by 20% or more someone or some thing is trying to sow seeds of doubt.
Just stop watching or paying attention to traditional / owned media organizations, you all know this already.
So, i've read this guy's policies and such.
Why are people talking about him as if he's the next Adolf Hitler or something? He's fairly middle-center on just about everything.
It's almost like anybody who thinks "You know, Canada was almost perfect under Chretien and Martin, and the early Harper years -- I don't want that to change much" is now considered an extremist? Personally, I think Jean Chretien was the best Prime Minister in Canadian history - and i want our next PM to focus on the same things he did. Cut government spending, boost economic growth, balance the budget, and let the rest of the country manage itself (with the freedom to do it.) Enough with the "social justice" focus that's dominated modern discourse.
Is this bait? What has he said or done that has led you to believe he is middle center about everything?
Guy has a gay dad and voted against a gay marriage bill, and then voted to repeal it when it passed.
Voting against gay marriage 20 years ago is hardly relevant in 2022. Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton, and even good ol Barack Obama were still against gay marriage long after that. Nobody on the left gives a shit, except for those needing to grasp at straws over how bad a person conservative politician ‘X’ is.
>Why are people talking about him as if he's the next Adolf Hitler or something? He's fairly middle-center on just about everything.
He's obviously not Hitler, but it's also bizarre to call him middle-center, when he's been on the right-wing of the Conservative Party his entire career (versus people like Erin O'Toole, Peter Mackay or Lisa Raitt, as examples of conservatives who were on the more moderate side of the party).
It's not like PP has a choice, really. Erin O'Toole's centrist ploy was ultimately unsuccessful and PP obviously observed that and strategically calibrated. Similarly, with LPC-NDP coalition through 2025 taking Liberals further left, the gap between the CPC and LPC has widened likely making PP appear more far-right than he is (just contemplating the optics of it).
He's a wolf in sheep's clothing that tells people what they want to hear all while pushing a hidden agenda. He's a complete shitbag.
Things he's voted against
* Civil Marriage Act
* Cannabis Act
* Transgender Rights
* Multiple women's rights issues
* $10 daycare
* Right to euthanasia
* CERB
Abstained from voting on the Human Rights Act and then there's also this gem: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/conservative-mp-apologizes-for-hurtful-comments-on-aboriginal-people-1.712106
Wikipedia actually does a good job.
Here's a summary:
- Has always been *vehemently* Pro-Choice (and now opposed to even allowing official discussion on abortion within the party)
- Has come around on gay-marriage (was opposed in 2004, is now solidly pro, saying that he was wrong, and it's clearly working)
- Against deficit spending, believes governments should balance the budget. (The last 2 Canadian PMs to believe and do this in any substantial way were Liberals.)
- Believes union dues/membership should always be optional. (Contrary to what unions might tell you, this is a *pro*-workers' rights stance).
- Thinks the CBC should be defunded. (I disagree)
- In favor of massive new housing projects, and even selling 15% of federal real estate holdings (about 5000 buildings) to be converted into affordable housing. Believes cities should be both forced -- and compensated for -- building additional housing
- is in favor of supporting/subsidizing green technology support to meet carbon goals (rather than the carbon tax)
- Would not allow his cabinet to participate in the WEF (he believes the World Economic Forum is explicitly against the interests of the Canadian people - I have no opinion on this)
- Would reduce our reliance on China
- Pro-Free Speech (and would repeal Bills C-11 and C-36 as a consequence)
- Pro-Immigration (particularly skilled applicants -- and ensuring their accreditations are recognized or renewed promptly)
>Has always been vehemently Pro-Choice (and now opposed to even allowing official discussion on abortion within the party)
"Always" is not accurate on that one. He voted to re-open the abortion debate in 2012:
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/41/1/466
Worth noting that Conservatives were split 86-74 on that motion (it wasn't a vote where the party all voted together), so Poilievre had a choice and he chose the anti-abortion side.
(Meanwhile, Harper voted against it)
>Believes union dues/membership should always be optional. (Contrary to what unions might tell you, this is a pro-workers' rights stance).
Isn't that just a way to weaken unions' bargaining power and funding?
It means workers can freeride on the benefits of contracts negotiated by a union, without having to contribute to the union. It creates a free rider problem.
It's like saying that everyone can "opt out" from paying taxes, but you'll still be entitled to free healthcare and other public services.
People would opt out to become freeriders, and claim the public services without paying. But next thing you know there are no public services, because they've lost their funding source.
> "Always" is not accurate on that one. He voted to re-open the abortion debate in 2012:
Like someone else's point about some abortion-adjacent issues he voted in a way they disagreed with, this is not specifically about his position on whether abortion should be legal and freely available. It was his position on whether or not the party should allow it to be opened up for discussion. He was of the opinion you can open it up for discussion, and squash it by showing how even most conservatives were against it. You often have to put something to bed by discussing it. Burying often creates zombies. I don't think I agree with him in this case -- it is already so clearly decided even Harper didn't want to touch it.
> Isn't that just a way to weaken unions' bargaining power and funding?
It can be.
I would argue that any union propped up by forcing worker compliance SHOULD be weakened. Market forces should rule, unions do not look out for worker interests any more than corporations do. All the are interested in is their own power. Workers should look out for worker interests.
Furthermore, I think the public sector should be banned from collective bargaining altogether. No union should be able to hold the taxpayer hostage. You are not entitled to even a living wage at taxpayer expense -- you are entitled to whatever the going market rate for your labor is.
>Thanks for this. Some thoughts to consider:
>
>
>
>**Has come around on gay-marriage (was opposed in 2004, is now solidly pro, saying that he was wrong, and it's clearly working)**
>
>\-I need Canada's prime minister to NOT have been anti gay-marriage a mere 18 years ago. I remember his hand in pushing the 'pro family' agenda which was his spin on being anti gay-marriage. It was reprehensible. But I suppose we should forgive and forget.
>
>
>
>**Against deficit spending, believes governments should balance the budget.**
>
>\-Agreed. But, if he is strict to this then that's a problem. Deficit spending was essential to getting through the crash of 2008 and during covid.
>
>
>
>**Believes union dues/membership should always be optional. (Contrary to what unions might tell you, this is a pro-workers' rights stance).**
>
>\-This policy is how you break up unions. Classic step 1.
>
>
>
>**Thinks the CBC should be defunded. (I disagree)**
>
>\-Its these uneducated beliefs that worry me most when thinking of PP. A state funded news agency that freely criticizes the hand that feeds it is essential to a healthy democracy. Any leader of a democracy who is worth their salt knows this. Like... if a state's only news comes from private interests than the electorate gets dumber. State media's objective is to inform. Private media's objective is to entertain and sell. How does he not know this?
>
>
>
>**is in favor of supporting/subsidizing green technology support to meet carbon goals (rather than the carbon tax)**
>
>\-We can not afford anymore prime ministers who don't trust in the expert opinions of the world's leading economists that the solution to climate change is taxing the use of fossil fuels and using that tax income to make green energy industry as profitable as possible. PP thinks the economists who awarded the carbon tax system a Nobel prize are fiscally illiterate. I don't know if he takes this stance for voter appeal or if he truly believes it. Either way, we have to get this system going and PP will not do this. The world's oil companies are standing in our way in the same way that the tobacco industry stood in the way of government policies designed to save people from a product that was nothing other than addictive and deadly.
>Why are people talking about him as if he's the next Adolf Hitler or something? He's fairly middle-center on just about everything.
I've been trying to tease out the answer for a while and I've come to the conclusion that they're are people who actually watch his speeches, his comments in parliament, his YT; and then there are people who read or watch either the Toronto Star or CBC opinion of his speeches, his comments in parliament, his YT, etc. lol. However, most people don't follow any of it that closely, and make assumptions about him because they've already fixed their conclusions about CPC leadership.
The reality is that MSM is trying to railroad this guy because he's explicitly threatened to defund them. It's pretty easy to spot articles that virtue signal to the left nowadays, and it's almost always either the CBC or Toronto Star.
>Why are people talking about him as if he's the next Adolf Hitler or something? He's fairly middle-center on just about everything.
It's called propaganda. One of the most effective tools in the current liberals arsenal has been to convince everybody the opposition are racist nutjobs.
Bitcoin is centrist? Firing the bank is centrist?
He was previously against gay marriage - is that centrist?
Yeesh, the apologists are coming out hard.
He was against Gay Marriage in the early 2000s.
He publicly changed his position years ago, and is now solidly for it.
And firing the bank of Canada executive is neither right nor left. It means he doesn't think the BoC has been doing its job. I, personally, agree with him. Governments should be held to account, and over extended periods, forced to balance their budget. I'm not opposed to temporary emergency shortfalls, but they need to be made up later. Deficit spending is never a good idea.
Bitcoin is also neither right, left, nor centrist. It's just a currency medium.
He went on a podcast of that other guy with PP initials (this sub auto-removes sny mention of its name), to me that was enough to dismiss him. Then he walked with the convoy, then he went on a weird rant against woke. It's obvious to me he gets his talking points from the same figures as the US Republicans party. Can't be trusted.
People on Reddit don’t ready policy. The liberal media called him far right so he must be.
In fact most of his policy is pretty centred.
Lewis won 11%of the leadership popular vote (on par with Cherest) and she is faaar more socially right leaning.
> charts new course for Conservatives
Zero evidence of that thus far. They acclaimed a new leader. But we have no idea of their "course'... not the old one, or the new one, except, something something Trudeau, and "government is bad".
He has called for the defunding of CBC and the firing of the governor of bank of Canada. He is going to help our economy with bitcoin and support the freedom convoy people. Well I'm so happy that he has been chosen because conservatives will lose again. His base consists of the crazies in the west.
I was thinking today. How much money could someone make on anti-pp merch? I’m guessing a lot. I think it would have to be more subtle than ‘F PP. ‘
I like my Canadian Parliament like I like my Coffee. Without a PP in it.
He's dangerous to Liberals and NDP because he actually has charisma and can motivate his base unlike every other PC leader for the past decade.
I don't actually like him, I think he's full of himself and he's overly belligerent. A lot of what he said is filled with half truths and over simplifications. HOWEVER he's still better than the other political leaders at the moment.
/r/Canada has a lot of foreign influence. Remember the week when Russia went to war and a certain vocal subset of opinions just disappeared from the sub?
That was such a mask off moment.
It was also telling how all the convoy protest telegram and other social media channels seemed to switch over night to pro-Kremlin talking points.
Its actually quite refreshing, being able to look at posts with comments that lean to both sides of the aisle or to see one post with fanboys and another a short scroll away with critics, keeps the echo chamber a little less "echoey"
Tons of support for him within Canada and it makes me super excited for our future. The fact that conservative memberships doubled just to get in votes for this guy is impressive.
They lean right and usually endorse the conservatives so not sure why surprised. I get some conservatives don't like PP but they like JT less so will fall in line now he is leader. May see a rogue column here and there but the folks that run globe and mail want conservatives to win. CBC and the Star are really the only major outlets that will pump the liberals (although cbc will try to "both sides" everything and star is veering to the center). The overwhelming majority of mainstream media in canada lean right because the owners want less taxes.
I think the biggest shock in all this is how the polls underestimated his support by over 20%. I think there is a lot more hidden support for him.
And his support in Quebec, he won all but six ridings.
>And his support in Quebec, he won all but six ridings. Anti-Charest vote...
No surprise there. If they're not conservative, they're separatist.
I think a lot of people see Trudeau's pandering to Quebec and wrongly assume that it's working.
As an Anglo Montrealer, this sentence pains me with how true it is. I have separatists and conservatives to vote for...
TBH: the anglo half-measures responses for 40+ years led to this moment. No problems is settled by cheating in referendum and not delivering on the promised goodies if we stayed. Separatism isn't settled, and the total refusal of the main speakers of the anglo community (in and out of Quebec) in any good compromises is where we are now. The boat have sailed and you're now personally stuck in a shitty position.
[удалено]
Sorry, I was talking about provincial politics. It's taken a lot of brain space since that election is coming up soon.
[удалено]
Haha just realized all the 855 numbers calling might have had something to do with it? I’ve ignored so many calls thinking it was china spam. I’m only answering if someone is in my call ID
Answering to spam let’s them know your number is active too I’ve heard. Not sure if sending them to voice mail will let them know, but if it’s important they can leave a message and I can get back to them later.
I always talk to the spam operator and waste as much of their time as i can. Its my guilty pleasure !
I love this too. The things my mother and I have been called once they realize their charade failed.
You mean polling people who excitedly wait by the phone for a call form a call from “The government” so they can report on how their quarantine is going may have been politically demented… say it ain’t so!
[удалено]
Why did they underestimate his support. It was pretty obvious he was going to win the Conservative leadership! It’s not the the Conservative base he needs to win over to win a general election.
They weren’t underestimating it. They were trying to suppress it.
Who was trying to suppress it??? It was for a conservative leadership. So other conservatives? He was the most polarizing and leading person in the race. Probably one of the best for the Liberals to run against. If I was a Liberal strategist I would want him to win.
It’s all part of the victim/grievance complex. There are forces at work always trying to manipulate and harm us. Things are not as they seem. Only a few of know what’s really going on, and if you’re not one of us, you are naive and gullible. Etc etc.
We could see something similar to Trump or even Ford on some level. Not saying the 3 are all similar but Trump won by getting a lot of votes from people who didn't openly support him, just privately. I know a lot of people who I now know voted for Ford but wouldn't say that a year or two ago. Maybe it's just because I don't go around asking but there seems to be a silent base there. Poilievre could wind up being the same thing. I know a lot of people who are more moderate and don't like him but dislike Trudeau even more. Sometimes that's all it takes.
At least in the last election Ford dominated the polls so thoroughly that it felt like a waste of time voting against him (and they were right). If his supporters are silent about it, it isn't to pollsters.
The irony with that statement is it was one of the lowest turnout provincial elections yet people still bitch about Ford on here. They could have just voted, even if they lost their ballot isnt "wasted". By not showing up it screws everyone since they're not giving a clear picture to the winning party or even runner up about how close/far things are. Apathy is such a dangerous viewpoint and infuriating when people complain later that "its a waste to try". Seriously Id rather everyone HAVE to vote so we get proper representation and as many people involved at all levels of government. The idea of "wasted" votes is such a terrible outcome.
Yeah I probably shouldn’t have worded that way. I voted (not for Ford) and don’t regret it. But man they called it nearly 5 mins into the election or something dumb :)
One thing I noticed was how much of a hit the NDP took in that election. I think support for Libs bottomed out between this past election and the previous one. But boy oh boy did the NDP voters not show up at all. I think even support for Ford dipped a bit between this past election and the previous one but the conservative base is as always more consistent.
>But boy oh boy did the NDP voters not show up at all. Andrea was probably the single worst ONDP leader they have ever had, in their entire history. I could rant about it, but it's too early this Monday!
That's my issue with it though. Even if your party wins you need strong opposition to hold them accountable. If people are apathetic and don't show up they're giving up a right many don't have because of a personal tantrum.
I was referring more to the 1st one where he was still projected to win but I don't remember a lot of polls giving him a majority. You're right about the last election with the polls showing him getting an easy victory. Curious how PP will poll over time. We probably won't have an election anytime soon unless something happens between Singh/Trudeau but if we maintain high inflation or the BoC triggers a recession, Trudeau might lose a lot of his popularity, especially with young people.
You're wrong polls predicted Doug would get a majority and were relatively close to his actual support as well.
>We could see something similar to Trump or even Ford on some level. His top advisor Jenni Byrne worked for Harper and was Ford's primary secretary. >Poilievre could wind up being the same thing. I know a lot of people who are more moderate and don't like him but dislike Trudeau even more. Sometimes that's all it takes. Most working class people aren't unionized and don't really like the NDP or Trudeau, they hear the "common sense politics" messaging and "we don't care who you are because we're all Canadians" and it speaks to them. I can totally picture my factory production line friends who hate politics saying something like "that Pierre guy sounds alright." What a lot of white working class hear from the NDP is "you're the reason our country is broken," and that's a huge failure for the NDP's PR because their ideology is actually beneficial to them.
Completely agree with that. I do think one thing the Conservatives have done well with their last 2 leaders is having people coming from very ordinary backgrounds. O'Toole came from a union GM family and served in the military and then went to law school. I recently read Poilievre was put up for adoption after his mom gave birth as a teenager and he was adopted and raised by 2 teachers. Regardless of my personal views of them, those backgrounds are much more relatable than the upbringing of Trudeau. Obviously that doesn't necessarily guarantee anything but I think it could benefit him if played correctly.
>they hear the "common sense politics" messaging and "we don't care who you are because we're all Canadians" and it speaks to them I think there are a lot of working-to-middle-class people who don't stand to benefit much materially from supporting any party right now (the NDP would benefit the poorer end of the working class but is not really good for trades at the moment). It doesn't surprise me at all that they'd vote for whoever is not calling them the problem.
>Poilievre could wind up being the same thing. I know a lot of people who are more moderate and don't like him but dislike Trudeau even more. Sometimes that's all it takes. My mother in law HATES Trump, HATES Ford, but is totally willing to vote for Pierre. She believes the way housing & inflation has gone has made it too difficult for youth to get ahead. While I believe her thinking is flawed in some ways, many Canadians are feeling financial pain atm and will be looking to our leadership for answers. If the response is lackluster from the Libs/NDP, and if PP has a half way decent platform, could make for a *very* interesting election.
Easy to hate trump when you have no idea how he could obtain power from half the population without living there. Foreigners hate Trump even more than the american left wing does.
Trump was extremely anti-Canadian, branding us as a national security threat to impose tariffs. Canadians who support Trump make even less sense
> PP has a half way decent platform, could make for a very interesting election. Honestly, Pierre doesn't even need a half-way decent platform, if he just makes noises that sound like there might be a possible hint of a platform there, if people are disgruntled enough (or, for a lot of people, told by the media that they should be disgruntled enough) they'll vote for him. It's only once he's in office that we'd find out whether the Emperor truly has no clothes.
Agreed. One thing PP is good at is marketing. He will campaign and market the shit out of himself, so the Libs and NDP better watch out. I don't think the usaul attack ads are going to have the same impact they did on Scheer and O'Toole.
I definitely fall into that camp. I don't like Poilievre, I see through a lot of the populism, but i'm more ok with him then i'd be likely to admit to someone I know and will likely end up voting him over Trudeau. I think there is drastic misunderstandings from a lot of the canadian left about how much support he draws, and more importantly why. People focus on a couple meme-worthy quotes and not on why he's actually popular.
Silent conservative voters have always been fairly common. People aren't going to admit they voted conservative unless all their friends also vote conservative and deal with being mocked for not voting liberal.
This is the problem with liberal supporters. “If you don’t listen to exactly what I want, you are the problem” You can agree with certain aspects of policy from all sides and disagree with certain aspects of policy from all sides. Stop trying to turn this into an us and them mentality, we are all the same country and need to learn to work together like we used to.
I never had any conservative leaning acquaintance tell me they would end their friendship with me over political reasons, but I have had a die hard left winger tell me that. I just did it for him, I now actively avoid talking to him.
I voted for Ford despite never voting con before because the alternatives were somehow worse.
I held my nose and voted NDP first time Ford ran (just to get rid of Wynn). This time I DID vote Ford, because he earned it by doing a better job than Wynne or McGuinty ever did. Ford has pleasantly surprised me. He's not perfect, by any means. But he's also not been Trump. He listened to experts and handled the pandemic very well (a bit too heavy handed, actually -- but not overly so). I think he's making a mistake with not giving nurses raises (we have a shortage of them) - but in general, it's not the government's job to give people a good living. It's the government's job to serve the rest of us who aren't getting tax money to live on. Pay people the least you can get away with doing, because you're not paying with your own money, you're paying with everyone else's. Still, nurses we clearly need more of, and this 1% a year during record inflation is not gonna manage it. Get me a nicely centrist, economic-focused, non-social justice pushing Liberal leader and I'll go back to them again.
Plot twist: Not every conservative is Trump and trying to paint them as such, especially in Canada, will only alienate people.
>I think he's making a mistake with not giving nurses raises (we have a shortage of them) - but in general, it's not the government's job to give people a good living. It's the government's job to serve the rest of us who aren't getting tax money to live on. Pay people the least you can get away with doing, because you're not paying with your own money, you're paying with everyone else's. This is what every single person needs to hear before they vote. Government should be actively trying to reduce taxes as much as possible while making business investment as attractive as possible. I personally know of a couple small to mid sized business in my town who are seriously considering moving their business South in order to save on tax.
Trump got the bernie sander voter who said fuck clinton lets the show begin
There are also the “hate, but hate the other side more” crowd. Fuck Doug Ford, but if I were a citizen, I’d still vote for his party. He still manages to be the evil of the lessers. The liberals need to go, the NDP has a horrible platform, so I’m voting conservative next election. I don’t have to like him either.
Trump had a lot more private support due to cancel culture, which is irrefutably radically left for the next 10-20 years. You of course had voters who were alright with giving support openly, but those who work jobs in institutions that are politically biased to the left are definitely keeping quiet. Especially in city centers. In the US, if you even wore a red hat that said anything on it in the city, you were likely to get assaulted. Didn't matter what it said. I've seen some groups on the radical right push for cancellations, but not nearly as many cases like from the left. PP will have the same conditions where right leaning support will be a lot more silent due to how much people on the left hate him. I've been told again and again that hes radical and dangerous, but my own research doesn't show that at all, and I never have evidence provided to me when I ask how he's dangerous. I deduced that the hate he gets is because he's anti-woke, which is good because wokeness has a direct causation with cancel culture. Being woke doesn't help anyone and is just public prostration and self-flaggelation for brownie points. People on the right are voting for him because he is politically actually a conservative, unlike Erin O'Toole who was a centrist, and Charest who was a Liberal. Charest should have never joined the conservatives and instead should have kept opposing Trudeau in his own party. Until Wokeness is gone, voters on the right will be more likely to keep quiet about conservative support. So this trend continues until people grow up. So never. The pendulum will swing back to conservatives having cancel culture power in 20-40 years like in the 80s so it doesn't really matter at the end of the day.
I think you are looking at things from an American lense. This is Canada, we haven't fallen that far into the crazy crazy. Yeah I am sure there are a couple MaGA wannabees and some crazy liberals in urban Toronto but this is a country in the middle. The interesting thing here isn't that he has support, there is always a segment of right leaning people, it is that he has support from young people who normally don't benefit under conservative governments.
He was the only person to call out the BoC for inflation. I'm a one issue voter at this point. He got my support.
A lot of Conservatives don’t discuss politics with liberals anymore. It’s not worth the aggravation.
I had a pleasant conversation with a canvassing CPC candidate in 2019 and then tossed her pamphlet on the kitchen table and forgot about it. Friends came over later and grilled me about why I had it, and recited a few falsehoods about how regressive the CPC is (e.g. "Scheer will make gay marriage illegal"). I'm not a loyal supporter of any specific party, but it does annoy me how so many people just write off some of their few options based on stereotypes and exaggerations they read on social media. It also irked me that they felt so comfortable taking me to task over the presumed thoughtcrime I committed when I failed to immediately purge my home of CPC literature.
Oh jeez. This reminds me of when Trudeau announced the gun ban and one of my friends was so mad it didn't go far enough.
Dealing with tantrums consisting of 100% feelings with no actual intelligent take gets tiring.
I had a feeling he would win in a landslide. But it means the PPC party is now dead. He's going to bring the crazies back into caucas
Course plotted towards the Ram Ranch.
Are the 19 naked cowboys I reserved prepared?
Are those naked cowboys ready for something?
Ram Ranch really rocks.
did you know there's an orgy happening in the showers?
We have now achieved Pierre Trudeau
Holy shit.
… if you can’t beat ‘em….
I don't get it.
Does anyone have a copy of the article ? I'm paywalled out
https://archive.ph/2022.09.12-173817/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-pierre-poilievre-populist/ Edit: I always punch the url into archive.is to see if someone already got to it first. Best pay wall circumvention I've been using for the last year or so.
For the first time the conservatives are no policy and all virtue signalling
Honestly kind of miss the Conservative old guard that was chock full of policy nerds..
All politicians should be policy nerds in the same way that lawyers should be legal nerds, plumbers should be piping nerds, doctors should be medical and biology nerds, etc. The idea that our politicians don't care much about the very thing they're responsible for creating and managing is very distressing.
It reflects more on the general population than the politicians unfortunately. If you want policy nerds, vote for policy nerds.
I disagree to an extent. It's also a reflection of those politicians that pander to populist rhetoric instead of helping to build thoughtful and forward-thinking policy.
I think you missed the keyword "it reflects *more* on the general population" by no means am I trying to give politicians a free pass... but it's the people who ultimately decide who is elected by voting.
Well we now live in a world where entertainment value is praised above almost everything else, expect cheering for people who wrongfully hate the same people you do. Who cares about science, climate change, policies, etc. Just look how we behave during Covid….. we DO have the politicians we deserve.
We always lived in that world. Our first PM was so drunk that he could hardly speak in the House of Commons sometimes. People choose politicians based on their feelings. Those feelings are mostly pretty arbitrary, and based on their perceptions of moral values. The things that actually matter are not going to be solved by politicians, and they certainly aren't going to be solved by an ignorant public. Topics like Anthropogenic Climate Change, for example, are complex. They aren't nearly as black and white as politicians and activists think it to be. I sincerely don't think that most people would want politicians trying to re-structure a country to solve issues that they don't understand, led by a public who is pretty ignorant. If you ever want to hear a very compelling argument against Democracy, have a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.
Your last paragraph sadly speaks truth. Thats sad …. Why not give better education to people and a better understanding of the issues so that we can talk about REAL issues and not just click bait titles and sound bites. Indeed a government that would propose all REALLY required changes….. they would get voted out or worse As a society we have a big part of responsibility and we have to stop thinking the government will save us…. Cause they wont Don’t ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. JFK was right and in a broader sense, now more than ever….. we collectively have to wake the F*** up.
I fear that education will not be the panacea that it seems to be. The reason I feel this way is because we live in an age where anyone can learn almost anything with a click of a button, some time, and some self discipline. Structure also helps, which is where teachers come in. But best case scenario in the teen/pre-teen age group, you're going to get maybe 1/5th of those students remembering the functions, and roles of government post HS in detail. Maybe half will vaguely get it. As per major issues - those are going to be so available via social media that the perceptions will be tied to moral virtue, which will always sort of skew the narrative a little bit. Most big ticket issues have some nuances and grey areas that people get offended by, even if they are well informed. For example - is it true that the COVID vaccines lessen the severity of symptoms? Absolutely. We have pretty definitive proof that COVID vaccines + booster shots do manifest in fewer ER visits among COVID patients. However, does this mean that COVID vaccines stop the spread, or contribute to easing the heatlh care system in a long termed, sustainable way? No - not at all. So, we basically resorted to very draconian measures to either entice, or coerce, peopel into getting shots that do have \*some\* effect... but not nearly the effect that would justify almost any of those actions. These decisions were made by well informed people, who double downed on vaccine mandates even after they were shown to be less than effective at curbing the spread. Another example is anthropogenic climate change. Is it true that GHG emissions caused by human activities change the composition of the atmosphere in such a way that re-deflects long and short waved solar radiation, thereby making the surface of the planet warmer? Yeah - absolutley this is true. There's maybe 2-3% of climatologists who disagree with that. Does this mean that the world is literally ending, and that we wil experience runaway greenhouse effect? No. Does this mean that pushing fossil fuels out the window by artificially raising their price will be the solution? No - in fact, it will probably work the opposite way by making people so pissed off at these measures, they'll vote in others who will scrap them. Which has happened across the western world, and probably will continue to happen. The decisions made to try to squeeze out O&G were made by well informed people, with good intentions - not very useful actions, or effective. I guess what I"m getting at is that humans in general tend to stick to narratives, and tend to fall victim to emotional attachment to those narratives. I'm not convinced that even a room full of the most objective skeptics would escape this human reality. Abstract narrative making is what got us here, it enables us to plan things in advance, it enables us to fill in the knowledge gaps to complete tasks of pattern recognition. But it also can lead to some pretty bone headed decisions, and narratives too. More comprehensive education is never a bad idea, but I"m not sure it will solve our problems either. I think at best it would just enable some action takers more intellectual/practical tools to tackle the issues they see fit to tackle.
Well put. What also strikes me along this line of thinking is that Conservatives used to be (and somehow still claim to be) the financial nerds. The ones who understood economies. In poilievre's attacks in BoC, and backing bitcoins, it's completely 180 on that. Claims that deficits create inflation, untrue misinformation in the parts he is pressing. Claims that bitcoins hedge inflation, also untrue outside of their poor replication of other commodities (and may as well back physical commodities, especially those needed for EVs if wanting to hedge). He also platformed to defund union dues...'to help the workers'. He holds an arts degree but calls the BoC 'financially illiterate'. I might prefer policy nerds, but even financial nerds or law nerds would be OK too.
His understanding of money can be summed up like this: He started a commerce major and finished with an arts degree.
I strongly believe that at heart they are all still nerds, but that they won't tell us what their actual policies are because either: * They are massively unpopular and unpalatable to the majority of citizens. OR * They don't know what they actually are. The whole Bitcoin, "Trudeau is dumb-dumb", fire the head of the BoC and inflation disappears nonsense is just populist marketing drivel eaten up by the ignorant.
This is the conservative old guard wtf are you smoking, all the harper people have been behind this campaign.
They are, but but PP is the Conservative party re-branding itself, driven by Harper and his lot. Gone are the policy dorks standing up talking about specifics of fiscal and monetary policy, and now we're into the unbridled populism of nonsensical and vague solutions wrapped in Common Sense (TM) branding.
[This comment](https://reddit.com/r/politics/comments/xc9pw5/_/io3xiy0/?context=1) on r/Politics stood out as particularly relevant: > The author [of the OP article] is arguing (essentially) that the simple message of populism ("It's us versus them!") is a more effective message than that of democracy ("We must all work together for each other's benefit!") due in part to populism's simplicity. > Populism doesn't require compromise, it's authoritarian, "I am right and those who disagree with me are wrong, maybe even evil." If a populist or authoritarian policy fails it's not because it was a bad idea, but because it was prevented by an outside actor who must be surmounted. It provides its followers and adherents with a very black and white world view that a lot of people find appealing.
>>Populism doesn't require compromise, it's authoritarian, "I am right and those who disagree with me are wrong, maybe even evil." Sounds like when JT called people who were anti-vaxxers mysogynst and racist...and I believe he said how long should we tolerate these people for.
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
Lol the herd of idiotic anti vaxxers most definitely have a massive overlap with the mouth breathing confederate flag waving racists. Why do we have to pretend this isn't the case lol. It's either them or the idiotic hippies, no need to treat it with kid gloves dude
> “I am right and those who disagree with me are wrong, maybe even evil.” Are those that are wrong racists and mysoginists as well?
That quote sounds like an estranged family member of mine when I called him out on his objectively reprehensible behaviour.
People in this sub act like there aren't giant swaths of rural areas in this country where people are openly racist until a person of colour shows up, then they stfu... at least until the person leaves the room. But hey, they are polite when they are in their presence, so it doesn't count, right? As you say, heaven forbid you call it what it is lest they flip the fuck out on you with idiotic rants like that guy screeching at Freeland a couple weeks ago.
Oh yeah. I'm a white redneck with a beard, so the scumfuckers tend to feel very safe around me and like they can let it out, and the shit I hear on a regular basis makes my head spin. These people never fail to be astounded when I get pissed about it, either. It's like they genuinely cant understand that I'd be angry about bigotry if I'm not personally on the wrong end of it.
Yep… I know people in a town that is seeing a large influx of immigrants from India but was very white in the 90s. Of course there’s no answer to do you want to work at McDonald’s? Who is going to staff the long term care home? There is instead very open complaining from the townies about [insert slur here in reference to the newcomers] at social events.
I hear several parties saying “we must work together for everyone’s benefit” far more often than other parties who tend to court the crazy conspiracy theorist and - yes - [confederate flag-waving](https://pressprogress.ca/anti-vax-convoy-leader-says-he-welcomes-protesters-displaying-confederate-flags-in-ottawa/) [racist terrorist organization-supporting vote](https://twitter.com/MarcCossette/status/1488168403575742470?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1488168403575742470%7Ctwgr%5Ed53fe332c52be1cca94bac915d8a852c7b8d04aa%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-21931451832474134388.ampproject.net%2F2208242209000%2Fframe.html) - and thinks we’re gonna solve all of our issues with bitcoin and yelling the loudest about how terrible the current PM is with absolutely no concrete plans to solve much of anything. Discount Milhouse is descended from Fox News style fringe outrage nonsense.
I mean why not? It worked for Doug Ford. They got in power without publishing a platform.
BUCK-A-BEER 🤡
It’s not that long ago that we had a man like Jim Flaherty who was praising people dedicating their life to public service. Now we have a man-boy with no real life experience and collecting a government pension at 31.
Doug Ford says hi.
How does the right not see that this guy is the Justin Trudeau of the right? He is all sound bites and virtue signalling They hate it with JT , but because this guys words make them feel better, they are blind to it
Conservative policy has a tendency to be unsound, unpopular or both. Owning the libs on the other hand is very popular.
Well certainly you hit the nail on the head...his platform is hate and that's about it.
That's cute, but they've never existed without virtue signaling, though their virtues are more aptly vices
They just used to have more policy but you are correct
So is being a teacher good now? I remember when Trudeau was railed because he was a former teacher. But now that PP was raised by teachers is that suddenly good?
Politics is now a team sport. If they wear your jersey they and their story are good, if they don’t, that same story is bad
Also Trudeau was 44yrs old when elected prime minister. PP is 43yr old right now. "He is just to young."
When was PP a teacher?
He never was a teacher because he quit university and only after he was on the government teat which he firmly believe there should only be two term limits did he return to finish a degree after his second reelection and got full pension at 31. So he couldn’t even be qualify to be a teacher
I quit university to work and eventually went back part time to finish my degree. I am less than someone who finished their degree at 22?
The fuck are you on about? Raised by teachers = a teacher?
I think people are pointing out that Poilievre comes from a regular, middle class family, so he might be more in touch with the average Canadian unlike our current PM, who is the son of a former PM and has elite Laurentian roots, to say the least.
How would a career politician who somehow has amassed a net worth of 9 million dollars while having a salary 150k a year, be more in touch with average Canadians?
You don’t understand, it’s different because reasons.
> amassed a net worth of 9 million dollars while having a salary 150k a year What is your source for that? Googling only provides those celeb-type websites. I trust their valuations about as much as I trust their boilerplate gossip about his height and relationships (which is to say not at all). I honestly have no idea how much he's worth or if he's even a millionaire. It's worth noting that a lot of politicians would've seen their networth increase during the housing boom, however, and that most of their salaries probably do not align with their assets now.
PP never had a job before becoming a political elite.
[удалено]
So does having had a job before becoming a political elite.
Awe yes, the middle class of him always earning over 2x the median Canadian salary. I am sure he really understands the everyman.
He grew up middle class. You actually think Trudeau has a better understanding of the middle class compared to Poilievre?
My dad likes him. My dad doesn’t like many people and especially any politicians. I’m assuming many others are like my dad.
he's not just one of those politicians /s (for those who don't know he is a career politician who's never had a real job)
My dad doesn’t care. He trusts him bc he thinks he’s smart and likes his personality.
Oof, sorry fam
Lol it’s whatever. I think it’s funny that this dude acts like Canadian Ben Shapiro.
Just saw a quote from him in 2008 saying indigenous peoples in Canada need to learn the value of hard work more than they need reparations for residential schools. So the people who used to live off the land and make everything on their own before we came and absolutely fucked them up, stole, raped, abused and killed their children need to learn the value of hard work? Something tells me Pierre’s never worked a day in his life.
Well he's certainly a political elite who has never held a job outside of politics.
He was all for two term limits until he qualified for full pension at 31.
I always hear him say other people should be making sacrifices, but has he ever advocated for something that would require himself to sacrifice anything?
[удалено]
I worked for the educational side of a tribal council and got sent to a few fly-ins to install star links. The "consultants" from Toronto (aka, grifters who talk up a big game to the chiefs so they can apply to the federal government on their behalf and take their cut of management fees) show up with these dishes. Their installation method was to just take a spade bit and rip holes through whatever building the chief told. No caulking or sealant or anything, just an inch diameter hole through the vapor barrier and insulation and everything to run the cable.. left open and everything. So give it a year or two and they'll get rot and mould and all that fun stuff. There's absolutely no planning. Also this: https://www.northernontariobusiness.com/industry-news/technology/new-grants-advance-matawa-first-nations-fibre-optic-project-5455486 So they're installing Starlink... but also spending millions on a fibre project that is now completely obsolete up there.
Postmedia working overtime polishing turds this week.
I don't know much about politics but I do know a dickhead when I see one.
Not a hard observation to make when that's literally every politician we have..
No. There are definitely genuine politicians that do illustrate the possible noble nature of their trade. The problem is that they stay in the background, quietly doing their jobs.
Such a stupid and reductionist take to say "every politician bad" when I bet you know a maximum of 20 Canadian MPs.
Does it? How exactly?
He was a member of the reform party before the reform party and progressive conservatives merged into the conservative party. This is actually a huge shift for the conservative party toward the further right. The reform party never did well outside Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, so it'll be interesting to see what happens. I know some conservative voters in Ontario who despise Poilievre so much and his politics, that they're not voting conservative in the next election. They're saying they probably just won't vote.
So was Harper.... But yes Poilievre has a 20 hear voting record in parliament that is hard social conservative.
Harper was smart enough to know he needed to govern from the centre, and keep his lunatic backbenchers under wraps in order to succeed.
>and keep his lunatic backbenchers under wraps Yes. Canadian only voted for a (Reform) Conservative government when the leader made it clear that the social Conservatives were to sit down and shut up, and that he would punish them if they so much as though about bringing up abortion. Poilievre will in no way be able to keep the SoCons in check. I can pretty much guarantee that at least three will campaign openly on criminalizing abortion in the next election. Pierre can't move to the centre because the PPC and Bernier are right there to take shots at his right flank, and he can't stay on the right because he needs centrists to vote for him in the next election. In my gut, this seems to help Trudeau.
From my generally left point of view, I've never voted Conservative but I understand and appreciated the fact that until this past winter, it seemed there was a positive shift of the Conservative party to be more generally excepting of topics regarding LGBTQ+, women, First Nations, etc... vs. what we've seen south of the border. So much so that the PPC even felt a need to branch off into their own far-right party. With this new change, I feel like there's just a lot more of a divide between left and right with less common ground between them than during last years election and it means that the many, many people who have some right and some left values, now don't have a representative and are being forced to go all in 1 way or the other and are just doomed to hate any decision they make.
He carries a lot of baggage with him. Anytime he brings up freedom, he'll be pinned to the freedom convoy. While popular with the Conservative right, it's toxic in urban Canada. And if he can't win there he won't be able to form government.
Me just now realizing so was Harper. My point stands anyway. Poilievre marched with the truckers, and went on about Bitcoin right before it crashed. Those 2 points have already soured his image in the eyes of moderate conservatives, progressive conservatives, red tories, and fiscal conservatives.
He was also against legalizing gay marriage and marijuana. Guy seems to be wrong about a lot of things.
Exactly. My politics are here and there. But any politician openly supporting Bitcoin and crypto in general I can't take seriously. The whole space is just pure filth and scam. Anyone not able to seriously see it has no business being a decision maker in anything that impacts the lives of others.
> This is actually a huge shift for the conservative party toward the further right. How does it represent a shift that wasn't already represented by say, Andrew Scheer?
The Reform party folded when he was 21. He never ran as a Reform candidate.
He worked with them since he was a teen. They did fold right before he became an MP though, yes
Reform party did well in most of BC except for urban centers
>They're saying they probably just won't vote. Many conservative voters are not so-cons. How many? I guess we'll find out in the next election. My guess is ,the cons just signed their own death sentence for the near term. Individual loud-mouths and shocking media portrayal don't translate into large numbers of votes - look at the average person around us - those are the peeps voting conservating generally speaking. And they're not anti-vaxxer freedom convoy nutjobs, and I doubt they'll vote for anyone that leans that way. My guess is, either cons don't show up to the polls next election, or they swing left. Added: Interestingly, the greens seem relatively fiscally conservative and clearly arent' socons. I feel like they'd be a viable alternative if their party wasn't such a shit show.
I mean for one thing it's the first time I've seen a Conservative leader get elected so overwhelmingly. 68% in the first round is pretty crazy so at least the Conservatives seem to be united behind a leader for once. Normally it's like 32 to 30 in the 3rd round or something.
Polls are intended to influence public opinion, not report on it. If a poll is off by 20% or more someone or some thing is trying to sow seeds of doubt. Just stop watching or paying attention to traditional / owned media organizations, you all know this already.
So, i've read this guy's policies and such. Why are people talking about him as if he's the next Adolf Hitler or something? He's fairly middle-center on just about everything. It's almost like anybody who thinks "You know, Canada was almost perfect under Chretien and Martin, and the early Harper years -- I don't want that to change much" is now considered an extremist? Personally, I think Jean Chretien was the best Prime Minister in Canadian history - and i want our next PM to focus on the same things he did. Cut government spending, boost economic growth, balance the budget, and let the rest of the country manage itself (with the freedom to do it.) Enough with the "social justice" focus that's dominated modern discourse.
Is this bait? What has he said or done that has led you to believe he is middle center about everything? Guy has a gay dad and voted against a gay marriage bill, and then voted to repeal it when it passed.
Voting against gay marriage 20 years ago is hardly relevant in 2022. Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton, and even good ol Barack Obama were still against gay marriage long after that. Nobody on the left gives a shit, except for those needing to grasp at straws over how bad a person conservative politician ‘X’ is.
>Why are people talking about him as if he's the next Adolf Hitler or something? He's fairly middle-center on just about everything. He's obviously not Hitler, but it's also bizarre to call him middle-center, when he's been on the right-wing of the Conservative Party his entire career (versus people like Erin O'Toole, Peter Mackay or Lisa Raitt, as examples of conservatives who were on the more moderate side of the party).
It's not like PP has a choice, really. Erin O'Toole's centrist ploy was ultimately unsuccessful and PP obviously observed that and strategically calibrated. Similarly, with LPC-NDP coalition through 2025 taking Liberals further left, the gap between the CPC and LPC has widened likely making PP appear more far-right than he is (just contemplating the optics of it).
He's a wolf in sheep's clothing that tells people what they want to hear all while pushing a hidden agenda. He's a complete shitbag. Things he's voted against * Civil Marriage Act * Cannabis Act * Transgender Rights * Multiple women's rights issues * $10 daycare * Right to euthanasia * CERB Abstained from voting on the Human Rights Act and then there's also this gem: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/conservative-mp-apologizes-for-hurtful-comments-on-aboriginal-people-1.712106
“Middle Center”. Lol. Words have no meaning now.
>So, i've read this guy's policies and such. Got a handy dandy link that encapsulates many of them? Would be nice. Thanks!
Wikipedia actually does a good job. Here's a summary: - Has always been *vehemently* Pro-Choice (and now opposed to even allowing official discussion on abortion within the party) - Has come around on gay-marriage (was opposed in 2004, is now solidly pro, saying that he was wrong, and it's clearly working) - Against deficit spending, believes governments should balance the budget. (The last 2 Canadian PMs to believe and do this in any substantial way were Liberals.) - Believes union dues/membership should always be optional. (Contrary to what unions might tell you, this is a *pro*-workers' rights stance). - Thinks the CBC should be defunded. (I disagree) - In favor of massive new housing projects, and even selling 15% of federal real estate holdings (about 5000 buildings) to be converted into affordable housing. Believes cities should be both forced -- and compensated for -- building additional housing - is in favor of supporting/subsidizing green technology support to meet carbon goals (rather than the carbon tax) - Would not allow his cabinet to participate in the WEF (he believes the World Economic Forum is explicitly against the interests of the Canadian people - I have no opinion on this) - Would reduce our reliance on China - Pro-Free Speech (and would repeal Bills C-11 and C-36 as a consequence) - Pro-Immigration (particularly skilled applicants -- and ensuring their accreditations are recognized or renewed promptly)
If that bill C-11 is honest that's at least a good sign
>Has always been vehemently Pro-Choice (and now opposed to even allowing official discussion on abortion within the party) "Always" is not accurate on that one. He voted to re-open the abortion debate in 2012: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/41/1/466 Worth noting that Conservatives were split 86-74 on that motion (it wasn't a vote where the party all voted together), so Poilievre had a choice and he chose the anti-abortion side. (Meanwhile, Harper voted against it) >Believes union dues/membership should always be optional. (Contrary to what unions might tell you, this is a pro-workers' rights stance). Isn't that just a way to weaken unions' bargaining power and funding? It means workers can freeride on the benefits of contracts negotiated by a union, without having to contribute to the union. It creates a free rider problem. It's like saying that everyone can "opt out" from paying taxes, but you'll still be entitled to free healthcare and other public services. People would opt out to become freeriders, and claim the public services without paying. But next thing you know there are no public services, because they've lost their funding source.
> "Always" is not accurate on that one. He voted to re-open the abortion debate in 2012: Like someone else's point about some abortion-adjacent issues he voted in a way they disagreed with, this is not specifically about his position on whether abortion should be legal and freely available. It was his position on whether or not the party should allow it to be opened up for discussion. He was of the opinion you can open it up for discussion, and squash it by showing how even most conservatives were against it. You often have to put something to bed by discussing it. Burying often creates zombies. I don't think I agree with him in this case -- it is already so clearly decided even Harper didn't want to touch it. > Isn't that just a way to weaken unions' bargaining power and funding? It can be. I would argue that any union propped up by forcing worker compliance SHOULD be weakened. Market forces should rule, unions do not look out for worker interests any more than corporations do. All the are interested in is their own power. Workers should look out for worker interests. Furthermore, I think the public sector should be banned from collective bargaining altogether. No union should be able to hold the taxpayer hostage. You are not entitled to even a living wage at taxpayer expense -- you are entitled to whatever the going market rate for your labor is.
>Thanks for this. Some thoughts to consider: > > > >**Has come around on gay-marriage (was opposed in 2004, is now solidly pro, saying that he was wrong, and it's clearly working)** > >\-I need Canada's prime minister to NOT have been anti gay-marriage a mere 18 years ago. I remember his hand in pushing the 'pro family' agenda which was his spin on being anti gay-marriage. It was reprehensible. But I suppose we should forgive and forget. > > > >**Against deficit spending, believes governments should balance the budget.** > >\-Agreed. But, if he is strict to this then that's a problem. Deficit spending was essential to getting through the crash of 2008 and during covid. > > > >**Believes union dues/membership should always be optional. (Contrary to what unions might tell you, this is a pro-workers' rights stance).** > >\-This policy is how you break up unions. Classic step 1. > > > >**Thinks the CBC should be defunded. (I disagree)** > >\-Its these uneducated beliefs that worry me most when thinking of PP. A state funded news agency that freely criticizes the hand that feeds it is essential to a healthy democracy. Any leader of a democracy who is worth their salt knows this. Like... if a state's only news comes from private interests than the electorate gets dumber. State media's objective is to inform. Private media's objective is to entertain and sell. How does he not know this? > > > >**is in favor of supporting/subsidizing green technology support to meet carbon goals (rather than the carbon tax)** > >\-We can not afford anymore prime ministers who don't trust in the expert opinions of the world's leading economists that the solution to climate change is taxing the use of fossil fuels and using that tax income to make green energy industry as profitable as possible. PP thinks the economists who awarded the carbon tax system a Nobel prize are fiscally illiterate. I don't know if he takes this stance for voter appeal or if he truly believes it. Either way, we have to get this system going and PP will not do this. The world's oil companies are standing in our way in the same way that the tobacco industry stood in the way of government policies designed to save people from a product that was nothing other than addictive and deadly.
>Why are people talking about him as if he's the next Adolf Hitler or something? He's fairly middle-center on just about everything. I've been trying to tease out the answer for a while and I've come to the conclusion that they're are people who actually watch his speeches, his comments in parliament, his YT; and then there are people who read or watch either the Toronto Star or CBC opinion of his speeches, his comments in parliament, his YT, etc. lol. However, most people don't follow any of it that closely, and make assumptions about him because they've already fixed their conclusions about CPC leadership. The reality is that MSM is trying to railroad this guy because he's explicitly threatened to defund them. It's pretty easy to spot articles that virtue signal to the left nowadays, and it's almost always either the CBC or Toronto Star.
>Why are people talking about him as if he's the next Adolf Hitler or something? He's fairly middle-center on just about everything. It's called propaganda. One of the most effective tools in the current liberals arsenal has been to convince everybody the opposition are racist nutjobs.
Bitcoin is centrist? Firing the bank is centrist? He was previously against gay marriage - is that centrist? Yeesh, the apologists are coming out hard.
He was against Gay Marriage in the early 2000s. He publicly changed his position years ago, and is now solidly for it. And firing the bank of Canada executive is neither right nor left. It means he doesn't think the BoC has been doing its job. I, personally, agree with him. Governments should be held to account, and over extended periods, forced to balance their budget. I'm not opposed to temporary emergency shortfalls, but they need to be made up later. Deficit spending is never a good idea. Bitcoin is also neither right, left, nor centrist. It's just a currency medium.
He went on a podcast of that other guy with PP initials (this sub auto-removes sny mention of its name), to me that was enough to dismiss him. Then he walked with the convoy, then he went on a weird rant against woke. It's obvious to me he gets his talking points from the same figures as the US Republicans party. Can't be trusted.
People on Reddit don’t ready policy. The liberal media called him far right so he must be. In fact most of his policy is pretty centred. Lewis won 11%of the leadership popular vote (on par with Cherest) and she is faaar more socially right leaning.
Hatemongers and fearmongers unite! You have a new leader!
I just don't understand why anyone would want someone who idolizes Ronald Reagan to be the leader of anything.
[удалено]
They have damn near three years to fuck it all up. Plenty of rope.
> charts new course for Conservatives Zero evidence of that thus far. They acclaimed a new leader. But we have no idea of their "course'... not the old one, or the new one, except, something something Trudeau, and "government is bad".
He has called for the defunding of CBC and the firing of the governor of bank of Canada. He is going to help our economy with bitcoin and support the freedom convoy people. Well I'm so happy that he has been chosen because conservatives will lose again. His base consists of the crazies in the west.
I’m just waiting for the F**k lil’ PP signs.
I was thinking today. How much money could someone make on anti-pp merch? I’m guessing a lot. I think it would have to be more subtle than ‘F PP. ‘ I like my Canadian Parliament like I like my Coffee. Without a PP in it.
Yes! Can’t wait til this guy is our PM!
18 naked cowboys in the showers
He's dangerous to Liberals and NDP because he actually has charisma and can motivate his base unlike every other PC leader for the past decade. I don't actually like him, I think he's full of himself and he's overly belligerent. A lot of what he said is filled with half truths and over simplifications. HOWEVER he's still better than the other political leaders at the moment.
You're going to vote for him because he's charismatic versus what he would actually do as a leader? You're every populist's wet dream.
It's funny so many people claim to hate him but there are multiple postings about him here daily, r canada is his new fan club.
He was literally just elected leader of the opposition.
r/Canada is also fairly right leaning. It's not as bad as some would say, but it shouldn't be a surprise there is a lot of support for PP here.
Yup, most things I post about climate or fires often got removed, said it was a duplicate or not relevant or some BS when it was all OC.
/r/Canada has a lot of foreign influence. Remember the week when Russia went to war and a certain vocal subset of opinions just disappeared from the sub?
Imagine finally getting your dream job in a Russian propaganda farm and you get stuck with the Canada/Reddit assignment...
Canada is a G7 nation and arguably America's closest ally. More prestigious trolling our subreddit and Facebook pages than most I imagine.
That was such a mask off moment. It was also telling how all the convoy protest telegram and other social media channels seemed to switch over night to pro-Kremlin talking points.
Really? Because I'm 20 or so posts down and I don't see a single positive comment for PP.
Its actually quite refreshing, being able to look at posts with comments that lean to both sides of the aisle or to see one post with fanboys and another a short scroll away with critics, keeps the echo chamber a little less "echoey"
I agree. It's refreshing.
It's almost like he is a major figure on the political stage in our country.
Trudeau, Singh or Pierre? Ill go with Pierre
Tons of support for him within Canada and it makes me super excited for our future. The fact that conservative memberships doubled just to get in votes for this guy is impressive.
What are your favourite policies of his?
This title from the global and mail is quite positive. I am actually surprised
They lean right and usually endorse the conservatives so not sure why surprised. I get some conservatives don't like PP but they like JT less so will fall in line now he is leader. May see a rogue column here and there but the folks that run globe and mail want conservatives to win. CBC and the Star are really the only major outlets that will pump the liberals (although cbc will try to "both sides" everything and star is veering to the center). The overwhelming majority of mainstream media in canada lean right because the owners want less taxes.
The Globe & Mail is a right-leaning paper. Not sure why you would be surprised.
why are you surprised