Latest Federal Polls
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Yeah, they are so repulsive they finished 10 years in power in 2015.
And that was under Harper.
They are so unpopular they are now beating the Liberals in every single poll............and (according to those polls) are approaching majority territory.
Look at the cumulative poll ratings I posted below.
Read'em and weep.
Reality.
Looking good, Colpy! I don't really care which party wins as long as Trudeau isn't in it.
Justin is the FAKE NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Justine is the suddenly DISGRACED REALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brazil scapot fordong slapit head up your side!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TOTENKOPF FILLING MIT SOUR SCHLAGGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Boottenzi arse inen most frequently painful times!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GOSH Hoid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe you should just move to California??????????????????????
THEY LIKE electric Toy cars out there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And there is a REALLY BIG Market in California.........................................
for electric scooters as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You may have heard that several companies have set up shop out there to rent electric scooters by the hour!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But the slow moving, road blocking, short range electric Toys have become so popular out there that the locals are COMPETING to see who can dump the most of them into the nearest body of water!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Govt wants people to get more exercise...........................
but power lifting scooters and lofting them into the drink is not on the ParticipAction Play LIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And if there is no water handy.................why then the health minded citizens compete to see who can mangle the electric Toys in the most imaginative way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now............Hoid.................you may ask..............but probably wont..................because you are spitefully and typically LIE-beral style mean spirited.........................................
just WHY it is that California natives are so hot to wreck electric Toy scooters and dump them into the nearest body of water??????????????????
One theory is that California citizens feel compelled to respond to LIE-beral style bribery and coercion that is forcing COSTLY electric Toy cars onto an unwilling population........................................................
and people are trashing the scooters because electric Toy cars are simply TOO BIG AND HEAVY to throw into a lake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is a moral there for you HOID.........................if you care to think about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can you swim????????????????????????
Andrew Coyne: The latest tactic to suppress Wilson-Raybould — smear a judge
Andrew Coyne March 25, 2019
Wait, I thought it was all Scott Brison’s fault.
The usual anonymous sources are now whispering to reporters that the reason Jody Wilson-Raybould was fired as minister of justice and attorney general in January had nothing to do with her refusal to kill the prosecution of a Liberal-friendly firm in a province critical to the party’s election chances, as the prime minister and a phalanx of top officials had pressured her to do. No, according to reports by Canadian Press and CTV, it was because of her pick for a judicial appointment.
It seems Wilson-Raybould, in 2017, recommended Glenn Joyal, chief justice of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, to replace the retiring Beverley McLachlin as chief justice of the Supreme Court — a recommendation Justin Trudeau ultimately rejected. Bilingual, Oxford-trained, a former Crown attorney with 20 years’ experience on the bench, Joyal was on a short-list prepared by the prime minister’s own “independent, non-partisan” advisory board for the occasion.
Alas, it seems he failed some other tests. According to CP’s sources, the pick “puzzled” Trudeau, who became “disturbed” after “doing some research into Joyal’s views on the charter.” It turned out he had given a speech to a conservative legal foundation earlier that year in which he had made some mildly critical comments about judicial activism (“With the ’constitutionalizing’ of more and more political and social issues into fundamental rights, the Canadian judiciary has all but removed those issues … from the realm of future civic engagement and future political debate” gives you the flavour).
This is a bog-standard statement of the conservative position on the relationship between courts and legislatures. It is utterly mainstream. But apparently this so “disturbed” Trudeau that, as CTV reports, it “caused (him) to question his justice minister’s judgment.”
Several points are worth noting about this obviously deliberate leak. One is the casual violation of the very confidentiality provisions that are supposedly so sacred to Trudeau that he cannot fully release Wilson-Raybould, even today, from their clutches.
The second is the willingness, in the service of undermining the credibility of the former attorney general, to smear not only her — apparently in addition to being “difficult” and “in it for Jody,” she’s a crazed social conservative — but a sitting judge. (In reponses, Joyal issued a statement noting that he had in fact withdrawn his name from the process, owing to “my wife’s metastatic cancer,” and protesting that “someone is using my previous candidacy to the Supreme Court of Canada to further an agenda unrelated to the appointment process.”)
The third is the extraordinarily narrow litmus test Trudeau applies, if the stories are accurate, to judicial appointments. It would appear to be enough to make one speech calling for “a true dialogue” between the judicial and legislative branches to mark a judge as beyond the pale.
Glenn Joyal, chief justice of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, in June 2014. Kevin King/Winnipeg Sun/Postmedia And fourth is its implausibility. If a prime minister were compelled, every time he disagreed with a ministerial recommendation, to replace that minister, there would be no one left in cabinet. In any case, notwithstanding Wilson-Raybould’s disturbing judgment, she remained minister of Justice for more than a year afterward, though the cabinet was extensively shuffled in the summer of 2018.
Indeed, she would “still be there today,” according to the prime minister’s previous statements, but for Brison’s abrupt departure from Treasury Board.
Still, it’s of a piece with a determined push by Liberal partisans to shift the focus from the prime minister’s efforts to interfere with a criminal prosecution to the character and motives of his accusers — not only Wilson-Raybould but Jane Philpott, the former president of Treasury Board. Even respectable surrogates, never mind the seething mobs online, have been brazen enough to suggest the two women are besotted with their own celebrity, or are conspiring in some strange and baseless vendetta against the prime minister.
Journalists — journalists! — compete to be the loudest in their calls for the prime minister to kick them out of caucus. They are tarnishing the party brand! They are tearing the government down! What’s their real agenda? Somehow it does not occur to anyone to ask: Is what they are saying true?
They are challenged to “put up or shut up,” as if the prime minister were not still refusing to waive privilege over important parts of the timeline, or as if the Liberal majority on the Commons justice committee had not voted to refuse to call Wilson-Raybould back to tell the rest of her story.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gets ready to leave a post-budget housing announcement in Maple Ridge, B.C., on March 25, 2019. Darryl Dyck/The Canadian Press But they can speak elsewhere! Liberal partisans insist. They can ignore their confidentiality oaths, or say their piece in the Commons under cover of Parliamentary privilege. About that: Can they? As political science professor James Kelly of Concordia University has pointed out, their options for speaking in Parliament are in fact severely limited. They could make a one-minute member’s statement under Standing Order 31. Or they could speak for 10 minutes in debate on a bill — provided the Liberal whip lets them. Or the House could vote to let them speak in a special debate — if enough Liberals voted with the opposition to allow it. Catch 22!
In any case, this entirely misses the point. The issue is not, why don’t they speak outside the committee, but: why can’t they speak in committee? What possible argument can there be against it? Somehow the issue has become, not the prime minister’s obstructionist tactics, but their own alleged failure to find a way around his obstructions.
This has things back to front. It is up to public office-holders to allay all suspicion about their conduct, especially on such a serious matter. It is not up to the opposition, the press or the public to cut them some slack.
https://www.outline.com/4YkWtd
Andrew Coyne March 25, 2019
Wait, I thought it was all Scott Brison’s fault.
The usual anonymous sources are now whispering to reporters that the reason Jody Wilson-Raybould was fired as minister of justice and attorney general in January had nothing to do with her refusal to kill the prosecution of a Liberal-friendly firm in a province critical to the party’s election chances, as the prime minister and a phalanx of top officials had pressured her to do. No, according to reports by Canadian Press and CTV, it was because of her pick for a judicial appointment.
It seems Wilson-Raybould, in 2017, recommended Glenn Joyal, chief justice of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, to replace the retiring Beverley McLachlin as chief justice of the Supreme Court — a recommendation Justin Trudeau ultimately rejected. Bilingual, Oxford-trained, a former Crown attorney with 20 years’ experience on the bench, Joyal was on a short-list prepared by the prime minister’s own “independent, non-partisan” advisory board for the occasion.
Alas, it seems he failed some other tests. According to CP’s sources, the pick “puzzled” Trudeau, who became “disturbed” after “doing some research into Joyal’s views on the charter.” It turned out he had given a speech to a conservative legal foundation earlier that year in which he had made some mildly critical comments about judicial activism (“With the ’constitutionalizing’ of more and more political and social issues into fundamental rights, the Canadian judiciary has all but removed those issues … from the realm of future civic engagement and future political debate” gives you the flavour).
This is a bog-standard statement of the conservative position on the relationship between courts and legislatures. It is utterly mainstream. But apparently this so “disturbed” Trudeau that, as CTV reports, it “caused (him) to question his justice minister’s judgment.”
Several points are worth noting about this obviously deliberate leak. One is the casual violation of the very confidentiality provisions that are supposedly so sacred to Trudeau that he cannot fully release Wilson-Raybould, even today, from their clutches.
The second is the willingness, in the service of undermining the credibility of the former attorney general, to smear not only her — apparently in addition to being “difficult” and “in it for Jody,” she’s a crazed social conservative — but a sitting judge. (In reponses, Joyal issued a statement noting that he had in fact withdrawn his name from the process, owing to “my wife’s metastatic cancer,” and protesting that “someone is using my previous candidacy to the Supreme Court of Canada to further an agenda unrelated to the appointment process.”)
The third is the extraordinarily narrow litmus test Trudeau applies, if the stories are accurate, to judicial appointments. It would appear to be enough to make one speech calling for “a true dialogue” between the judicial and legislative branches to mark a judge as beyond the pale.
Indeed, she would “still be there today,” according to the prime minister’s previous statements, but for Brison’s abrupt departure from Treasury Board.
Still, it’s of a piece with a determined push by Liberal partisans to shift the focus from the prime minister’s efforts to interfere with a criminal prosecution to the character and motives of his accusers — not only Wilson-Raybould but Jane Philpott, the former president of Treasury Board. Even respectable surrogates, never mind the seething mobs online, have been brazen enough to suggest the two women are besotted with their own celebrity, or are conspiring in some strange and baseless vendetta against the prime minister.
Journalists — journalists! — compete to be the loudest in their calls for the prime minister to kick them out of caucus. They are tarnishing the party brand! They are tearing the government down! What’s their real agenda? Somehow it does not occur to anyone to ask: Is what they are saying true?
They are challenged to “put up or shut up,” as if the prime minister were not still refusing to waive privilege over important parts of the timeline, or as if the Liberal majority on the Commons justice committee had not voted to refuse to call Wilson-Raybould back to tell the rest of her story.
In any case, this entirely misses the point. The issue is not, why don’t they speak outside the committee, but: why can’t they speak in committee? What possible argument can there be against it? Somehow the issue has become, not the prime minister’s obstructionist tactics, but their own alleged failure to find a way around his obstructions.
This has things back to front. It is up to public office-holders to allay all suspicion about their conduct, especially on such a serious matter. It is not up to the opposition, the press or the public to cut them some slack.
https://www.outline.com/4YkWtd
Your kopf ist KAPUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Liberal Party’s low retention of its 2015 supporters is one part of the equation. Also notable is where those voters are going.
About one-in-eight 2015 Liberals (13%) say they plan to support the CPC, and one-in-ten (11%) say the same of the NDP. Significant numbers are also turning to the Green Party or remain truly undecided:
The CPC, by contrast, appears to be losing just a handful of supporters (6%) to former Conservative cabinet minister Maxime Bernier and his People’s Party of Canada. Aside from that challenge, few 2015 Conservatives are jumping ship – with 88 per cent saying they intend to support the party again:
http://angusreid.org/federal-issues-mar2019/
Last edited:
How in all that's holy can ANYONE think Sheer would be a better PM?
Ugh.
Why the FRIG can't the parties put someone decent and electable as leader. Sheer's done nothing to convince me the Con's are any better than the Libs. Libs are just awful right now and NDP is No Damn Point.
Ugh.
Why the FRIG can't the parties put someone decent and electable as leader. Sheer's done nothing to convince me the Con's are any better than the Libs. Libs are just awful right now and NDP is No Damn Point.
We're stuck with the same choices that the U S had between Hilary and Trump... a crook or a showboater...
Except that Justin is both a showboater "and" a crook!
MORE FUN!!!
https://globalnews.ca/news/5103763/trudeau-approval-rating-snc-lavalin-budget/
Trudeau now has a lower approval rating than Trump, with Tories way ahead: Ipsos poll
https://globalnews.ca/news/5103763/trudeau-approval-rating-snc-lavalin-budget/
Trudeau now has a lower approval rating than Trump, with Tories way ahead: Ipsos poll
How could anyone, at this point, NOT believe Scheer would be a better PM than Trudeau?
What has Scheer done to make you not want to vote for him? Maybe you don't get the same news there as we do here he is quite vocal and has laid out some of his platform.