If Justin Trudeau is going to ‘Crash & Burn,’ What costume would he wear?
- Thread starter Ron in Regina
- Start date
No, he's on a flyabout. It's a more recent phony climate alarmist tradition.
Yeah, govt agencies not operating, people unable to travel after two years of obeying useless mandates, conflict of interest after conflict of interest, obstructing justice, still don't have a sitting Parliament and it's unlikely we will after the summer recess, passport holdups, airport congestion that makes rush hour on the 405 look like an F1 race, constant attacks on Western oil while propping up Eastern Canada's oil production, political persecution, giving himself an ersatz majority govt against the decision of the Canadian voters (but he claims he's defending democracy don't'cha know),
Ultimately, he's a worthless sack who continuously acts in the opposite to what he says. He said he wanted to encourage more PhD's and innovators/inventors to come to Canada and them immediately upped the taxes on the kinds of pay innovators and inventors typically get.
He stated HIS govt would be open, honest and transparent (in a sad effort to suggest that the Harper govt wasn't) and despite having all kinds of opportunities to stand behind his promise, NOT ONCE has Trudeau showed any signs of being open, honest or transparent, not once.
He said he supported the Middle Class and wanted to help more people get there, and then immediately went and made life more expensive making it harder for people to reach the Middle Class while he hammered away at the Middle Class itself, making it harder, if not impossible for some of them to maintain their economic class.
Plus he's a racist and misogynist, as proven by his actions. So yeah man, what's not to like about the guy? I can see why you would defend him.
You just don't see WHERE I defend him, because that place exists only in whatever you use for a mind.
…& that brings us six months forward into the future towards 2025 where Mr Singh has had the opportunity to dispel the rumours…It would be kind to call federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh “two-faced.”
During daylight hours, Singh is the enthusiastic lickspittle of the Trudeau Liberals. “Yes, Mr. Trudeau. Whatever you say, Mr. Trudeau.”
But after dark, “Jag-meek” transforms into “Jag-gernaut.” After propping up the Liberal government all day, Singh opens up his Twitter app and spends his evening hours tearing the Libs new ones.
GUNTER: NDP leader should be holding Trudeau to account — Toronto Sun
It would be kind to call federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh “two-faced.” During daylight hours, Singh is the enthusiastic lickspittle of the Trudeau Liberals. “Yes, Mr. Trudeau. Whatever you say, Mr. Trudeau.” But after dark, “Jag-meek” transforms into “Jag-gernaut.” After propping up the Liberal...
I think he's a "were-marx" By day he's neville chamberlin and insists if we give the liberals poland they'll go away, but at night he turns into Joseph Stalin and demands the proletariat rise up and take over the health care system.
The fundamental flaw in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s climate change strategy is that people were supposed to have choices in lowering their greenhouse gas emissions that would save them money.Prime Minister Justin Trudeau came to office in 2015 with a simple message : “It’s about the middle class.” But as more and more people struggle to pay their bills thanks to levels of inflation not seen since the early 1980s, it’s become vividly clear that Liberal claims about fighting for the middle class don’t translate into a genuine concern for working Canadians.
The government’s hypocrisy was on full display on Tuesday, when Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, promoting the government’s response to runaway inflation at a trucking company in Brampton, Ont., dismissed concerns about high fuel prices hurting truckers and raising the cost of goods and services.
“From my perspective, this price increase in fuel costs is a reminder of why climate action is so important, and why as a country we have to work even harder and move even faster towards a green economy,” she said. “It’s an insurance policy against higher energy prices.”
Her tone-deaf response showed a complete lack of regard for the very real struggles many Canadians are facing due to the high cost of living. But it should not come as a surprise: since coming to office, the Liberals have made no secret of their desire to raise fuel prices, in order to reduce carbon emissions and incentivize more energy-efficient technologies.
Policies such as the carbon tax and punishing restrictions placed on the oil and gas sector have always been a problem. But when the economy was strong and inflation was low, their economic impact was not as readily apparent.
NP View: Middle class life keeps getting harder under Trudeau Liberals — National Post
Government tone deaf to rising fuel pricesapple.news
For example, people would be able to replace their internal combustion engine cars for electric vehicles that would be competitive in price, performance and refuelling stations, as well as cheaper to operate.
Or they could choose enhanced public transit as an alternative to a car.
Or they could switch from heating their homes with carbon-intensive oil to lower-emitting natural gas, or replace fossil fuel energy by purchasing heat pumps.
All of this would happen, the federal government claimed, while 80% of Canadian households paying the federal carbon tax would end up better off because of quarterly climate action incentive payments.
The problem with the Trudeau government on this was its failure to realize that its expectations given current levels of technology and public and private infrastructure, were unrealistic.
People living in rural communities that have no public transit, or need their cars for work, cannot abandon them.
People who cannot afford EVs — even with government rebates — cannot convert from internal combustion engine vehicles.
People whose only option for heating fuel is oil cannot switch to natural gas — primarily but not limited to Atlantic Canada — and people who cannot afford heat pumps cannot buy them to replace fossil fuel energy.
Canada’s independent, non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux reported that factoring in the negative impact on the economy caused by the carbon tax, 60% of households paying it are already worse off, not 80% better off.
That’s the reason for the Trudeau government’s backflip last week in announcing a three-year exemption from the federal carbon tax on households heating their homes with oil, doubling the climate action incentive top-up from 10% to 20% for people in rural communities and increasing federal subsidies for people who convert their homes to heat pumps, instead of burning fossil fuels.
The problem is that subsidizing taxpayers to lower their carbon footprints, using money taken from taxpayers to do so in the absence of people having realistic options to lower their emissions, is robbing Peter to pay Paul, which is unsustainable over the long term.
EDITORIAL: ‘Green’ economy running on subsidies — Toronto Sun
The fundamental flaw in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s climate change strategy is that people were supposed to have choices in lowering their greenhouse gas emissions that would save them money. For example, people would be able to replace their internal combustion engine cars for electric...
Serious question. . . I suppose technically anything could happen, but as I understand it, you're down to a two-horse race for the next PM, True Dope and Poo-lover, right?
Yeah, pretty much, for all intents and purposes, but anything is possible, but most outcomes beyond that are not probable.
Short version. There’s many many federal political parties, but most are just not viable (Communist Left-Handed Vegan Party, etc…for example)…. But of those that have potential currently, or potentially within the next handful of cycles there of the following:
1) Liberals
2) NDP
3) Bloc Québécois
4) CPC (Conservatives)
5) Greens
6) some break away, further right leaning party, whose name I can’t even recall at this point run by Maxine Bernier.
(Dark horses that don’t currently exist, can come out and gain popularity, and within a few cycles be a potential contender)
Out of the above Parties, #’s 5 & 6 are lucky to get 1-3 seats out of the (currently) 338 available.
The Bloc Québécois (#3) is really a regional party only inside and for Quebec, so it’s never going to be anything beyond a voting block for Québec’s interests, so it’s a potential coalition partner, and that’s about it.
(That boils things back down to three parties currently being #’s 1,2, & 4)
With Parties 1 & 2 in something like but not a coalition (let’s call it a non-coalition coalition), with party #2 (no pun intended) propping up party #1 regardless of the ethic scandals or shenanigans…has shown itself (in its current incarnation, until they reinvent themselves, which they’re not gonna do with their current leader) as a yappy disloyal Chihuahua type of party, so it’s probably going to be beyond irrelevant in the near to immediate future. It’s usually (for Canada’s perception of political scale) off to the left of centre somewhat to more than somewhat…
That, as you’ve observed above in your questioning, really leaves two parties (and some potential alliances or coalitions with the other parties) to choose from.
“Usually” they’re not much different than each other, with the Liberals a bit left of center, & the CPC a bit right of center. I say usually as every so often one or the other veers off away from the centre in a somewhat dramatic fashion, and eventually gets spanked by the electorate until they return back to somewhat close to the centre again. Either party can do this and the safeguard is the other party hopefully Stays near the centre to give an alternative to the tangents. That’s how I understand things anyway.
“Usually” a party gets one or two cycles in power, then they get recycled, and the other one gets one or two cycles, and it gets recycled to reset back towards the centre hopefully. There have been a few exceptions over time but that’s usually the pattern.
I’m sure (and would almost be disappointed if) someone else doesn’t see the above situation completely differently and comes along to correct what I’m stating.
The two dominant political parties in Canada have historically been the current Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada (as well as its numerous predecessors).
Politics of Canada - Wikipedia
The wife of the federal energy and natural resources minister traded in oil and gas stocks last year while her husband pledged to lead the “fight against climate change.”
Tara Wilkinson traded stock in Enbridge Inc. and Shell PLC, according to ethics filings under the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House Of Commons, according to Blacklock’s Reporter.
Natural resource minister's wife traded in oil, gas stocks: Report — Toronto Sun
Trading habits revealed in ethics filings, according to Blacklock's Reporter
(Meh….this one will take the light off of Freeland’s Henchmen assaulting journalists, until next week‘s scandal takes the light off of this one, etc…)
There are two more to follow this one.View attachment 20689
The wife of the federal energy and natural resources minister traded in oil and gas stocks last year while her husband pledged to lead the “fight against climate change.”
Tara Wilkinson traded stock in Enbridge Inc. and Shell PLC, according to ethics filings under the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House Of Commons, according to Blacklock’s Reporter.
Natural resource minister's wife traded in oil, gas stocks: Report — Toronto Sun
Trading habits revealed in ethics filings, according to Blacklock's Reporter
(Meh….this one will take the light off of Freeland’s Henchmen assaulting journalists, until next week‘s scandal takes the light off of this one, etc…)
The fun level is going to step up. This one is an FN owned gas and pipeline company that will cross Wet’suwet’en traditional lands.
The shocking result in the Toronto-St. Paul’s by-election leaves the Liberals with only one question: should they lose the next election with Justin Trudeau as leader, or should they lose it led by someone else?
To lose St. Paul’s means the Liberals are at risk of an even worse fate in the next election. The message is stark: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau simply must stand down and let someone else lead the party, which now confronts electoral oblivion.
Except....
A new poll this week from the Angus Reid Institute asked respondents whether they would be more or less inclined to vote for a number of potential replacements for Mr. Trudeau, including Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney and Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly. In a head-to-head comparison, respondents on balance said every candidate mentioned would make them even less likely to support the Liberals.
The Liberals clearly knew they were in trouble in a riding they had held for more than 30 years, a riding they simply could not afford to lose. So they pulled out all the stops. Mr. Trudeau and much of his cabinet and caucus campaigned in Toronto-St. Paul’s during the by-election campaign. There were plenty of your-government-working-for you announcements.
Ms. Freeland on Monday warned voters in St. Paul’s that the Conservative alternative to her party “is really cold and cruel and small. The alternative is cuts and austerity, not believing in ourselves as a country, not believing in our community and in our neighbours.”
(Ms. Freeland’s riding of University-Rosedale is right next door to Toronto-St Paul’s)
apple.news
To lose St. Paul’s means the Liberals are at risk of an even worse fate in the next election. The message is stark: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau simply must stand down and let someone else lead the party, which now confronts electoral oblivion.
Except....
A new poll this week from the Angus Reid Institute asked respondents whether they would be more or less inclined to vote for a number of potential replacements for Mr. Trudeau, including Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney and Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly. In a head-to-head comparison, respondents on balance said every candidate mentioned would make them even less likely to support the Liberals.
The Tories claimed that the Liberal government’s decision last week to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization was an attempt to placate the relatively large Jewish vote in the riding. The Tories may have been right.
The Liberals clearly knew they were in trouble in a riding they had held for more than 30 years, a riding they simply could not afford to lose. So they pulled out all the stops. Mr. Trudeau and much of his cabinet and caucus campaigned in Toronto-St. Paul’s during the by-election campaign. There were plenty of your-government-working-for you announcements.
Ms. Freeland on Monday warned voters in St. Paul’s that the Conservative alternative to her party “is really cold and cruel and small. The alternative is cuts and austerity, not believing in ourselves as a country, not believing in our community and in our neighbours.”
(Ms. Freeland’s riding of University-Rosedale is right next door to Toronto-St Paul’s)
Regardless of leader, the Liberals are at risk of a worse fate after Toronto-St. Paul’s by-election — The Globe and Mail
The result of the Toronto-St. Paul’s by-election suggests the Conservatives are well placed to win key fights in urban cores across the country whenever the next general election comes
In the wake of their surprise loss to the Conservatives in the Toronto-St. Paul’s byelection, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he’s going to remain laser-focused on helping Canadians through tough economic times. LAZER-FOCUSED
Cabinet ministers such as Chrystia Freeland and his long-time friend, Marc Miller, said Trudeau is best positioned to lead the Liberals into the next election and they support his decision to do so.
Of course, that raises the question of what’s going to be different about the Liberals after the byelection compared to before the byelection?
On the issue of whether Trudeau will in fact lead the Liberals into the next election, we don’t know.
It could be true. It could also be true that Trudeau will say he’s leading the party into the next election up to the moment he announces he won’t, because the moment he announces he won’t, be becomes a lame duck.
Similarly, cabinet ministers like Freeland and Miller are going to say they stand behind Trudeau and agree with his decision to lead the party into the next election for as long as Trudeau says those are his intentions.
Any cabinet minister publicly calling for Trudeau to resign now would be accused of disloyalty by the Liberal caucus — even those who don’t want Trudeau to lead them into the next election, etc…
Given the results of the Toronto-St. Paul’s byelection and a year of dismal national polls compared to Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives, how are the Liberals going to be different going forward than they were in the past? Anyone?
Put another way, what have they learned, given that they keep keep saying they understand the message Canadians are sending to them?
Is it that they’ll “Double-Down” on the exact same things they have & haven’t been doing for the past nine years — expanding the welfare state using borrowed money they don’t have, or more accurately, that we don’t have?
This in the hopes that a year from now when their supply-and-confidence agreement with the NDP ends — which is the only thing keeping them in power (looking at you & your pension Jagmeet) — the economy will be in better shape leaving Canadians more well-disposed to the Liberals?
apple.news
Cabinet ministers such as Chrystia Freeland and his long-time friend, Marc Miller, said Trudeau is best positioned to lead the Liberals into the next election and they support his decision to do so.
Of course, that raises the question of what’s going to be different about the Liberals after the byelection compared to before the byelection?
On the issue of whether Trudeau will in fact lead the Liberals into the next election, we don’t know.
It could be true. It could also be true that Trudeau will say he’s leading the party into the next election up to the moment he announces he won’t, because the moment he announces he won’t, be becomes a lame duck.
Similarly, cabinet ministers like Freeland and Miller are going to say they stand behind Trudeau and agree with his decision to lead the party into the next election for as long as Trudeau says those are his intentions.
Any cabinet minister publicly calling for Trudeau to resign now would be accused of disloyalty by the Liberal caucus — even those who don’t want Trudeau to lead them into the next election, etc…
Given the results of the Toronto-St. Paul’s byelection and a year of dismal national polls compared to Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives, how are the Liberals going to be different going forward than they were in the past? Anyone?
Put another way, what have they learned, given that they keep keep saying they understand the message Canadians are sending to them?
Is it that they’ll “Double-Down” on the exact same things they have & haven’t been doing for the past nine years — expanding the welfare state using borrowed money they don’t have, or more accurately, that we don’t have?
This in the hopes that a year from now when their supply-and-confidence agreement with the NDP ends — which is the only thing keeping them in power (looking at you & your pension Jagmeet) — the economy will be in better shape leaving Canadians more well-disposed to the Liberals?
GOLDSTEIN: What did their byelection loss teach Liberals? Probably nothing — Toronto Sun
In the wake of their surprise loss to the Conservatives in the Toronto-St. Paul’s byelection, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he’s going to remain laser-focused on helping Canadians through tough economic times. Cabinet ministers such as Chrystia Freeland and his long-time friend, Marc...