Get some sleep. Plenty of time to chew it over.
Pierre Poilievre
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
That's fine. I can respect that.
I'll start off with this: As of yet, I've not seen nor heard anything from PP that gives any hint to what he will do if he got into being PM. He's all for slogans, all for mashing anyone to be a Trudeau supporter regardless of validity of it, but when asked for specifics and details, he sidesteps and attacks the Liberals or NDP.
I've gone back and forth over the years about the oil issue and still have my concerns with it. Mining we don't hear much of. Development either really.
I don't see how PP will be any different, really, than any other Government over the say, last 20 years. I think he'll be just like the liberals were; whatever promises he makes, will come up nothing.
Poilievre’s economic populism masks the same old failed conservative policies - CCPA
With the resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Canadian politics is headed for a shake-up, with observers anticipating a federal election shortly after the Liberals choose their new leader in March. In the polls, Liberal support is at a low ebb with essentially all of that going to the...
www.policyalternatives.ca
On that I have to go a hard no.
I don't think he's done anything really that shows a support of the military. That said, the article I linked above DID say he planned to spend more on the military - though they ask my question: he plans to get the money from where if he's cutting everything? - and if I could trust that he would, that would be a tick in his favor from me.
That said,
Poilievre’s Conservatives say they would adopt Trudeau government’s military budget increases
The opposition Conservatives say they would maintain defence budget increases planned under the current Liberal government if they take power, without making equivalent cuts under their proposed "dollar-for-dollar" spending cap.
We CANNOT keep (at the time of the article at least) that as the spending for the military. If the Cons are just going to keep it as is then it's not helping. If they adjust to not only the new level that the Libs are suggesting, but also bump it up past that, again, it'd be a tick in his favor.
As it is, the Libs are jockeying for who will reach the 2% first and honestly, I don't believe any of them. Actually, I think we should make 3% our goal, not 2. But that's just me.
(also this idea of ending 'woke culture' is stupid, but that's a whole other issue)
Maybe.
I might better agree if he didn't seem to side with Trump in a lot of ways (parroting a lot of Trump's classics like 'woke' and and if he wasn't supported by Musk.
I think he talks a big game about being Pro-Canada, but has done nothing to show it, has undermined the Pro-Canada push since the Tariffs and has put his desire to be PM before the country as a whole.
He DOES seem to have that "What's good for the US is also good for Canada" idea which under a different president would be no issue. The problem is with Trump that can't be. I think he'll likely be like other Conservative leaders in Canada - mainly Smith and Ford - who have either no issues with Trump and see him as someone that can be dealt with, or who think he's great and despite one bump in the road (tariffs) he's still trustworthy and worth working with.
He's just not shown any focus on Canada first, rather it's himself first.
Oh I absolutely agree on that. He was the perfect example of a 'try hard' bro.
I'd actually agree with all this. I think most people would.
His rhetoric and speeches, at least to me, say otherwise. Rather he'll swing the pendulum to the other side so fast the rest of us will be wondering WTF happened. And being part of one of those minority groups he loves to hate on, the whole idea of it does concern me a lot.
IF he truly could just focus on kills, knowledge and motivation with everyone deserving an equal shot at an education, a career and pursuit of happiness, he'd likely swing a lot more blue Liberals his way. Or independents. The issue is, that's not his plan, not really. There are too many in his own party who are against such things that he'd have to hard compromise to keep them. And then there is the fact he sits on his party right now in how they do their work and what they say, to the point that there's huge issues of trust going on.
Poilievre’s office maintains tight control over what Conservative MPs say and do | RCI
Party staffers monitor caucus for signs of message indiscipline and fraternization with other MPs
ici.radio-canada.ca
There's also a concern I have over his RTW idea.
BLOG: Pierre Poilievre’s Union Policy will Pulverize Paycheques
If Pierre Poilievre becomes Prime Minister, his policies will reduce workers’ wages and reduce workers job stability. Buried in the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) 2023 Policy Book is a stink bomb…
afl.org
If this were to hit Provincial workers (right now it's just Federal), it'd shove already underpaid workers into even more hardship as it is.
I do agree it's time we need to rework how we think about a lot of things.
The assumption that there is "DEI" and people are hired because there's a "Quota" to be filled is highly exaggerated. And just because I support DEI, doesn't mean I want to see people who AREN'T qualified to work a job, put into that job regardless. But PP has taken the US talking point of that racist substitute and is running with it because it's working in the US so of course it'll work here.
I personally like a more civil conversation over PP instead of what is usually found.
Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do . Why are you so surprised ?That's fine. I can respect that.
I'll start off with this: As of yet, I've not seen nor heard anything from PP that gives any hint to what he will do if he got into being PM. He's all for slogans, all for mashing anyone to be a Trudeau supporter regardless of validity of it, but when asked for specifics and details, he sidesteps and attacks the Liberals or NDP.
I've gone back and forth over the years about the oil issue and still have my concerns with it. Mining we don't hear much of. Development either really.
I don't see how PP will be any different, really, than any other Government over the say, last 20 years. I think he'll be just like the liberals were; whatever promises he makes, will come up nothing.
Poilievre’s economic populism masks the same old failed conservative policies - CCPA
With the resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Canadian politics is headed for a shake-up, with observers anticipating a federal election shortly after the Liberals choose their new leader in March. In the polls, Liberal support is at a low ebb with essentially all of that going to the...
On that I have to go a hard no.
I don't think he's done anything really that shows a support of the military. That said, the article I linked above DID say he planned to spend more on the military - though they ask my question: he plans to get the money from where if he's cutting everything? - and if I could trust that he would, that would be a tick in his favor from me.
That said,
Poilievre’s Conservatives say they would adopt Trudeau government’s military budget increases
The opposition Conservatives say they would maintain defence budget increases planned under the current Liberal government if they take power, without making equivalent cuts under their proposed "dollar-for-dollar" spending cap.www.thestar.com
We CANNOT keep (at the time of the article at least) that as the spending for the military. If the Cons are just going to keep it as is then it's not helping. If they adjust to not only the new level that the Libs are suggesting, but also bump it up past that, again, it'd be a tick in his favor.
As it is, the Libs are jockeying for who will reach the 2% first and honestly, I don't believe any of them. Actually, I think we should make 3% our goal, not 2. But that's just me.
(also this idea of ending 'woke culture' is stupid, but that's a whole other issue)
Maybe.
I might better agree if he didn't seem to side with Trump in a lot of ways (parroting a lot of Trump's classics like 'woke' and and if he wasn't supported by Musk.
I think he talks a big game about being Pro-Canada, but has done nothing to show it, has undermined the Pro-Canada push since the Tariffs and has put his desire to be PM before the country as a whole.
He DOES seem to have that "What's good for the US is also good for Canada" idea which under a different president would be no issue. The problem is with Trump that can't be. I think he'll likely be like other Conservative leaders in Canada - mainly Smith and Ford - who have either no issues with Trump and see him as someone that can be dealt with, or who think he's great and despite one bump in the road (tariffs) he's still trustworthy and worth working with.
He's just not shown any focus on Canada first, rather it's himself first.
Oh I absolutely agree on that. He was the perfect example of a 'try hard' bro.
I'd actually agree with all this. I think most people would.
His rhetoric and speeches, at least to me, say otherwise. Rather he'll swing the pendulum to the other side so fast the rest of us will be wondering WTF happened. And being part of one of those minority groups he loves to hate on, the whole idea of it does concern me a lot.
IF he truly could just focus on kills, knowledge and motivation with everyone deserving an equal shot at an education, a career and pursuit of happiness, he'd likely swing a lot more blue Liberals his way. Or independents. The issue is, that's not his plan, not really. There are too many in his own party who are against such things that he'd have to hard compromise to keep them. And then there is the fact he sits on his party right now in how they do their work and what they say, to the point that there's huge issues of trust going on.
Poilievre’s office maintains tight control over what Conservative MPs say and do | RCI
Party staffers monitor caucus for signs of message indiscipline and fraternization with other MPs
There's also a concern I have over his RTW idea.
BLOG: Pierre Poilievre’s Union Policy will Pulverize Paycheques
If Pierre Poilievre becomes Prime Minister, his policies will reduce workers’ wages and reduce workers job stability. Buried in the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) 2023 Policy Book is a stink bomb…
If this were to hit Provincial workers (right now it's just Federal), it'd shove already underpaid workers into even more hardship as it is.
I do agree it's time we need to rework how we think about a lot of things.
The assumption that there is "DEI" and people are hired because there's a "Quota" to be filled is highly exaggerated. And just because I support DEI, doesn't mean I want to see people who AREN'T qualified to work a job, put into that job regardless. But PP has taken the US talking point of that racist substitute and is running with it because it's working in the US so of course it'll work here.
I personally like a more civil conversation over PP instead of what is usually found.
Well PP said he was going to axe the tax , funny now all liberal candidates are running on axe the tax . PP wanted better border controll and stiffer drug penalties , now all liberals are running on the same . May be he should give them more successful policies .That's fine. I can respect that.
I'll start off with this: As of yet, I've not seen nor heard anything from PP that gives any hint to what he will do if he got into being PM. He's all for slogans, all for mashing anyone to be a Trudeau supporter regardless of validity of it, but when asked for specifics and details, he sidesteps and attacks the Liberals or NDP.
I've gone back and forth over the years about the oil issue and still have my concerns with it. Mining we don't hear much of. Development either really.
I don't see how PP will be any different, really, than any other Government over the say, last 20 years. I think he'll be just like the liberals were; whatever promises he makes, will come up nothing.
Poilievre’s economic populism masks the same old failed conservative policies - CCPA
With the resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Canadian politics is headed for a shake-up, with observers anticipating a federal election shortly after the Liberals choose their new leader in March. In the polls, Liberal support is at a low ebb with essentially all of that going to the...
On that I have to go a hard no.
I don't think he's done anything really that shows a support of the military. That said, the article I linked above DID say he planned to spend more on the military - though they ask my question: he plans to get the money from where if he's cutting everything? - and if I could trust that he would, that would be a tick in his favor from me.
That said,
Poilievre’s Conservatives say they would adopt Trudeau government’s military budget increases
The opposition Conservatives say they would maintain defence budget increases planned under the current Liberal government if they take power, without making equivalent cuts under their proposed "dollar-for-dollar" spending cap.
We CANNOT keep (at the time of the article at least) that as the spending for the military. If the Cons are just going to keep it as is then it's not helping. If they adjust to not only the new level that the Libs are suggesting, but also bump it up past that, again, it'd be a tick in his favor.
As it is, the Libs are jockeying for who will reach the 2% first and honestly, I don't believe any of them. Actually, I think we should make 3% our goal, not 2. But that's just me.
(also this idea of ending 'woke culture' is stupid, but that's a whole other issue)
Maybe.
I might better agree if he didn't seem to side with Trump in a lot of ways (parroting a lot of Trump's classics like 'woke' and and if he wasn't supported by Musk.
I think he talks a big game about being Pro-Canada, but has done nothing to show it, has undermined the Pro-Canada push since the Tariffs and has put his desire to be PM before the country as a whole.
He DOES seem to have that "What's good for the US is also good for Canada" idea which under a different president would be no issue. The problem is with Trump that can't be. I think he'll likely be like other Conservative leaders in Canada - mainly Smith and Ford - who have either no issues with Trump and see him as someone that can be dealt with, or who think he's great and despite one bump in the road (tariffs) he's still trustworthy and worth working with.
He's just not shown any focus on Canada first, rather it's himself first.
Oh I absolutely agree on that. He was the perfect example of a 'try hard' bro.
I'd actually agree with all this. I think most people would.
His rhetoric and speeches, at least to me, say otherwise. Rather he'll swing the pendulum to the other side so fast the rest of us will be wondering WTF happened. And being part of one of those minority groups he loves to hate on, the whole idea of it does concern me a lot.
IF he truly could just focus on kills, knowledge and motivation with everyone deserving an equal shot at an education, a career and pursuit of happiness, he'd likely swing a lot more blue Liberals his way. Or independents. The issue is, that's not his plan, not really. There are too many in his own party who are against such things that he'd have to hard compromise to keep them. And then there is the fact he sits on his party right now in how they do their work and what they say, to the point that there's huge issues of trust going on.
Poilievre’s office maintains tight control over what Conservative MPs say and do | RCI
Party staffers monitor caucus for signs of message indiscipline and fraternization with other MPs
There's also a concern I have over his RTW idea.
BLOG: Pierre Poilievre’s Union Policy will Pulverize Paycheques
If Pierre Poilievre becomes Prime Minister, his policies will reduce workers’ wages and reduce workers job stability. Buried in the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) 2023 Policy Book is a stink bomb…
If this were to hit Provincial workers (right now it's just Federal), it'd shove already underpaid workers into even more hardship as it is.
I do agree it's time we need to rework how we think about a lot of things.
The assumption that there is "DEI" and people are hired because there's a "Quota" to be filled is highly exaggerated. And just because I support DEI, doesn't mean I want to see people who AREN'T qualified to work a job, put into that job regardless. But PP has taken the US talking point of that racist substitute and is running with it because it's working in the US so of course it'll work here.
I personally like a more civil conversation over PP instead of what is usually found.
True story, bro. . . my classmate Shelby got a job with an exceptional firm in Baltimore that does a lot of finance law. One of our irredeemably racist classmates suggested that the fact that she was a Black woman was the reason. Shelby just smiled and answered "Maybe. I'm sure that the fact that I'm the marketing director of the Bank of Baltimore, that I was vice-president of a bank in Tennessee, and that I graduated cum laude from Georgetown Law might have been in the mix too."
And that's the problem with racists. They assume that a non-White or a woman is unqualified. And too many of them make hiring and promotion decisions and bring that assumption to work with them.
Poilievre did this?
Canada Moves to Protect Arctic From Threats by Russia and China
Ottawa says its focus on the Arctic comes after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine “has shaken the foundations” of international cooperation in the northern region.
"I can't find anything wrong with what he said so I'm gonna be a child about it".
That's what you mean, right?
Seriously though, why do you throw out that bullshit? WTF has he done to get your 'ire', Tax?
There is plenty wrong but if you hide from the confrontational smart people youll never know. Grow a pair Mr.
If you had an comprehension skills at all, you would be able to figure it out. Or at least listen to those of us that know.
Except all I've heard is y'all bashing the guy, not ONCE showing where there's issues.
He's not some "Liberal shill", so that excuse is nixed.
He presents valid points that not one of you have actually countered other than to say it's "bad" or he's "retarded".
Is he biased? Probably. Everyone is. But on this specific video, what, exactly, is he wrong about?
So as it turns out, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre was right about almost everything.
Look at the positions Liberal leadership frontrunner and prime-minister-in-waiting Mark Carney has adopted since announcing his bid for the Liberal leadership via a softball interview on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show on Jan. 14.
(YouTube & “Is Mark Carney doing enough to distinguish himself from Justin Trudeau?”)
He’s accused the current Liberal government led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whom he wants to replace, of over taxing Canadians, recklessly spending their money and losing control of the federal deficit and public debt.
As a result, he says, it’s time to cap the size of Canada’s bloated public service and put the brakes on spending.
He opposes the Trudeau government’s corporate tax hike.
Perhaps the world’s single largest corporate booster of global carbon taxes, Carney says Trudeau’s carbon tax imposed on Canadians in 2019 is so unpopular it should be scrapped.
He says the Trudeau government boosted immigration to unsustainable levels that contributed to Canada’s ongoing affordability crisis.
As a result, he says, Canadian families need a middle class tax cut.
Now consider that Carney has been espousing these views for five weeks.
(YouTube & “Pierre Poilievre outlines plan to lower the federal deficit | FULL INTERVIEW”)
Poilievre, by contrast, has been arguing in favour of them long before Carney decided to enter politics, in many cases for years.
Indeed, it’s not hard to see the Carney campaign’s strategy here.
It’s to renounce Trudeau’s key economic platforms and indeed, his political legacy, while making his new platform indistinguishable from Poilievre’s — even though many of the people now advising Carney were instrumental in advising Trudeau to adopt the policies Carney now opposes.
What it means is that Carney and his advisors now agree — although they’d never admit it — that history has shown that Poilievre was right about almost every major economic platform he’s advocated.
By contrast, they are tacitly acknowledging that until Carney’s very recent conversion on the road to Damascus, Trudeau and the Liberals were wrong throughout their decade in power from 2015 to the present day.
(YouTube & Poilievre says Carney "expects Canadians to be duped for the fourth time")
That raises the question of who is more likely to implement needed reforms — Carney who has shamelessly copied Poilievre’s campaign platform, or the Conservative leader who first proposed it and has consistently advocated for it up to the present day?
apple.news
Look at the positions Liberal leadership frontrunner and prime-minister-in-waiting Mark Carney has adopted since announcing his bid for the Liberal leadership via a softball interview on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show on Jan. 14.
He’s accused the current Liberal government led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whom he wants to replace, of over taxing Canadians, recklessly spending their money and losing control of the federal deficit and public debt.
As a result, he says, it’s time to cap the size of Canada’s bloated public service and put the brakes on spending.
He opposes the Trudeau government’s corporate tax hike.
Perhaps the world’s single largest corporate booster of global carbon taxes, Carney says Trudeau’s carbon tax imposed on Canadians in 2019 is so unpopular it should be scrapped.
He says the Trudeau government boosted immigration to unsustainable levels that contributed to Canada’s ongoing affordability crisis.
As a result, he says, Canadian families need a middle class tax cut.
Now consider that Carney has been espousing these views for five weeks.
Poilievre, by contrast, has been arguing in favour of them long before Carney decided to enter politics, in many cases for years.
Indeed, it’s not hard to see the Carney campaign’s strategy here.
It’s to renounce Trudeau’s key economic platforms and indeed, his political legacy, while making his new platform indistinguishable from Poilievre’s — even though many of the people now advising Carney were instrumental in advising Trudeau to adopt the policies Carney now opposes.
What it means is that Carney and his advisors now agree — although they’d never admit it — that history has shown that Poilievre was right about almost every major economic platform he’s advocated.
By contrast, they are tacitly acknowledging that until Carney’s very recent conversion on the road to Damascus, Trudeau and the Liberals were wrong throughout their decade in power from 2015 to the present day.
That raises the question of who is more likely to implement needed reforms — Carney who has shamelessly copied Poilievre’s campaign platform, or the Conservative leader who first proposed it and has consistently advocated for it up to the present day?
EDITORIAL: Even Carney says Poilievre was right — Toronto Sun
So as it turns out, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre was right about almost everything. But don’t take our word for it. Look at the positions Liberal leadership frontrunner and prime-minister-in-waiting Mark Carney has adopted since announcing his bid for the Liberal leadership via a...
In govts it's not. In schools it's not. In govt regulated industries it's not. In fact Trudeau even wanted to force companies listed on the TSX to draft their roadmap to DEI and if they refused he wanted to force them to publicly explain to their investors why they didn't. It's not the least bit exaggerated when a govt tries to force it on private enterprise just because they're publicly traded. That's not exaggeration, it's called govt overreach.
DEI and CRT are also closely linked, at least in Canada. The rather diverse TDSB, despite teachers constantly blaming the provincial govt for a lack of funds, has managed to find money to change the names of all the schools in the district that are named after Sir John A McDonald, Ryerson and Dundas. Because promoting reimagined history is better than spending that money in the classroom.
In the fed govt workforce, every single HR dept is staffed entirely by women. 54% of the federal workforce are women and 57% of the supervisory and management positions are staffed by women. Looking at the racial demographics they are more or less generalized by global region than specific ethnic group but even there it's pretty obvious the Fed is aiming hard for "proportional representation" in the govt workplace.
And think about this bit of nonsensery. Pablo Rodriguez, born in Venezuela and still has an accent, was our Heritage Minister. So a naturalized Canadian from a culture that doesn't exactly have a significant history in Canada was our Heritage Minister. Why? Not saying he shouldn't have been a cabinet minister at all but just found that to be a deliberately odd choice for that particular portfolio. I mean if you wanna be diverse maybe pick someone who is First Nations, or Indian or Chinese at least. At least they played a significant role in Canadian history and are definitely part of Canada's non-European heritage.
In Los Angeles County there are around 3500 firefighters. 113 of them are women. Yet women hold 3 of the 4 top positions in the LA county FD including Fire Chief. But yeah, I'm sure that's not got a thing to do with DEI practices.
Y'know what?
Lately I've agreed with a few things you've said, Jin.
And while I DON'T agree with you on this mostly, I'm just going to agree to disagree.
Especially when everybody knows weemins and scary dark people are less "qualified" than straight White guys who like beer.