Pierre Poilievre

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,403
2,558
113
New Brunswick
Feel free. I'll even answer.

Be aware, my idea of "good for Canada" has a strong shot of "good for America" in it.

That's fine. I can respect that.

First, I think he'll move to make the Canadian economy more stable: higher value to the Canadollar, better-integrated planning for continuing to drill, pump, and mine on one hand, and develop promising alternatives on the other.

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.


Second, I think he'll step up to strengthening the Canadian Forces.

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,


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)

Third, I think he'll treat Dumb Donnie and whoever comes next "agnostically," by which I mean agree, disagree, cooperate, resist, all moderately and with a focus on what's good for Canada, with an understanding that what's good for North America IS good for Canada.

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.

True Dope has, in his own haphazard, inconsistent way, moved the ball forward significantly on giving those who are not White male nominally-Christian Canadians in plaid flannel shirts an equal voice in Canadian culture and politics. But in many ways he overdid it, and fomented a lot of unnecessary resistance and resentment.

Oh I absolutely agree on that. He was the perfect example of a 'try hard' bro.

Seems to me, from an outsider's medium-informed viewpoint, that a certain retrenchment would be a good idea, whilst the notion percolates some and y'all move toward the overarching national values of 1) what you bring to the table in terms of skill, knowledge, and motivation is more important than what group you belong to. and 2) every Canadian deserves an equal shot at an education, a career, and "the pursuit of happiness."

I'd actually agree with all this. I think most people would.

I think M Poo-Lover will focus more on the individual than on the group or groups to which the individual belongs.

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.


There's also a concern I have over his RTW idea.


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.

It's time for that.

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 stand ready to be educated by all sides of the Canadian debate(s) on any or all of the above.

Just a view from abroad (Yo! I ain't no broad!).

I personally like a more civil conversation over PP instead of what is usually found.
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,012
7,741
113
B.C.
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.




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,


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.


There's also a concern I have over his RTW idea.


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 ?
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,012
7,741
113
B.C.
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.




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,


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.


There's also a concern I have over his RTW idea.


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 .
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,951
8,805
113
Washington DC
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serryah

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,403
2,558
113
New Brunswick
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.

Pretty much all this.

Great clapback though on her end.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
114,530
13,225
113
Low Earth Orbit
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.
All she is missing is the wheelchair.