Pierre Poilievre
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
Another bullshit utube from a clueless retard.
You need to at least attempt to find something with facts to post.
IPA guy takes the rice bran cake. He's as left coast as left coast gets.
What part is bullshit?
I watched the press conference he did and it was HORRIBLE.
Like you do?
First off, what part wasn't fact?
Second, he's a commentator, most of his videos are opinion.
Third, that said, the stuff he says IS factual. If you actually look at unbiased sources.
Damn…I thought Paul Reuben’s was still in prison for public masturbation? Trying to butter someone else’s popcorn in a movie theatre or whatever…
…& the humour just rolls through you guys today. On Friday (today), Justin Trudeau will host the Canada-U.S. Economic Summit to “galvanize business and investment across Canada.” The summit will not include any Americans, despite the name, and will instead see Canadian business and labour representatives discuss matters with Trudeau and long-defeated politicians.
“We are bringing together partners across business, civil society and organized labour to find ways to galvanize our economy, create more jobs and bigger paycheques, make it easier to build and trade within our borders and diversify export markets,” Trudeau said.
Trudeau, like so many Liberals, is starting to sound like Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.
apple.news
More jobs? Bigger paycheques? Those are Poilievre talking points.
Beyond the change in tune from Trudeau, there are issues with the composition of the panel that will be advising Trudeau. No offence to Jean Charest or Rachel Notley, but their inclusion as former premiers chosen to allow Trudeau to claim it’s a non-partisan committee is not sitting well with many.
Of course, at the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa and the U.S. Consulate in Toronto, the question is why the Trudeau government is holding a Canada-U.S. Economic Summit without inviting them to the table. This “summit” can’t be a smokescreen for further plans to escalate the trade war with the Americans; this should be about how to lower the temperature and avoid tariffs.
What we should be discussing is how to unleash an economy that has been locked down and shackled by years of bad policy from the Trudeau Liberals. They killed the Northern Gateway pipeline, Energy East and Energie Saguenay, three projects that would have given Canada easier access to export markets.
(for Tec, YouTube & “Do you really think the Trudeau-Carney Liberals are about to back pipelines? It won't happen!”)
They have passed Bill C-69, brought in a carbon tax, an emissions cap, a just transition strategy to move people out of the oil and gas sector. Now, though, the Trudeau Liberals – from cabinet ministers to Trudeau’s anointed potential replacement Mark Carney – are all saying they oppose the carbon tax and that we need pipelines.
Carney has spoken about the need for more pipelines in Canada, while also saying that Quebec can have a veto on an East-West pipeline?
Jonathan Wilkinson, who has endorsed Carney, is playing games with the pipeline issue after spending decades opposing pipelines – he’s essentially Steven Guilbeault in a cheap suit and glasses trying to look respectable.
And International Trade Minister Mary Ng – who will no doubt endorse Carney at the behest of the Prime Minister’s Office, all of whom are backing Carney – has also tried to claim they back energy infrastructure after more than nine years of blocking it?
(For Tec, YouTube & “BATRA'S BURNING QUESTIONS: Trudeau puts Liberal Party ahead of country in the fight against...”)
Meanwhile…Parliament has been prorogue’d for the last two months & still is.
“We are bringing together partners across business, civil society and organized labour to find ways to galvanize our economy, create more jobs and bigger paycheques, make it easier to build and trade within our borders and diversify export markets,” Trudeau said.
Trudeau, like so many Liberals, is starting to sound like Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.
LILLEY: Does Trudeau really want to save our economy from Trump's tariffs? — Toronto Sun
Canada needs to expand oil, gas projects to be successful, but that's not something Liberals support
Beyond the change in tune from Trudeau, there are issues with the composition of the panel that will be advising Trudeau. No offence to Jean Charest or Rachel Notley, but their inclusion as former premiers chosen to allow Trudeau to claim it’s a non-partisan committee is not sitting well with many.
Of course, at the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa and the U.S. Consulate in Toronto, the question is why the Trudeau government is holding a Canada-U.S. Economic Summit without inviting them to the table. This “summit” can’t be a smokescreen for further plans to escalate the trade war with the Americans; this should be about how to lower the temperature and avoid tariffs.
What we should be discussing is how to unleash an economy that has been locked down and shackled by years of bad policy from the Trudeau Liberals. They killed the Northern Gateway pipeline, Energy East and Energie Saguenay, three projects that would have given Canada easier access to export markets.
They have passed Bill C-69, brought in a carbon tax, an emissions cap, a just transition strategy to move people out of the oil and gas sector. Now, though, the Trudeau Liberals – from cabinet ministers to Trudeau’s anointed potential replacement Mark Carney – are all saying they oppose the carbon tax and that we need pipelines.
Carney has spoken about the need for more pipelines in Canada, while also saying that Quebec can have a veto on an East-West pipeline?
Jonathan Wilkinson, who has endorsed Carney, is playing games with the pipeline issue after spending decades opposing pipelines – he’s essentially Steven Guilbeault in a cheap suit and glasses trying to look respectable.
And International Trade Minister Mary Ng – who will no doubt endorse Carney at the behest of the Prime Minister’s Office, all of whom are backing Carney – has also tried to claim they back energy infrastructure after more than nine years of blocking it?
Meanwhile…Parliament has been prorogue’d for the last two months & still is.
Yeah. Galvanize. That's what you do with trash cans (that's "bins" to you, Blackleaf).
Thanks for the insight, Ron. "Party over country" seems to be a disease y'all got even worse'n we do.
For what it's worth (damn near nothing), I'm in for Pete.
Poilievre, not Buttigieg (well, him too, just not for PM of Canada).
Thanks for the insight, Ron. "Party over country" seems to be a disease y'all got even worse'n we do.
For what it's worth (damn near nothing), I'm in for Pete.
Poilievre, not Buttigieg (well, him too, just not for PM of Canada).
Feel free. I'll even answer.
Be aware, my idea of "good for Canada" has a strong shot of "good for America" in it.
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.
Second, I think he'll step up to strengthening the Canadian Forces.
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.
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. 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 think M Poo-Lover will focus more on the individual than on the group or groups to which the individual belongs.
It's time for that.
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!).
Why bother?…& the humour just rolls through you guys today. On Friday (today), Justin Trudeau will host the Canada-U.S. Economic Summit to “galvanize business and investment across Canada.” The summit will not include any Americans, despite the name, and will instead see Canadian business and labour representatives discuss matters with Trudeau and long-defeated politicians.
“We are bringing together partners across business, civil society and organized labour to find ways to galvanize our economy, create more jobs and bigger paycheques, make it easier to build and trade within our borders and diversify export markets,” Trudeau said.
Trudeau, like so many Liberals, is starting to sound like Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.
More jobs? Bigger paycheques? Those are Poilievre talking points.LILLEY: Does Trudeau really want to save our economy from Trump's tariffs? — Toronto Sun
Canada needs to expand oil, gas projects to be successful, but that's not something Liberals support
Beyond the change in tune from Trudeau, there are issues with the composition of the panel that will be advising Trudeau. No offence to Jean Charest or Rachel Notley, but their inclusion as former premiers chosen to allow Trudeau to claim it’s a non-partisan committee is not sitting well with many.
Of course, at the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa and the U.S. Consulate in Toronto, the question is why the Trudeau government is holding a Canada-U.S. Economic Summit without inviting them to the table. This “summit” can’t be a smokescreen for further plans to escalate the trade war with the Americans; this should be about how to lower the temperature and avoid tariffs.
What we should be discussing is how to unleash an economy that has been locked down and shackled by years of bad policy from the Trudeau Liberals. They killed the Northern Gateway pipeline, Energy East and Energie Saguenay, three projects that would have given Canada easier access to export markets.
(for Tec, YouTube & “Do you really think the Trudeau-Carney Liberals are about to back pipelines? It won't happen!”)
They have passed Bill C-69, brought in a carbon tax, an emissions cap, a just transition strategy to move people out of the oil and gas sector. Now, though, the Trudeau Liberals – from cabinet ministers to Trudeau’s anointed potential replacement Mark Carney – are all saying they oppose the carbon tax and that we need pipelines.
Carney has spoken about the need for more pipelines in Canada, while also saying that Quebec can have a veto on an East-West pipeline?
Jonathan Wilkinson, who has endorsed Carney, is playing games with the pipeline issue after spending decades opposing pipelines – he’s essentially Steven Guilbeault in a cheap suit and glasses trying to look respectable.
And International Trade Minister Mary Ng – who will no doubt endorse Carney at the behest of the Prime Minister’s Office, all of whom are backing Carney – has also tried to claim they back energy infrastructure after more than nine years of blocking it?
(For Tec, YouTube & “BATRA'S BURNING QUESTIONS: Trudeau puts Liberal Party ahead of country in the fight against...”)
Meanwhile…Parliament has been prorogue’d for the last two months & still is.
Just worked a 16 but I'll reply to this as it's a conversation that needs to happen, without the usual bullshit.
Get some sleep. Plenty of time to chew it over.
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.