Pierre Poilievre
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
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.
The GOOD news is Trump fired all the non-Whites and girls in the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Turns out they were unqualified.
Turns out they were unqualified.
The Lazarus-like revival suggests the Liberals have gained 10 points of support since Ipsos’s last poll in January. For a brief moment before Justin Trudeau resigned, it looked as if they were on track to lose official party status after the next election; now it’s the NDP that is facing that prospect.
It is an unprecedented shift in public opinion and the pressing question is: What are Poilievre’s Conservatives going to do about it to shift the momentum back?
The answer, according to senior Conservatives, is… not much.
The logic is that Poilievre still holds two aces: namely, fatigue with the Liberal party after nearly 10 years in power; and the sense among roughly eight in 10 Canadians that it is time for a change of government.
apple.news
Even though he was an adviser to the Trudeau government, Carney can plausibly disavow, and even impugn, its record in office.
The U.S. president’s intimidation is now the most pressing issue for most Canadian voters and Carney is not only presenting himself as best-positioned to deal with it but is portraying Poilievre as being unfit for the purpose.
He said the Conservative leader “worships” (?) Trump and is “the wrong guy at the worst time.”
During the debate, Carney blasted Poilievre’s decision to refuse security clearance as “the kind of irresponsibility, at a time when our country is under threat, that we cannot afford.”
The Conservatives appear to have been handed a gift in the form of a letter Carney wrote as chair of Brookfield Asset Management, which they say proves the Liberal leadership candidate supported moving the investment firm’s headquarters to New York from Toronto. Whoopsies.
It is an unprecedented shift in public opinion and the pressing question is: What are Poilievre’s Conservatives going to do about it to shift the momentum back?
The answer, according to senior Conservatives, is… not much.
The logic is that Poilievre still holds two aces: namely, fatigue with the Liberal party after nearly 10 years in power; and the sense among roughly eight in 10 Canadians that it is time for a change of government.
John Ivison: Why Conservatives say they aren’t sweating the Liberals’ Lazarus-like revival — National Post
A tightening of the polls is no surprise and might even benefit Conservatives who have become too complacent
The U.S. president’s intimidation is now the most pressing issue for most Canadian voters and Carney is not only presenting himself as best-positioned to deal with it but is portraying Poilievre as being unfit for the purpose.
He said the Conservative leader “worships” (?) Trump and is “the wrong guy at the worst time.”
During the debate, Carney blasted Poilievre’s decision to refuse security clearance as “the kind of irresponsibility, at a time when our country is under threat, that we cannot afford.”
The Conservatives appear to have been handed a gift in the form of a letter Carney wrote as chair of Brookfield Asset Management, which they say proves the Liberal leadership candidate supported moving the investment firm’s headquarters to New York from Toronto. Whoopsies.
The media have been playing up Carney big time for months as if he the second coming , which of course he is , the second coming of Justin . As soon as this shit show liberal corornation is out of the way Canadians will see he is an empty suit and will end up just like Ignatieff on a plane back to London .The Lazarus-like revival suggests the Liberals have gained 10 points of support since Ipsos’s last poll in January. For a brief moment before Justin Trudeau resigned, it looked as if they were on track to lose official party status after the next election; now it’s the NDP that is facing that prospect.
It is an unprecedented shift in public opinion and the pressing question is: What are Poilievre’s Conservatives going to do about it to shift the momentum back?
The answer, according to senior Conservatives, is… not much.
The logic is that Poilievre still holds two aces: namely, fatigue with the Liberal party after nearly 10 years in power; and the sense among roughly eight in 10 Canadians that it is time for a change of government.
Even though he was an adviser to the Trudeau government, Carney can plausibly disavow, and even impugn, its record in office.John Ivison: Why Conservatives say they aren’t sweating the Liberals’ Lazarus-like revival — National Post
A tightening of the polls is no surprise and might even benefit Conservatives who have become too complacent
The U.S. president’s intimidation is now the most pressing issue for most Canadian voters and Carney is not only presenting himself as best-positioned to deal with it but is portraying Poilievre as being unfit for the purpose.
He said the Conservative leader “worships” (?) Trump and is “the wrong guy at the worst time.”
During the debate, Carney blasted Poilievre’s decision to refuse security clearance as “the kind of irresponsibility, at a time when our country is under threat, that we cannot afford.”
The Conservatives appear to have been handed a gift in the form of a letter Carney wrote as chair of Brookfield Asset Management, which they say proves the Liberal leadership candidate supported moving the investment firm’s headquarters to New York from Toronto. Whoopsies.