Pierre Poilievre’s callous courting of Canada’s ‘deplorables’ (left wing in full panic mode)

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
26,426
6,832
113
B.C.
Actually, I have no issue calling out Dems for their stupid bs.

But unlike you, I don't have blind slobbering, cultist, fanatic, idol worship to a questionable slob of flesh who thinks he's still President.

Biden isn't that great a President, and never will be.

Dems, while at least trying to do work, haven't done much of what they promised, and they think relying on Republicans is going to work. Hint: it won't. Dems need balls to say fuck it and just DO instead of trying to work with people who do not give an absolute fig about anyone but their pocket books/bank accounts. (No, that's not to say Dems don't do that either, they do, but some of them at least try to give a shit about people).

You point out where Dems have done wrong, and if you have it from an UNBIASED source and it can be fact proven, I will absolutely agree with you.

So no, that comment DOESN'T apply to me.

It DOES apply to you, consistently.
Wow you are almost of the same Mensa quality as my friend Foxer
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,837
113
Selfie-Boy out in front of the cameras in reaction to Poilievre….pledging to do something about inflation….’cuz selfies.
Yeah but he can't. That would involve cutting back spending to reduce the amount of money going into the marketplace. I suspect he just intends to let it take it's course and hope the bank cuts eventually do the job after we go into recession.

But why aren't they asking the obvious question - if you CAN do something about it... why did you wait till now?
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
22,490
7,500
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Yeah but he can't. That would involve cutting back spending to reduce the amount of money going into the marketplace. I suspect he just intends to let it take it's course and hope the bank cuts eventually do the job after we go into recession.

But why aren't they asking the obvious question - if you CAN do something about it... why did you wait till now?
Because…now is different than before.
1662986153052.jpeg
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,568
2,292
113
Toronto, ON
Who will ditch it? Jagmeet or Justin? I’m assuming Justin out of political expediency.

I think there are 2 schools of thought here for the Liberals. The first is that the longer PP has to connect with Canadians the worse it will be for them, The second is that perhaps over the long haul PP honeymoon period will end and he will fall back to earth. I really don't know which is correct but if the Liberal think tank thinks it will be the first case, they will dissolve the agreement and force an election. Or more likely force the NDP to break it by tabling something they could not agree with and outside their previous agreement.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,837
113
I think there are 2 schools of thought here for the Liberals. The first is that the longer PP has to connect with Canadians the worse it will be for them, The second is that perhaps over the long haul PP honeymoon period will end and he will fall back to earth. I really don't know which is correct but if the Liberal think tank thinks it will be the first case, they will dissolve the agreement and force an election. Or more likely force the NDP to break it by tabling something they could not agree with and outside their previous agreement.
This is essentially correct. Traditionally the liberals have always had one mantra - stay in power as long as possible. If they think they can count on the ndp to ride this out another couple of years, then unless they've got a huge advantage which suggests they should go right now, they'll wait. That's how they've always been.

However there's a third element not normally present right now, and that's Justin Trudeau's ego. And that's even harder to guess. Right now he'll be surrounded by people arguing for the quick election or arguing for the long haul, and there's been signs that he's really not enjoying the job any more.

Right now it makes no sense for them to go, they're not doing great in the polls and that's after Trudeau's "election style" tours this spring/summer and his big announcements which really barely gave him a nudge, and there's a good chance that PP will enjoy the traditional "new leader bump" that we used to see all the time, where the cpc will go up in popularity for a short time. But it's possible that trudeau takes the attitude of "i'm sick of this, so we go and either i manage to smear him and win and then i don't have to think about it for another year or two, or i lose and i don't have to show up for work anymore and i can do my talking tours at 30 grand a night again."

The right move is to wait - let PP's shine wear off, use the media to smear him, and wait to see what happens to the economy and hope that by end of 2024- beginning of 2025 theres' a recovery and then run on that. That will also make him one of the longest serving PM's which should stroke his ego.

But - he may for his own sociopathic reasons choose to grab guns earlier and shoot for a winter-spring 2023 election. And the signs are there that he's at least considering it.
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
5,656
3,538
113
Edmonton
Actually, I have no issue calling out Dems for their stupid bs.

But unlike you, I don't have blind slobbering, cultist, fanatic, idol worship to a questionable slob of flesh who thinks he's still President.

Biden isn't that great a President, and never will be.

Dems, while at least trying to do work, haven't done much of what they promised, and they think relying on Republicans is going to work. Hint: it won't. Dems need balls to say fuck it and just DO instead of trying to work with people who do not give an absolute fig about anyone but their pocket books/bank accounts. (No, that's not to say Dems don't do that either, they do, but some of them at least try to give a shit about people).

You point out where Dems have done wrong, and if you have it from an UNBIASED source and it can be fact proven, I will absolutely agree with you.

So no, that comment DOESN'T apply to me.

It DOES apply to you, consistently.
Guess you don't read real well huh? Ah well, you can believe what you want to - it's still a free country. Your description of my support of Trump is totally out of wack - as I said, you obviously haven't been reading my posts, but that's ok. I often miss what others are saying about certain things too. It's just nice to know others do the same!! ;)
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
8,903
2,035
113
New Brunswick
Guess you don't read real well huh? Ah well, you can believe what you want to - it's still a free country. Your description of my support of Trump is totally out of wack - as I said, you obviously haven't been reading my posts, but that's ok. I often miss what others are saying about certain things too. It's just nice to know others do the same!! ;)

So you're saying you haven't been supportive of Trump, regardless of his stupidity?

Huh! Maybe someone else named Dixie Cup has been posting Trump-Love!
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
22,490
7,500
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Yeah but he can't. That would involve cutting back spending to reduce the amount of money going into the marketplace. I suspect he just intends to let it take it's course and hope the bank cuts eventually do the job after we go into recession.

But why aren't they asking the obvious question - if you CAN do something about it... why did you wait till now?
1663023071373.jpeg
Then from the Guy who wants Budgets to balance themselves (Who has increased the debt more than ALL other previous Prime Ministers COMBINED)…
1663023188536.jpeg
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau launched a forceful attack of Pierre Poilievre Monday, describing the new Conservative Leader as an irresponsible politician who promotes reckless economic ideas (???).
Mr. Trudeau congratulated Mr. Poilievre on his victory and said Liberals are open to working with other parties in Parliament.
“But this doesn’t mean that we’re not going to be calling out highly questionable, reckless economic ideas,” he said??
Just six years ago at the start of the 2015 federal election campaign that brought him to power, Trudeau said he was firmly in favour of balanced budgets.

“Our platform will be fully costed, fiscally responsible and a balanced budget,” he said in April 2015. “I’ve committed to continuing to run balanced budgets … Liberals balance budgets. That’s what history has shown,” he repeated in July 2015.

But just three weeks later, on Aug. 25, Trudeau made an astounding flip flop, saying a Liberal government would run three years of “modest deficits” followed by a balanced budget in 2019.

Trudeau, looking earnestly into the camera during the Sept. 17, 2015 leaders’ debate on the economy said: “I am looking straight at Canadians and being honest the way I always have. We will balance that budget in 2019.”

Trudeau’s actual record was a $19 billion deficit in 2016, another $19 billion deficit in 2017, a $14 billion deficit in 2018 and a $26.6 billion deficit in 2019, with no end of deficits in sight…..THEN COVID 19….
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
22,490
7,500
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
(But only one of them has racked up the national debt more than every PM combined that proceeded him)
Whether he becomes prime minister or not, Poilievre has already, at the very least, forced his opponents to reconsider their complacency on key issues….& he’s been Leader of his Party for just 30 hours now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The_Foxer

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,837
113
Whether he becomes prime minister or not, Poilievre has already, at the very least, forced his opponents to reconsider their complacency on key issues….& he’s been Leader of his Party for just 30 hours now.
Yep. And it's going to have justin second guessing his game, and historically when he gets flustered he does very badly
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,284
6,895
113
Washington DC
Chicken-in-every-pot populism is dishonest. It is promising what you have neither the means nor the intention of delivering.

It is also, sadly, necessary for the challenger. The only way, really, to overcome the advantages of incumbency is to find failings and shortcomings in the current mob, and talk them up into CRISES! that will DESTROY CANADA! unless the good, honest, hard-working folk put you and your party into office.

You also gotta find some group for the voters to hate.