Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Johnny Makarov]

I love how idiot moron right wingers think they can trick the electorate by switching to contacts. Hahaha. Preston scumbag did it. Harpy did it. And now PP.

Like all of their deplorableness just go away....

Also PPs face is way better to punch without glasses! Unload away.

[Ryan Coke]

I think the comparison between trump and PP is just lazy partisanship, and really minimizes how awful trump is. Trump is not fit for public office, I wouldn’t hire him to clean toilets. He is a terrible human.

Not that I disagree with several of the concerns with PP, there are things I don’t like about him. But there are things I don’t like about JT as well, but those 2 are the only realistic choices (neither of them is close to Trump awful for me). I’m fine at this point giving the cons a chance. They might be bad, but I know based on the evidence that Trudeau is.

But there is certainly a limit, we all have it a a different point. And if PP goes too far then I’ll be happy to change my mind.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Both also use simplistic catch phrases on their base.

Trump: Drain the Swamp! America First! Make America Great Again! Fake News! Build the Wall!

PP: Axe the tax! Buid the house! Make Canada affordable again! Bring it home!

And flashy buzzwords works on lots of people. Luckily not everyone, at least not the ones who can think critiquely and see through the snake oil.

Next Oct when 90% of the post in this thread are "I can't believe Canadians are so racist and stupid" at least you can all pat yourselves and claim you are part of the "Critical Thinkers seeing through the snake Oil"

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by indes

The problem with Alberta is that we always vote blue. Cons don't need to do anything for us because we'll vote for them no matter what and the libs don't do anything for us because we don't vote for them no matter what. We need a Bloc like option that Quebec uses for leverage.

This.

When you show politicians that they have your support no matter what, you’ve effectively taken away any incentive for them to actually fight for what you want. They will look to appease only those who are willing to vote for someone else.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

This.

When you show politicians that they have your support no matter what, you’ve effectively taken away any incentive for them to actually fight for what you want. They will look to appease only those who are willing to vote for someone else.

Reform was effectively this early on. The problem is the math never will work that a Alberta party becomes the swing vote federally

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Reform was effectively this early on. The problem is the math never will work that a Alberta party becomes the swing vote federally

But now Reform is a fully Canada wide party about to win another election. They did something right.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

I think the comparison between trump and PP is just lazy partisanship, and really minimizes how awful trump is. Trump is not fit for public office, I wouldn’t hire him to clean toilets. He is a terrible human.

“I thought that they cleaned toilets with their bare hands. I was surprised to see that they use a brush.”

Not that I disagree with several of the concerns with PP, there are things I don’t like about him. But there are things I don’t like about JT as well, but those 2 are the only realistic choices (neither of them is close to Trump awful for me). I’m fine at this point giving the cons a chance. They might be bad, but I know based on the evidence that Trudeau is.

But there is certainly a limit, we all have it a a different point. And if PP goes too far then I’ll be happy to change my mind.

My biggest concern is that I just don’t see Pierre as having the backbone to stand up to Trump, bringing all of the apples in the world to munch on obnoxiously during trade talks isn’t going to change Trumps approach. And given that some of the CPC’s wealthiest backers have business interests in both countries they probably stand to profit more from a better deal on their investments south of the border which could influence how hard Pierre will fight for Canadian interests. To me, Pierre just comes off as someone who will do as he is told by the powers that be. Hope I’m proven wrong about that.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Reform was effectively this early on. The problem is the math never will work that a Alberta party becomes the swing vote federally

My point still stands that politicians have no reason to fight for the interests of people who will vote for them no matter what, regardless of which alternate party they would vote for instead.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

“I thought that they cleaned toilets with their bare hands. I was surprised to see that they use a brush.”



My biggest concern is that I just don’t see Pierre as having the backbone to stand up to Trump, bringing all of the apples in the world to munch on obnoxiously during trade talks isn’t going to change Trumps approach. And given that some of the CPC’s wealthiest backers have business interests in both countries they probably stand to profit more from a better deal on their investments south of the border which could influence how hard Pierre will fight for Canadian interests. To me, Pierre just comes off as someone who will do as he is told by the powers that be. Hope I’m proven wrong about that.

Doing as hes told by the powers that be is how a subservient state needs to operate in the presence of a strong man. You have a better chance of avoiding Tarrifs if you are part of the team than poking it. It’s certainly a cowardly way out but likely in the best interests of Canada.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Doing as hes told by the powers that be is how a subservient state needs to operate in the presence of a strong man. You have a better chance of avoiding Tarrifs if you are part of the team than poking it. It’s certainly a cowardly way out but likely in the best interests of Canada.

The concern is that his being part of the “team” means accepting whatever he is told to accept, which includes tariffs.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

I think the comparison between trump and PP is just lazy partisanship, and really minimizes how awful trump is. Trump is not fit for public office, I wouldn’t hire him to clean toilets. He is a terrible human.

Not that I disagree with several of the concerns with PP, there are things I don’t like about him. But there are things I don’t like about JT as well, but those 2 are the only realistic choices (neither of them is close to Trump awful for me). I’m fine at this point giving the cons a chance. They might be bad, but I know based on the evidence that Trudeau is.

But there is certainly a limit, we all have it a a different point. And if PP goes too far then I’ll be happy to change my mind.

Were you too lazy to read the case I stated?

I think you're minimizing how dangerous courting the alt-right, attacking the media, rejecting fact-based discourse and degrading our institutions are.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The concern is that his being part of the “team” means accepting whatever he is told to accept, which includes tariffs.

I think when you are on the team it’s look at these terrible foreigners dumping their goods. Dont Tarrif our oil or auto parts as we don’t dump them into your market and it will just make things cost more for you

Its easier to do that as someone who isn’t the person your daughter that you think is hot thinks is hot.

We are dealing with an irrational bully who is aging rapidly.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Where Trump is a right wing populist who uses anti-establishment (despite being part of the financial elite), fascist rhetoric while he cozies up to members of the far right for political gain and relies heavily on catchphrases, easily disprovable lies, and inflammatory language, Poilievre is a right wing populist who used anti-establishment (despite being part of the actual establishment), sometimes fascist rhetoric while he cozies up to members of the far right for political gain and relies heavily on catchphrases and inflammatory language and less heavily on heavily disprovable lies.

PP is basically the dorkier, career politician version of Trump who deploys the same approach with more polish and predictability.

And also the punchable face thing.

How is PP trying to be anti-establishment?
What are some examples of inflammatory language?
What is the fascist rhetoric you're referring to?

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Because we listen to the things he says, see the people he spends time with and don't think he's lying when he told us in the past how he feels about certain peoples in minority communities.

Pierre Pollievre is a lot of things, but the right choice to lead Canada into the future isn't one of them. Maybe back into the 50s Socially and the 80s fiscally.

You need to provide actual examples. I legitimately have no clue what you're referring to so it's difficult to have any kind of opinion.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Trump and PP went to the well and drummed up the dredges of the far right militia types. Cozied up to well known white power groups and got those votes factored into the popular ethos.

Pollipepper though just aped Trump's schtick. That's where I see the similarities.

Fiscally pollipepper maybe he good , might not be. But on social politics, I could absolutely vomit at both Trump and PP.

Again you need to be more specific.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Having a piece of #### like Trump in your avatar you deserve zero response.

Embarrassing stuff.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Hackey

You need to provide actual examples. I legitimately have no clue what you're referring to so it's difficult to have any kind of opinion.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/tory-mp-says-...marks-1.301998


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poi...kers-1.7107486


Years of tagging all his social media videos for years with MGTOW; (Men Go their Own Way) is a group known for incel behaviour, open and flagrant misogyny and just all around general #### behaviour (which is ironic considering they hate women).

He is telling us how he feels about these minorities. Not sure why we should assume he's lying.

Then there is the time spent glad handing with and embracing the endorsements from leaders of groups like Diagolon.

I don't know if he is actually vile, I believe he is but I don't know for sure. What I do know is he is willing to embrace those who are vile if it means he can form government.

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Having a piece of #### like Trump in your avatar you deserve zero response.

Embarrassing stuff.

He gets one shot at this. Depending how he chooses to respond will either see me mocking him at every turn, ignoring him or actually trying to have a conversation.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Hackey

How is PP trying to be anti-establishment?
What are some examples of inflammatory language?
What is the fascist rhetoric you're referring to?

Originally Posted by Hackey

You need to provide actual examples. I legitimately have no clue what you're referring to so it's difficult to have any kind of opinion.

Originally Posted by Hackey

Again you need to be more specific.

Quoting everyone except for me, I see.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by SebC

Quoting everyone except for me, I see.

Yeah well, if he had actually read your post he wouldn’t be able to demand people do the work for him now would he?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

I think the comparison between trump and PP is just lazy partisanship, and really minimizes how awful trump is. Trump is not fit for public office, I wouldn’t hire him to clean toilets. He is a terrible human.

Not that I disagree with several of the concerns with PP, there are things I don’t like about him. But there are things I don’t like about JT as well, but those 2 are the only realistic choices (neither of them is close to Trump awful for me). I’m fine at this point giving the cons a chance. They might be bad, but I know based on the evidence that Trudeau is.

But there is certainly a limit, we all have it a a different point. And if PP goes too far then I’ll be happy to change my mind.

Is denying it without any substance to dispute it any better than lazy partisanship?

People have actually provided examples to make the comparison, the most you could offer was “nuh uh” and then called them lazy… how does that work?