Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I’m fine with fentanyl and gun smugglers to be put away for life . F them

So you’re fine with the current laws around fentanyl trafficking?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Torture

Fair point but she's a woman and something about her emails.

She was also a war criminal but that's also generally not disqualifying in the U.S.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Robbob

That doesn't sound like him at all. Are there adults in the room that have taken over?

It's been well known that the messages on that account are written by multiple people. The ones with lots of CAPITAL LETTERS and written at 1am in the morning are generally his, but the more measured ones are written by his wranglers.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

It would depend on your point of view obviously and how much you like privitazation. It's definitely a government for the upper-middle class. If you're in that bracket, more privatization would be seen as favorable. It's kind of saying the quiet parts outloud.

The Registry:
Got rid of license plate stickers, it's now online
Got rid of advance GDL test
Discount for seniors

Corporate tax cut from 12% to 8%

People like the new daycare rates coming in April. Unform flat rate across the board. I have friends who have kids in daycare, their rates cut in half next month.
My kids are too old now, I paid too much for daycare 5 years ago.

Some privatization of health care, pay small amounts for certain services.

The push for more private schools, some would like that.

And the controversial trans in schools, parents should know. Again, the quiet part outloud, parents want to know.

So yeah, if you're not for privatization at all, this all sucks.

Good would be a strong framing of these.

These are very unpopular policies, on top of being economical irresponsible an short sighted.
It's pretty rich giving the UPC any credit for this
This might be somewhat popular but at best it's political pandering to a niche group who on average is the least in need

*I really like the lack of registration stickers, when the cops can just scan your plate anyway. that's a good one. I can admit when a smith government gets something right. Got my license pre-GDL and my kids haven't it that age yet, so I have not yet considered if I care or not.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by #-3

It's pretty rich giving the UPC any credit for this
.

The subsidy and money no but the flat rate and not being income based at all is definitely a UPC policy. For richer people, rates went down, cut in half, for poorer people who were on the max subsidy at a dayhome for example, rates actually doubled, maybe even tripled.

Those with small kids here can chime in.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

The subsidy and money no but the flat rate and not being income based at all is definitely a UPC policy. For richer people, rates went down, cut in half, for poorer people who were on the max subsidy at a dayhome for example, rates actually doubled, maybe even tripled.

Those with small kids here can chime in.

Sorry, are you arguing this is a good policy?

[WideReceiver]

I’m reasonably confident Carney will win. If he doesn’t, I’d seriously consider leaving Canada because I believe Poilievre and our traitorous premier will walk us over to the U.S. My wife and I discussed this this morning.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by WideReceiver

I’m reasonably confident Carney will win. If he doesn’t, I’d seriously consider leaving Canada because I believe Poilievre and our traitorous premier will walk us over to the U.S. My wife and I discussed this this morning.

Well at least you won't have to worry about buying a new car....

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Drak

Trump playing childish psych games pretending he’s pro Carney is my guess.

This is actually possible and utterly hilarious becauee it will completely backfire. "One phone call with Carney and immediately things change! He's the Trump whisperer, elect him ASAP."

[surferguy]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

It would depend on your point of view obviously and how much you like privitazation. It's definitely a government for the upper-middle class. If you're in that bracket, more privatization would be seen as favorable. It's kind of saying the quiet parts outloud.

The Registry:
Got rid of license plate stickers, it's now online
Got rid of advance GDL test
Discount for seniors

Corporate tax cut from 12% to 8%

People like the new daycare rates coming in April. Unform flat rate across the board. I have friends who have kids in daycare, their rates cut in half next month.
My kids are too old now, I paid too much for daycare 5 years ago.

Some privatization of health care, pay small amounts for certain services.

The push for more private schools, some would like that.

And the controversial trans in schools, parents should know. Again, the quiet part outloud, parents want to know.

So yeah, if you're not for privatization at all, this all sucks.

Thanks for your response.

I stand by my point that 85/90% of those polices are terrible.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Got rid of advance GDL test

As it is, there are too many people on the roads who have no business driving. If anything, we need more oversight on licensing, not less.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I’m fine with fentanyl and gun smugglers to be put away for life . F them

Sure, and it's not like you're going to get a lot of disagreement from people. But the thing is, (A) no one cares about this issue today and (B) everyone sees that as just pandering to Trump, which is a huge problem for Poilievre and the CPC as it is.

Originally Posted by WideReceiver

I’m reasonably confident Carney will win. If he doesn’t, I’d seriously consider leaving Canada because I believe Poilievre and our traitorous premier will walk us over to the U.S. My wife and I discussed this this morning.

Just curious, but where would you move?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Nancy

Trump just posted on Truth Social.

Did trump just predict a Carney election win?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sorry, are you arguing this is a good policy?

I think in this case, it is good for the majority of people, two working parents who are paying $1000 for daycare. This is the main demographic who uses daycare. More people will be saving money than seeing an increase. Now it's down to $325 across the board for the basics but daycares can add to it, like extra for food or diapers.

Negatives, it is seen as a massive handout for the premium expensive daycares and killing local dayhomes.

Logic: If daycare is more affordable across the board than the 2nd parent can work more, instead of keeping their salary low to get a larger subsidy at a cheaper place.
High income earners are paying into the system that's subsidizing daycare, they could get the benefits too.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by Alpha_Q

I know I am way behind but what ####ing idiots. Hey guys, new slogan which tries to disparage something the other guy does but our guy also does, a lot.

Brilliant! Run with it.

####ing idiots.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I think in this case, it is good for the majority of people, two working parents who are paying $1000 for daycare. This is the main demographic who uses daycare. More people will be saving money than seeing an increase. Now it's down to $325 across the board for the basics but daycares can add to it, like extra for food or diapers.

Negatives, it is seen as a massive handout for the premium expensive daycares and killing local dayhomes.

Logic: If daycare is more affordable across the board than the 2nd parent can work more, instead of keeping their salary low to get a larger subsidy at a cheaper place.
High income earners are paying into the system that's subsidizing daycare, they could get the benefits too.

So you don't have a problem with people who can absolutely afford it themselves with no negatives to their lives still getting subsidized, while people who can't afford it may now have to work an extra job to make ends meet? Wouldn't it make far more sense to have a cap on income for subsidies, and those dollars go to help the ones who actually need it?

[WideReceiver]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Well at least you won't have to worry about buying a new car....

The election will be over before I buy so I’ll know.

[kermitology]

It's very clear that Poilievre's campaign strategy that he's been working with for the past couple of years is one of populism. He's been singling out "enemies" of Canada: Trudeau, woke people, immigrants, etc.

Now, that works when you've got general dismay with the current state of affairs. You rally people and focus their anger on the proposed enemies, and he's been ratcheting up the rhetoric for a long time now. It was working.

Then along comes Donald Trump and he presents an existential threat to Canadian sovereignty, and overnight you have a common enemy that is VERY apparent to everyone. In this situation, populism isn't going to work anymore because now you have the whole country united against American imperialism.

Poilievre was always a weak leader. He's great at whipping up anger and partisan attacks, but that's all he's got. It's kind of become Conservative schtick. Attack, attack, attack, talk about how bad everything is and then some handwaving about solutions.

All that said, I'm frustrated at both Liberals and Conservatives for dangling tax breaks in front of us like candy. Are we all so dim that we don't see this as vote buying? Like, is any of this even remotely a good idea given our current situation?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I think in this case, it is good for the majority of people, two working parents who are paying $1000 for daycare. This is the main demographic who uses daycare. More people will be saving money than seeing an increase. Now it's down to $325 across the board for the basics but daycares can add to it, like extra for food or diapers.

Negatives, it is seen as a massive handout for the premium expensive daycares and killing local dayhomes.

Logic: If daycare is more affordable across the board than the 2nd parent can work more, instead of keeping their salary low to get a larger subsidy at a cheaper place.
High income earners are paying into the system that's subsidizing daycare, they could get the benefits too.

You may be interested to know that at a recent town hall several UCP MLAs complained that they aren’t even fans of this program. I don’t know how much of their disapproval was due to the actual program or just it being a product of the federal liberals’ policy but it’s still comical to see someone using it as an argument for things they’ve done well when the UCP don’t even like the program.

But yay for corporate tax cuts in exchange for higher property taxes, wage suppression, gutting worker protections, kicking AISH recipients in the balls and trying to appease the leader of a country that is actively trying to cause us undue economic hardship?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by kermitology

It's very clear that Poilievre's campaign strategy that he's been working with for the past couple of years is one of populism. He's been singling out "enemies" of Canada: Trudeau, woke people, immigrants, etc.

Now, that works when you've got general dismay with the current state of affairs. You rally people and focus their anger on the proposed enemies, and he's been ratcheting up the rhetoric for a long time now. It was working.

Then along comes Donald Trump and he presents an existential threat to Canadian sovereignty, and overnight you have a common enemy that is VERY apparent to everyone. In this situation, populism isn't going to work anymore because now you have the whole country united against American imperialism.

Poilievre was always a weak leader. He's great at whipping up anger and partisan attacks, but that's all he's got. It's kind of become Conservative schtick. Attack, attack, attack, talk about how bad everything is and then some handwaving about solutions.

All that said, I'm frustrated at both Liberals and Conservatives for dangling tax breaks in front of us like candy. Are we all so dim that we don't see this as vote buying? Like, is any of this even remotely a good idea given our current situation?

Counterpoint, tax breaks aren't the worst because the economy is facing headwinds, and you want to get some growth spurred.