This is shaping up to be the most important election in our lifetimes, and I think the majority of Canadians are looking for an intelligent, experienced, mature adult to lead us through this mess. Carney ticks all of those boxes and then some. PP is the polar opposite of all of those things. The choice couldn’t be easier. The Liberals will be getting my vote.
Even my parents are voting Liberal this time, and they’ve traditionally voted Conservative their entire lives. Just a tiny sample size, but I think that gives you an indication of where the mood of the country right now. I honestly don’t know a single person in my immediate circle who is planning to vote for the Cons in this election, either family, friends, or co-workers. Everyone I’ve talked to seems to be on the same page in all of this.
I was more than happy to plug my nose and vote PP prior to the Trump threat. I felt the country needed a change and while I have no loyalty to any party, perhaps a Cons win would be the shakeup the country needed.
Now, I can't see how I could possibly vote for the Cons in any way, shape or form. People talk how the Libs destroyed Canada from once was, and we can debate those talking points all day. But fact is, we are now facing the most existential threat this country has seen since it's inception and if we don't repel it, we won't have a country to even debate over. How someone can look at what Carney is doing, vs whatever the #### it is PP is doing and come out of think "Yup PP is my guy" blows my mind. Had PP come out and made significantly stronger statements/actions towards the US administration in the country's time of need and laid of this stupid woke BS talk, they might have a chance.
Seems like Trudeau's liberals shot themselves in the foot repeatedly and were destined to a massive loss. Yet, the Cons have put the shotgun to their own head and repeatedly pulled the trigger. People in this country were more than ready to give them a chance to try and right the ship, so Cons have no one but themselves to blame for their downfall.
The Following User Says Thank You to Huntingwhale For This Useful Post:
I'm also super tired of PP/CPC's message that Canada is broken / how bad the Liberals are. Just shut the #### up already, that type of language is tiring. Carney is talking about Canada's future and his stance on current political issues, which is more engaging and useful.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Muta For This Useful Post:
If he had security clearance, he would know that he's legally obligated to eject certain conservative MPs who stand to benefit from election interference.
Right now he has no such obligation. If they benefit and it shakes out that way, he can legally claim to not have been informed.
If that's the case why didn't Trudeau/Carney eject the Liberal portion of the 11 MPs who benefitted from foreign interference?
This still doesn't explain it to me. How does the alternative fetter your ability to attack the government?
I want specific details about the downside and a straightforward, extensive and comprehensive explanation about why one would want to refuse to get security clearance. Spell it out for me - not you specifically, but PP or Mulcair or someone at the Globe and Mail, people whose job it is to explain these things in the context of an election. This has been made a major issue, why isn't there tons of ink spilled elucidating in painful detail the two sides of the story?
As the former CSIS director in Pepsi’s article says, it’s easier to criticize and sow suspicion about the government’s actions if you aren’t privy to the reasons why the government is taking those actions. I’m not sure why you need more explanation than that.
Quote:
Ward Elcock, former CSIS director
“The whole thing would be a lot simpler if he would just get clearance … What it frankly says to me, listening to Mr. Poilievre’s normal criticism of the government, he likes to make criticisms that are pretty far-reaching without any visible support. I guess I assume he’s afraid that if he gets a briefing, then he will actually know some facts that he can’t criticize on the basis of those facts. It’s hard to criticize when you actually know something.”
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 03-26-2025 at 11:35 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
He favours market driven solutions to allocate resources to solve problems rather than government funded corps to solve problems. He’s team Carbon tax over set pollution limits for example.
In terms of Communism vs Capitalism he is fairly capitalist.
If the thesis of his book is still something he holds true, then I would call him a pragmatic capitalist.
I'm only through the first chapter (plus introduction and preface) of the book, but he talks a lot about understanding how we define value. The first chapter is a sort of econ 101 summary discussing the different views of Smith, Marx, and David Ricardo, but the tone he takes is one of unbridled capitalism is reckless and selfish and will lead to overproduction, instability in both price and ability to produce efficiently, and are not going to lead to long term success.
He's also socially pretty liberal I would say, but again, pragmatic. Things like LGBTQ2S+, Carbon Tax, DEI, while progressive and things I support are lightning rods for toxic conversation. We need to pull back and find a more passive (subversive?) way to implement these things that don't draw so much wild attention.
__________________
Who is in charge of this product and why haven't they been fired yet?
The Following User Says Thank You to kermitology For This Useful Post:
If the thesis of his book is still something he holds true, then I would call him a pragmatic capitalist.
I'm only through the first chapter (plus introduction and preface) of the book, but he talks a lot about understanding how we define value. The first chapter is a sort of econ 101 summary discussing the different views of Smith, Marx, and David Ricardo, but the tone he takes is one of unbridled capitalism is reckless and selfish and will lead to overproduction, instability in both price and ability to produce efficiently, and are not going to lead to long term success.
He's also socially pretty liberal I would say, but again, pragmatic. Things like LGBTQ2S+, Carbon Tax, DEI, while progressive and things I support are lightning rods for toxic conversation. We need to pull back and find a more passive (subversive?) way to implement these things that don't draw so much wild attention.
I'd say this is pretty accurate. It's been a year since I read it, but f I could sum the book up in a sentence it's that we have capitalism to make people's lives better (what we value), not simply for the purpose of having pure capitalism and making the rich richer, that we need to make sure that it is working for us.
As the former CSIS director in Pepsi’s article says, it’s easier to criticize and sow suspicion about the government’s actions if you aren’t privy to the reasons why the government is taking those actions. I’m not sure why you need more explanation than that.
Axe the tax seems to have been the correct move which the conservatives having been calling for over many years. They opposed the annual increases and they wanted the carbon tax gone. The Liberals have finally taken that advice and adolished the carbon tax and even environmental activists like Guilbeault are on board with that decision. Also, BC NDP followed up with their own plan to axe the tax.
Except it wasn't; not how the CPC and PP imagined it, anyway, as I explained earlier in the thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog
You'd definitely find some people criticizing a wholesale removal of the carbon tax, which is a polarizing topic to be sure... but what Carney did was not a wholesale removal -- just the removal of the consumer portion (thankfully, as the industrial carbon tax is necessary to keep foreign trade with the EU intact).
If you 'axe the tax' the way PP wants, you can kiss our trade relationships with the EU goodbye.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Typical dumb take.
The Following User Says Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
So yeah, what about Brookfield dodging taxes and Carney leading the helm? Isn't that exactly what you've been saying is a major issue with the rich not paying their fair share?
If it makes you feel any better, little buddy, I'm still planning to vote NDP because I am bothered by stuff like this.
Except it wasn't; not how the CPC and PP imagined it, anyway, as I explained earlier in the thread:If you 'axe the tax' the way PP wants, you can kiss our trade relationships with the EU goodbye.
This is a recurring theme with PP’s proposals, something Carney astutely identified with the simple question, “and then what?”
That question is essential, and one it does not appear that the current CPC regularly consider. Similar to their “war on drugs” proposal a little while back. Not only was it immediately pointed out as unconstitutional, but the immense pressure it would put on the justice system (an already overburdened system, as Cliff has pointed out) was not even considered.
People can whine about Carney stealing CPC policies all they want (not least of which because it highlights the totally juvenile mindset of the modern conservative), but he’s answering the question of what it would look like if you took the CPC policies with promise, and actually delivered them in a way that made sense.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
So yeah, what about Brookfield dodging taxes and Carney leading the helm? Isn't that exactly what you've been saying is a major issue with the rich not paying their fair share?
But its okay, cause he'll recuse himself from conflicts of interest. Which everyone should believe especially when all the Liberal clowns he's surrounding himself with never had the foul stench of corruption associated with their time in government.
What's the fallacy where you don't care about a problem, have any plan or interest in fixing the problem, but you're happy to use it as a cudgel to attack you perceived political adversaries?
It's kind of like all those burn every last barrel oil guys who sure start to care about the environmental impacts of lithium mining or the end of life cycle of a wind mill without bothering to compare the impact to other options.
Do rich people pull every lever within the tax code to avoid tax expense? Yes
Is that news to anyone? No
"Look inside yourself" for a minute and wonder what you would be saying if the CPC had nominated a conservative economist with a very public record on long term vision.
Not wanting security clearance makes sense if you’re in opposition and expect to stay that way (like Mulcair’s NDP). It means you’re unfettered in your freedom to attack the government.
To be clear, it's not the security clearance itself that does that. Poilievre could easily go through the clearance process and then elect to not view materials that he felt would impact his ability to hold the government to account.
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Curious if Azure is also concerned about PP's significant investments in crypto and the conflict of interest there with his crypto-related policy proposals.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Curious if Azure is also concerned about PP's significant investments in crypto and the conflict of interest there with his crypto-related policy proposals.
Bootlicker.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
Curious if Azure is also concerned about PP's significant investments in crypto and the conflict of interest there with his crypto-related policy proposals.
I think the key difference is that PP’s assets are available for everyone to see. The same holds true for Singh.
Carney has conflicts of interest with his private investments that he will have to try and manage with screens.
Carney also refuses to publicly disclose his assets, although he is not obligated to do so for a period of time. So basically using a loophole to not disclose anything.
