Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[redflamesfan08]

Originally Posted by Firebot

I haven't forgotten the Liberals corruption and destructive policies. Absolutely far from it. Liberals as a party absolutely do not deserve to get reelected especially after the complete ideological nonsense Trudeau-Singh's coalition put us through especially the last 4 years. December - January I would 100% have been voting CPC to get rid of Trudeau.

But here's the problem. When it comes to Canada's sovereignty being under threat and tariffs being unfairly put against, one party acted to protect Canada, while the other party continued to play petty politics and double down on ideologic rhetoric. Campaigning how weak Canada has become, how poorly managed it is, it's hard to at the same time defend it. CPC took the "elected by default" projection for granted, while never really giving people reason to vote for them. It was always about fixing everything bad Trudeau has done.

This is not ooga booga Trump. Trump has once against reiterated for Canada to become the 51st state today. Trump has also stated he wants to double the tariffs on auto, and put tariffs despite a so called deal and Canada putting a fentanyl czar to appease his ego. Trump is turning the US into a full fledged fascist state and ignoring the constitution and they are not an ally. Trump plays a big part of our policies now because he has forced it on us. Trump cannot be ignored.

When Poilievre says in his campaign he will negotiate to eliminate tariffs, there is no negotiating to be had here. It's already happened, that's why we have the fricking fentanyl czar. People have become more nationalistic than ever, something that the conservatives should have pounced on as Doug Ford did. Tough on Trump, protect Canada, work together against a common foe. ArriveCAN is peanuts when compared to the threat to our sovereignty.

That we also have a new party leader that has shifted significantly away from Trudeau and to the right (don't let the fearmongering fool you, Carney is exactly what a radical centrist and old PC member would look like), made very strong actions and suddenly we have an actual viable alternative in the center. CPC was not a great alternative, they were simply the better choice compared to the disaster of Trudeau-Singh brand champagne socialism.

How on earth does Ford poll to be the strongest against Trump in the Ontario election, while Poilievre polled significantly behind Carney, Freeland AND Trudeau? That is the perception that Poilievre gave, and it's a very negative one. Both are conservative leaders and prioritized very differently.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/mark-car...-trump-tariffs

It turns out people just really really hated Trudeau / Singh, which doesn't mean they liked Poilievre. Poilievre chose to effectively ignore the Trump threat and barely changed his plan even as the polls completely turned upside down, believing that the focus should stay on Liberal / Trudeau versus how the CPC would protect Canada and fight against Trump.

On a side note looks like the CPC took down justlikejustin.ca recently as it's a dead link.

Thankfully there exists the way back machine.


This is laughably bad, even for the CPC.


https://web.archive.org/web/20250210...likejustin.ca/

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Yes. That is correct. I figured that within the context of my post you could have deduced that that was what I meant. But fair enough Fuzz

Maybe I was being too pedantic, but reading it on it's own it plays into the arguments that vaccines were useless, and I think those needs to be shot down due to the potential for harm. I think we've seen from some of the posters in this thread that they aren't capable of the nuance you were expressing and are easily misled by stand-alone sentences, though it was starting to exceed their three word comprehension capacity.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

The only Conservative Prime Minister in this millennium literally did balance the budget after a financial crisis much worse than COVID, so not sure how this comment is relevant in any way unless you want to go back to the 80s with Mulroney.

I'll definitely agree that Carney was a big reason why Canada fared well through that crisis, but just pointing out that your comment makes no sense when you look at the last 30 years.

It absolutely does when you consider the fuzzy accounting and the fact that Harper screwed over Canadians by selling GM shares for pennies on the dollar, just so he could have the appearance of a balanced budget in an election year.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

There is one notable downward trajectory that occurred under Chretien/Martin and this trend continued (it even accelerated) under Harper until he ran into the global financial crisis. The post WW2 debt reduction continued under Diefenbaker until the recessions of the 1960s.

So we agree liberal are strong fiscal hawks 20% of the time, conservatives are 0% of the time, and we should stop saying we are voting for the cpc because of the economy, because it's not true.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It absolutely does when you consider the fuzzy accounting and the fact that Harper screwed over Canadians by selling GM shares for pennies on the dollar, just so he could have the appearance of a balanced budget in an election year.

They got $36.66 USD for those shares almost exactly 10 years ago. Today the shares closed at $47.24, which is 2.5% compounded. They've paid some dividends since then (current yield =1%) but even with that selling the shares has been a good economic decision.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by #-3

So we agree liberal are strong fiscal hawks 20% of the time, conservatives are 0% of the time, and we should stop saying we are voting for the cpc because of the economy, because it's not true.

No, you're strongly delusional.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

No, you're strongly delusional.

I don’t think you of all people should be throwing that around.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

They got $36.66 USD for those shares almost exactly 10 years ago. Today the shares closed at $47.24, which is 2.5% compounded. They've paid some dividends since then (current yield =1%) but even with that selling the shares has been a good economic decision.

The process matters as much as the decision.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It absolutely does when you consider the fuzzy accounting and the fact that Harper screwed over Canadians by selling GM shares for pennies on the dollar, just so he could have the appearance of a balanced budget in an election year.

Budget was balanced in 2014, 2015, and 2016 (Trudeau’s first year before he had a chance to start ruining it), so you’ll have to come up with a better explanation that vague “fuzzy accounting” and selling one company.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Budget was balanced in 2014

Wrong. Fiscal 2013-2014 was a deficit.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/c...2015-1.3042571

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Wrong. Fiscal 2013-2014 was a deficit.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/c...2015-1.3042571

lol you wanna call a $5B deficit not essentially balanced? Then you should be very angry at what Trudeau has done the last 10 years.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

lol you wanna call a $5B deficit not essentially balanced? Then you should be very angry at what Trudeau has done the last 10 years.

I'm not a weird deficit-pervert, so I don't really care who racks up a deficit as long as our debt-servicing costs remain reasonable. I'd rather have robust social services than a pretty number on a balance sheet.

Should we go back through all of the cuts Harper made to get to that number? That was the whole point of my post.

Cons make cuts, which forces the Liberals/NDP to increase spending to reverse the damages caused by Cons. Then the Cons turn around and yell that they're spending too much.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not a weird deficit-pervert, so I don't really care who racks up a deficit as long as our debt-servicing costs remain reasonable. I'd rather have robust social services than a pretty number on a balance sheet.

Should we go back through all of the cuts Harper made to get to that number? That was the whole point of my post.

Cons make cuts, which forces the Liberals/NDP to increase spending to reverse the damages caused by Cons. Then the Cons turn around and yell that they're spending too much.

Actually, yes, I would love to see all of the cuts the Conservatives made, how that translated into a worse life for Canadians, and how Trudeau blowing his brains out on spending “fixed the damage” caused by the Conservatives and Canadians ended up better off when we have 50% more public service workers, federal debt servicing costs higher than health care transfer payments, one of the worst performing economies in the OECD per capita, with the highest rise in housing costs.

But we have cheap daycare and dental for some people, so totally worth it, right?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Actually, yes, I would love to see all of the cuts the Conservatives made, how that translated into a worse life for Canadians, and how Trudeau blowing his brains out on spending “fixed the damage” caused by the Conservatives and Canadians ended up better off when we have 50% more public service workers, federal debt servicing costs higher than health care transfer payments, one of the worst performing economies in the OECD per capita, with the highest rise in housing costs.

But we have cheap daycare and dental for some people, so totally worth it, right?

I'll add more in a bit, but the fact you think housing prices are a Trudeau problem and not decades-long policy issues is ridiculous. However, the latest spike began under Harper, leveled off for a couple of years after the 2008 crash and then steadily started to creep up again.

They've definitely spiked again under Trudeau, but are also starting to come down again.

The biggest issue has been societal shift towards treating residential real estate as investment opportunities instead of housing. Has PP said anything that indicates they're encouraging a shift away from that mentality?

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'll add more in a bit, but the fact you think housing prices are a Trudeau problem and not decades-long policy issues is ridiculous. However, the latest spike began under Harper, leveled off for a couple of years after the 2008 crash and then steadily started to creep up again.

They've definitely spiked again under Trudeau, but are also starting to come down again.

The biggest issue has been societal shift towards treating residential real estate as investment opportunities instead of housing. Has PP said anything that indicates they're encouraging a shift away from that mentality?

Have I said anything that indicates I think PP would be a good candidate?

I 100% agree with the notion Carney has a better resume relative to PP and would be a better PM. I’m challenging your post that has no basis in fact when you look at the last 30 years.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not a weird deficit-pervert, so I don't really care who racks up a deficit as long as our debt-servicing costs remain reasonable. I'd rather have robust social services than a pretty number on a balance sheet.

Should we go back through all of the cuts Harper made to get to that number? That was the whole point of my post.

Cons make cuts, which forces the Liberals/NDP to increase spending to reverse the damages caused by Cons. Then the Cons turn around and yell that they're spending too much.

In the case of Harper, isn't it mostly the case that the cons just continued with cuts from the prior Liberals governments? Chertien made huge cuts in order to balance the budget. That is specifically what he campaigned on. Liberal cuts and balanced budget = good but if the Cons continue that trend it is bad.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

But we have cheap daycare and dental for some people, so totally worth it, right?

I have no kids and have private dental coverage, but I'm fine with cheap daycare and dental. An incredibly huge number of Canadians benefit from these polices, even if I don't. Some of us actually care about our fellow Canadians, including the ones we don't even know.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by simmer2

How did you justify voting in Justin Trudeau then?

I didn't. I think he is a criminal stain on our society and has embarrassed Canada on the world stage. But I can look at the new facts when presented and make a logical decision based on an assessment of those facts. You should try that sometime.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Muta

I have no kids and have private dental coverage, but I'm fine with cheap daycare and dental. An incredibly huge number of Canadians benefit from these polices, even if I don't. Some of us actually care about our fellow Canadians, including the ones we don't even know.

If what you got from my post was that I don’t support cheaper daycare and dental care, then I don’t know what to tell you. The question I raised is whether Canadians are getting their money’s worth with programs like these given the context of everything else.

Clearly a significant number of Canadians were extremely unhappy with the state of government, so much so that they were willing to elect the dweebiest career politician loser in what was looking to be a landslide until a black swan event turned the tides. That doesn’t generally happen unless things are pretty bad, and it doesn’t look like cheap daycare and dental care carried much weight.

[rubecube]

Congrats to Johnny Makarov. Spent like 2+ years trolling CPC voters, while most of them were licking their chops to throw it all back in his face tonight.

Dude gets to take a couple of extra victory laps.