Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[GGG]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

I just wish everyone would give PP a chance before writing him off, and saying he's not fit for the role of Prime Minister. That's the part of partisan politics I loathe in 2025, where people are so quick to write off candidates before seeing what they can do. I think the majority of votes gave Trudeau his opportunity for "real change" coming out of Harper's term as PM. Trudeau was given the mandate as majority leader in 2015. Many progressives voted for Trudeau, after reading the tea leaves and agreeing change was needed. Yet in 2025 so many are willing to throw politicians under the bus without even giving them a day in office.

This isn't a Trump situation where they already had four years to base his Presidency on. PP may not be the warmest character in the political realm, but I would hope Canadians at least give him that same chance Trudeau had before they judge his impeding tenure as PM.

First they were communists, and then they became socialist, and then they became social democrats, and then they became — they stole the word liberal, and then they ruined that word. They changed their name to progressives, and then they changed their name to woke. And now they claim they don't want to be called woke anymore," he said.

Can you explain to me how someone who voluntarily said the above word salad should be given this chance. He essentially is framing is opposition as communists. How can I get behind someone this dumb or at least who believes that I am this dumb.

How can I trust that this person would look at data and build policy from data and then implement policy based on that data.

ignoring political spectrum completely how is a guy who says the above competent or living in reality.

[V]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What can a government do with a porouged parliament? Obviously can't pass bills, but clearly government needs to keep doing things. Curious on what are the things they can do.

I am also curious about this. Does proroguing just mean an end to the childish bickering in the HoC? If so, I vote for permanent proroguing. What an embarrassment.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by V

I am also curious about this. Does proroguing just mean an end to the childish bickering in the HoC? If so, I vote for permanent proroguing. What an embarrassment.

Without parliament, the government loses all legislative powers. So no committees can stand, no new policies can be issued nor existing modified, no new bills can be proposed. The federal bureaucracy is largely prevented from doing anything that's not mandatory maintenance or procedure.

[Monahammer]

Yes, this would also prevent us from signing or creating new treaties**

** not all, but likely in the case of NAFTA/CUSMA, some element of national law is likely going to require modification to enter into the treaty, and we are unable to do this without parliament.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

There’s a lot of centrists like myself who have no space for an anti vax politician. The convoy supporters are a vocal fringe, the liberals will never win those votes.

I believe the votes to get the liberals to a minority opposition lie in the center. What does the average Canadian want? Similar services (slightly better) and an affordable cost of living. Let the middle left call you racist for reforming immigration, your job is to provide value to Canadians first and foremost. Let’s get back to that as our focus.

Trump has shown that the key to winning isn't the shift existing voters left, right or center, it's to get new voters. That's the 2024 playbook.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I'm in the same position as you but I don't think the Liberals can bounce back to that space that fast.
I'm not suggesting to win freedom convoy voters, but that most people are tired of that battleground and it shouldn't be a focus of their messaging. It's too similar to where they already have been focused.

Affordability, immigration, cost of living, relations/protection from the incoming Trump regime would be more important focus points.


I agree with this.
But the current remaining support the Liberals have will shift to NDP, so they'd lose votes on one side to gain on the other.
The Left/Centre Left is too split right now.

I do think that's where they need to go and agree with you overall, but I don't see that happening so quickly.
I think the stain of JT will need time to wear off and someone like Carney would be better to save his shot for next time.
But we'll see...

You make good points and I agree with most of what you say. I also don’t think this is a quick liberal turn around.

The part I disagree with you is that I don’t think liberals are vote splitting with NDP. NDP supporters have (appeared to be) dogmatically aligned with their party. I don’t think there’s a significant voter base that would switch from liberal to NDP. When Jagmeet hitched himself to Trudeau he soured the relationship to any moderate who would support the liberals.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Trump has shown that the key to winning isn't the shift existing voters left, right or center, it's to get new voters. That's the 2024 playbook.

The Gen Z and new immigrant vote will be interesting, no clue how those votes land

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

Would you like me to draw you a map Fuzz? I asked the question if his tone changes, followed it up with stating I hoped it did not, and corrected myself and admitted to my error. there is nothing else to say. Your Vendetta is laughable.

As a geographer, a map of your thoughts would be great. Because you've changed them again. It's ok though, you were unable to answer the original question I posed, so no point in continuing. I've gotten my answers.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Yes, this would also prevent us from signing or creating new treaties**

** not all, but likely in the case of NAFTA/CUSMA, some element of national law is likely going to require modification to enter into the treaty, and we are unable to do this without parliament.

I think requiring a new treaty is not going to be an issue to be concerned with in the immediate future (it doesn't seem like Trump wants treaties?) but we will need to be able to initiate the legal mechanisms when he starts breaking them day 1. Do we have that ability?

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

As a geographer, a map of your thoughts would be great. Because you've changed them again. It's ok though, you were unable to answer the original question I posed, so no point in continuing. I've gotten my answers.

Where did I change anything? What question are you even looking to have answered?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Azure

What a rather typical obtuse and stupid comment.

Par on course coming from you.

Ouch...

I thought we weren't supposed to attack the person...

[Winsor_Pilates]

Capital Gain Changes killed by today's announcement
https://financialpost.com/personal-f...ns-tax-changes

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think requiring a new treaty is not going to be an issue to be concerned with in the immediate future (it doesn't seem like Trump wants treaties?) but we will need to be able to initiate the legal mechanisms when he starts breaking them day 1. Do we have that ability?

Yeah, a new treaty won't ever need to be ratified in the next 3 months. BUT consider how weak of a negotiating position this puts us in Day 1. We can't negotiate, there's no guarantee that we would be able to do any of the things we represent we could do in a treaty. We're just useless now. It also adds weight to Trump's general messaging relative to Canada- we can't make our commitments to Nato, we don't even have a government that can negotiate treaties for our benefit, we have no security apparatus, Trudeau is an incompetent global leader, etc.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

Can you explain to me how someone who voluntarily said the above word salad should be given this chance. He essentially is framing is opposition as communists. How can I get behind someone this dumb or at least who believes that I am this dumb.

How can I trust that this person would look at data and build policy from data and then implement policy based on that data.

ignoring political spectrum completely how is a guy who says the above competent or living in reality.

It's an irrelevant question because he has already told us he won't. So then you have to support the position that experts are not to be consulted or trusted, and PP knows best. That's a lot of faith to put in one person, who it seems has some peculiar patterns of thought based on your excerpt.


And if you want to test that, all you need to do is look at Alberta and see where that goes with policy. Nonsense ideological claptrap that harms our economy and people. And then you have to say "yes, can you pass me the mustard for my #### sandwich please?".


It's baffling, and the only answer ever provided is we need to do something different. I'd rather eat my soggy toast than a #### sandwich, but maybe I'm weird that way. It seems so.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Capital Gain Changes killed by today's announcement
https://financialpost.com/personal-f...ns-tax-changes

His resignation is already making a big difference

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Capital Gain Changes killed by today's announcement
https://financialpost.com/personal-f...ns-tax-changes

Even without royal ascent, the CRA has been on record allegedly that they will be acting as if it passed and incorporating the new 66% rate on 2024 tax's. No word has come out to show otherwise. Raises a interesting question as well, did the increased tax incorporate into the fall financial statement? are things worse in that regards if thats not collected?

[Table 5]

I'll give PP a chance...even if by default. I'm not really seeing any viable alternatives at the moment other than voting Conservative. The NDP stray way too far from me on most policy (although I would like a dental plan!), and for me to consider voting Liberal again, they will to be purged top to bottom. They need a total reset, which I think only comes with an election annihilation.

Poilievre is no Peter Lougheed, but the world is trending populist, and it would probably be a benefit for Canada to have someone who's able to operate within that mindset/trend, especially if you want to get anywhere with our neighbours down south. Things went too extreme in one direction, and will most likely go extreme in the other in order to self-correct...but hey, there should be plenty for all of you to argue about in here.

I do think a guy like Carney puts the Liberals back towards some respectability. I'm not sure the world needs another rich banker at the top, especially with his environmental policies, but at least the guy appears to be somewhat competent. Any of the options from the existing government would be a hard no from me.

[MelBridgeman]

Ev'rybody's talking 'bout
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism, is-m, is-m, is-m
All we are saying is give PP a chance
All we are saying is give PP a chance

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

Where did I change anything? What question are you even looking to have answered?

Here is the original stuff.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...ostcount=16946

Now, I can only assume you have taken a blow to the head today, because this is all pretty straightforward. You expect him to moderate, I asked why..then blah blah blah.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Here is the original stuff.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...ostcount=16946

Now, I can only assume you have taken a blow to the head today, because this is all pretty straightforward. You expect him to moderate, I asked why..then blah blah blah.

This is also going to mark the point we see PP switch gears here. I expect he will now take a softer approach going forward. I enjoy watching political strategy as it unfolds.

We will see I guess. I am fine with him not changing tone, but, he is switching from Official opposition to Prime minister Candidate. Different job, different tone make sense.


No. I did not say I want him to switch, I said it would be interesting to see if he does. How high is that horse?

I just reread my original comment. I meant to say "is this" and realized I wrote "this is" my mistake.


Here is your map Fuzz. I have never changed my opinion once. Answered your question twice. Maybe its in what your perception of soften means. You believe it to be Moderate, I believe it to be a literal change in tone of how he delivers his messages, even how he delivers them. I dont expect him to change his stance on key topics, and why the hell would he. He is polling currently as the vast majority.



keep your snide personal attacks to yourself, they are not tasteful. If you wish to PM me further that's fine, but I wont keep bringing this up for the purpose of this thread. Bickering brings down the thread for others.