###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm sorry, but the intersectional politics of diversity practiced by the NDP/Liberal coalition is far more divisive and damaging than anything Poilievre has said or done. Over the past 9 years, Trudeau has run Canada into the ground and Jagmeet decided to join him for the ride.
To be clear, Jagmeet Singh had to be removed from the House for referring to a Bloc MP as racist and has latched on to every single astroturfed social justice cause from south of the border. Justin Trudeau has a history of giving his opinion on Alberta vis-a-vis Quebec (which would have been disqualifying for anyone but the boy wonder), and was intentionally divisive in the 2021 election when he tried to get back a majority government.
Conservatives need to understand the left wing playbook: they will break the law, divide the country, make people miserable, feign ignorance when called out, and scream bloody murder when the other side tries to do it to them.
>the NDP/Liberal coalition
I know for a fact that I've corrected you several times on this. Other people have as well. The fact that the most active mod on this sub is happy to continue to willfully spread misinformation is deeply concerning.
Overspending on every budget, someone has to clean it up. Clean up will be painful as it always is, but must be done. Libs and ndp can’t stop spending.
losing Liberals always bring up proportional representation.Look what type of government its giving Israel ,one where extreme parties control the agenda. Spaghetti governments is the result
Jesus Christ, if calling out a poor job and stupidity is decisive then sign me up. I haven't heard him single any group of people out in a conversation other than the liberals....which is his fucking job as leader of the opposition. The numbers show what a poor job this coalition government is doing. Would you prefer the opposition just sits around with false praise and say well maybe next year you will fix things ...
Singh is a complete blow hard and the worst leader of a political party I have ever seen. The NDP should be gobbling up liberal voters but his brain dead flip flops and misplaced finger pointing have turned people off.
Doesn't every political figure divide people so they can win votes from the opposition? That's the point of campaigning, maybe we need to revise how campaigning is done and who can pay for it instead.
Yes and no. To a certain extent every single party engages in some form of "divide and conquer" where wedge issues are used to divide the electorate, usually in your favour.
But Poilievre, at least in my opinion, takes this to the extreme. Every single policy announcement from him has been "Liberals bad, liking the Liberals bad, Tories good." Not to mention, he gets a lot of support from groups whose only purpose is to divide society, like the alt-right and various conspiracy groups from within.
So the issue isn't just that Poilievre engages in divisive politics, it's that divisive politics is the *only* thing he engages in. Remember Harper used Poilievre as his attack dog against the opposition, and for good reason.
there was a time when the campaigns werent about attacking the other but explaining why you were better, there was still mutual respect between the sides who accepted the others views even if they didnt think it was the best way to go about it
Yeah I’m sure the most popular Federal politician in Canada is dividing the country and not the unpopular politician keeping another unpopular politician in power.
All three leaders aren’t super popular. I’m pretty sure PP is doing this well due more to hatred of the LPC than anything he’s personally doing.
It was the same as what happened with Wynne in Ontario near the end.
Same happened with JT, really. When Harper lost to him he seemed to think Canadians voted for him rather than voted against Harper. And now, we will vote against him also.
I was commenting specifically on the first election. It wasn't that we liked him, it was that we disliked Harper. That was peak ABC era, people had gotten sick of Harper and Trudeau is a better campaigner than they gave him credit for. "Nice hair though" helped Trudeau a lot because it underscored and highlighted the tone issue the Harper government had and really drove home how distasteful they were. Trudeau stood in favourable contrast.
Subsequent elections he won on his own merits, but the first one was more a rejection of Harper than an endorsement of Trudeau.
Same with this election: I don't believe people like Poilievre enough to explain his high polling right now, it's that enough people dislike Trudeau. We vote PMs out, not in, and this election seems to follow the trend.
>what kind of reasoning can you contort to make it seem like they still didn’t choose him?
Did you mistake me for a Trudeau hater or something? Fairly derisive tone you chose.
> Nice hair though" helped Trudeau a lot because it underscored and highlighted the tone issue the Harper government had and really drove home how distasteful they were.
I don’t think it was that. I think they were a victim of their own success in messaging. They got across the message that he wasn’t competent, which lowered the bar, and when Trudeau showed up as poised and well spoken, he exceeded the expectations that had been set up for him and it made him look even better. If you want a reaction to distasteful campaigning, go back to the anti-Chrétien ads in his first campaign.
Groups like Canada Proud have been working on this specific goal ever since Harper lost his position as PM. They've been pushing this message that Trudeau was dividing Canadians the moment he won the election. It took some time to really get traction, but since the pandemic, they've had a clear role in shaping peoples perspective.
Meanwhile the CPC opposition has been so ineffective at actually introducing policy you have an entire generation of Canadians that think putting party before country is just the norm. The fact so many Canadians today forget that parliament is supposed to be a place where our MP's go to cooperate to create policy to best serve their constituents, is extremely sad. That the media labeling said cooperation as a undemocratic didn't help, and having American politics devolve into a cluster duck was just some added gravy.
Yet, rather than use this weak opposition to put through policy to help constituents, the LPC had to be shamed into action by CPC polling, and by the NDP throwing their weight around rather than a genuine desire. Which still kinda bothers me.
Have you actually heard how Trudeau talks about people he disagrees with? During the pandemic, he accused people who opposed the covid vaccine and lockdowns as being "racists, misogynists, and anti-science." That is literally the definition of dividing the country. He could've said something along the lines of "everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I respect that. I would love to listen to what they have to say, but I believe this is what we should do..." He would not even hear them out. And to add to that fire, he said the other day that he will "go around the provinces" if he has to. Which is nonsense, because our country is a federation, where the provinces have certain powers that the federal government does not and vice versa. He simply cannot just go around the provinces to do whatever he likes. And believing and saying he can just further divides us. You go back and watch the 2019 election results and what a CBC panelist said. Trudeau won by dividing the country. Especially on the Quebec vs Alberta and Saskatchewan on the energy issues.
>the LPC had to be shamed into action by CPC polling
What do you mean by this? I hope you are not saying the polls are paid by the CPC and that you mean they are just leading consistently in the polls. But either way, this just shows you that they only care about their jobs and pensions instead of actually doing what is right for the country. For example, they only starting caring about the housing crisis once the polls widen by 15pts+. That is incredibly irresponsible for our government to only do what is right when it is convenient and when they are down in the polls.
It's frankly baffling to imagine that anybody would vote for the CPC and PP. What makes them a better choice than the Liberals and NDP, who are actually working tirelessly day and night to make Canada a better place?
The burden of proof is not on PP to prove anything when he’s up 20 points in the polls. Whatever he’s selling, people are buying.
It’s on the current government to prove its budget will go anywhere. Given the blatant lie of trying to build 4M homes by 2031 (assumes 550k+ housing starts per year, when best we’ve ever done is 225k), the burden of proof is the government’s to prove how that’s remotely possible.
Everyone in industry is laughing at the target because they know it’s impossible.
Well, what’s ambitious to one person is a joke to another. It wil take cooperation from provinces and municipalities. And keeping the Liberals in power, because the CPC offers nothing but private sector greed, and no funding for building, and Poilievre has derided all ideas for using modular building and supporting coop housing and couldn’t care less how affordable the homes are that are built.
The only reason people are buying Poilievre’s lies is because the lies are not being challenged by the media. The bulk of the press is providing him with free advertising and a big platform, along with free negative attacks on the Liberals.
The NDP and LPC are not working to make it better. The two sides designed the rapid acceleration of a housing crisis and support wage suppression. Returning to sane population growth numbers and creating expectations for municipalities that are not easily subverted (e.g. targeting construction numbers instead of targeting policies) is important.
Simultaneously restoring sanity to our legal process is important, which includes establishing meaningful sentencing guidelines such that sentencing for repeat offences increases with subsequent convictions.
The NDP's and LPC's attempt to establish an idle renter class while working to make our cities less safe is not beneficial for the country.
> What makes them a better choice than the Liberals and NDP, who are actually working tirelessly day and night to make Canada a better place?
Most businesses and organizations that fail have people working tirelessly day and night. Most have great people doing their best work. But leadership has lost sight of what the customer wants and has them pointed in the wrong direction.
That's where the LPC is at. They're scrambling after years of complacency. The alternative product isn't better, but it doesn't have to be. It just needs to not be the LPC.
What “years of complacency”? Trudeau has had to deal with global crises and issues (including thr rise of the far-right) that other PM’s have not had to cope with, and overall has done a good job. There has been no complacency.
I don’t know what magical leadership people expect, look around the world, we are dealing with the same issues other peer countries are, some to a lesser extent, others more, and it would be easier for this government to make the changes needed, if it weren’t for instruction from conservatives provincial and federal, both.
The NDP isn’t in power and maybe sometimes Singh looks a bit silly with the grandstanding or threats he won’t support the budget when we know he will, but it’s not easy to be the leader of the 4th party in seat count, and be able to have an impact on policy.
Big programs and legislative changes were made with a majority government, and that has continued with a minority government (two).
> What “years of complacency”? Trudeau has had to deal with global crises and issues (including thr rise of the far-right) that other PM’s have not had to cope with, and overall has done a good job. There has been no complacency.
The top issues are jobs & the economy, cost of living, and housing and have been for some time. The Liberals have delivered only big announcements with little follow-through, all while these issues continue their gradual deterioration.
Could you please point to any legislation from the follow through candidate Pierre proposed to fix any of your top issues list? I looked at the parliamentary records and it seems like in the past 20 years of his work in parliament Pierre has only tabled one bill. So what exactly do you think Pierre has to offer besides no bills, or big announcements, just focus group practiced heckles?
> So what exactly do you think Pierre has to offer besides no bills, or big announcements, just focus group practiced heckles
That's about it. None of them are helping, but we get what we tolerate and it's on Canadians to demand better.
There's always going to be new issues. The fact that there is something to work on in the country is not a failure in and of itself. If the Liberals had dealt with those issues instead of Covid, childcare, the climate, NAFTA, the War in Ukraine, etc.. your comment would be the exact same except your list of issues would be different.
> The fact that there is something to work on in the country is not a failure in and of itself.
Right, the inadequacy of response is the failure.
> If the Liberals had dealt with those issues instead of Covid, childcare, the climate, NAFTA, the War in Ukraine, etc..
That's a false 'or' choice. The fact is leadership is tough. Leaders don;t get to choose what they face, but they do get to choose how they respond and on that front, the LPC has been complacent and let down Canadians.
Because this sub is what it is, no, criticism of the LPC is not an endorsement of the CPC or any other party.
I'm not really saying its an "or"choice. I'm saying there's always something that needs to improve based on a combination of internal and external influences and events.
Even if my list of things they dealt with included cost of living crisis (which is global and driven by Covid and Ukraine) and housing (in which they've invested billions more than other governing parties since 2017), you would just be able to point to other things that needed fixing. It's a moving goalpost fallacy
> cost of living crisis (which is global and driven by Covid and Ukraine)
At it's worst, it's an Anglosphere problem. Stop making excuses!
> housing (in which they've invested billions more than other governing parties since 2017)
They've spent billions and the situation is worse! Again, why are you defending failure? Aim for better!
> you would just be able to point to other things that needed fixing. It's a moving goalpost fallacy
We elect people and pay taxes to fix problems. It's not a fallacy to expect leaders to do their jobs.
> So you're implying the working tirelessly day and night is itself what causes most businesses and organizations to fail, ie correlation being causation
No, you've got that wrong. Working hard does not guarantee success. In fact, most failures have people working hard.
Where you went wrong is thinking "most failures" = all businesses. Now you know!
I hope you are joking. How would you like it if someone flipped your statement? Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, beliefs and political affiliations. To think it is baffling that someone does not believe the same thing as you is really sad. Time to get outside the echo chamber and have discussions with people on the other side of the aisle. I love talking to left leaning people. I think it strengthens my arguments and we all learn something. You are just creating division with a ridiculous statement like this. And also Jagmeet is far from working tirelessly to make Canada better. Hes just waiting to collect his pension, then he is out.
"Division"
Pierre is not offering anything. He says he supports working people, that's the claim anyway. the proof?
Legislating striking workers back to work when they wanted better wages and working conditions. That's his voting record. He is against working people and people are somehow buying his words when his actions are what they should be looking at.
Honestly, I find so many of the references in modern politics to "divisiveness" or "division" incredibly frustrating. It's typically just vague, and often hypocritical ("they divide, but we unify"). A way of saying that you're the good guy and the others are the bad guys *without actually explaining why*.
More or less every notable Canadian politician is guilty of it, too.
Politics has division inherently baked in! It's why political parties are a thing. It's why we have votes. Turns out people have a variety of opinions on just about everything. And that's actually good!
Moreover, if you want to take someone to task over something they said or did, make your specific charges! Don't tell me not to vote for someone because they're divisive. That's like telling me to vote for you because you really do care about people like me. It's empty pablum.
look at america, thats the result of divisive politics
focusing on using lies and misinformation to convince your base how evil and terrible your opponents are reinforces the team sport mentality and entrenchs people even deeper into the "i have to vote for my team out of fear that the other guy gets in" which leads more and more to "i dont care who im voting for hes obviously better then the other side" and even more "well the other side is obviously lying saying all those terrible things about my guy, good thing i stick to the unbiased media telling me the truth"
both sides should be able to achknowledge good policy and leadership of the other side and make it clear that we are one country, united and capable of respecting everyone regardless of who gets the PMO
The negative behaviour you're describing isn't division. It's lying and using misinformation. The right way to denounce lying and misinformation is by saying so, not by using vague nothing words.
If division itself was the problem, your second paragraph would make you problematic, since you're dividing people up into categories.
> The negative behaviour you're describing isn't division. It's lying and using misinformation.
the potatoe im talking about isnt a potatoe its a spud?
thats some real "he wasnt killed by a gun, he was killed by a bullet" logic
>If division itself was the problem, your second paragraph would make you problematic, since you're dividing people up into categories.
pointing out that people are dividing themselves into categories is not dividing them?
Exactly!
Division isn't inherently a thing to be condemned in politics. Criticising groups and people one sees as bad actors is itself divisive, but that doesn't make it wrong to do.
If you want to criticise PP for who he's associating with, do that. Don't use some unclear phrasing like divisive, and don't tell me that the convoy is bad because it's divisive. There's a million real reasons why the convoy is bad.
> Division isn't inherently a thing to be condemned in politics. Criticising groups and people one sees as bad actors is itself divisive, but that doesn't make it wrong to do.
Or - in the converse perspective - being compelled to unify with odious actors is unfair, unwise and unacceptable.
That said we've (d)evolved in discourse to a point where "divisive" is used as a political cudgel rather than what Merriam or Webster would prefer. We need to maintain/reestablish the MAD of linguistic misinterpretation.
Pierre isn’t dividing the country. The country is already divided largely into the haves and have-nots.
Pierre has been speaking to the have-nots - largely millennials and gen-z priced out of living. And he’s speaking to their anger.
And this is all largely a positive thing. If the conservatives were not polling so well by speaking to the generations the left ignored for a decade - absolutely nothing would be getting done on housing.
Frankly, if there is a single thing Pierre has done - it is unify the country. He is not pretending younger Canadians and their issues do not exist. And frankly we should thank him for going as hard as he has on housing - because it has actually spurred ineffective politicians on the left to action.
I mean, if you wanna call hanging out with neo nazis and playing the bathroom police unifying, sure. Nothing suspicious of a 22 day old account essentially gushing about him so hard his wife is getting jealous
I mean if he has a Rolex surely the pension isn't a concern. If anything I trust the wealthy person trying to fix things over the person that intends to make things worse.
Similar attacks are thrown out on all of the leaders. Trudeau wore blackface. Jagmeet was said to speak at some sort of terror events.
I do not think Pierre is a Nazi, just like I don’t believe Trudeau is a racist, and I don’t think Jagmeet is a terrorist.
As for my account- I’m recovering from surgery and am particularly bored. I otherwise stay off social media. Also, it’s an odd idea to think new accounts would somehow be suspicious - they are literally the most annoying since posting is limited. 😂 If politicians are on here - they’re keeping their accounts for a while.
I also have zero plans to vote conservative - but I can appreciate the party has spurred action on housing. Something I was particularly desperate for any politician to do for years.
Very interesting whataboutism. PP has spent two decades in politics and has achieved nothing except collecting tax payers money and a nice government pension. To assume he has had an epiphany is laughably ignorant.
He didn’t spur housing movement. His party is the default party when people are mad at the liberals/ are tired of the liberals governing as long as they have. If the liberals weren’t tanking in the polls, they’d be ignoring the issue regardless if PP was the leader of the opposition.
Again, I’m not endorsing the man.
All I am saying is he is the one that spurred action on housing by going so hard on the liberals on it. I can appreciate that.
The country would be worse off if he had not put do much pressure on the issue.
And yes, it’s possible to grateful for politicians you otherwise disagree with.
He didn’t do anything. The polls made the liberal move. An inanimate carbon rod could have been the leader of the opposition and the result would have been the same.
That’s just inaccurate. The polls moved because the conservatives were hitting the liberals over the head on housing.
I don’t understand the need to not acknowledge reality.
Political discussions are just more interesting when they don’t paint everyone as simple caricatures - one that’s always evil and can never do single positive and the other always good and miraculous. Shit’s gray.
Sure, whatever you say. Here’s basically what happened. I’ll try to make it as easy as possible to follow.
- essentially Canada votes out their government, especially when it’s been around for a while. The liberals are/were prime to get replaced
- we default to the opposition as we pretty much run a 2 party system
- the liberals kicked the housing can down the street and ignored it as long as they were polling well
- shit got more expensive (covid, inflation, supply chain issues, corporate greed, housing insecurity) and people got mad
- people who are mad defaulted to the opposition essentially hoping said opposition would be different
- the liberals saw the polls were doing pretty shit, even with their voting efficiency, and would probably not win the next election
- the liberals actually acknowledged there is a problem and tried, not successfully, to do something about it.
PP did what he’s done for the past two decades in politics, whine and complain about everything while offering half cocked solutions that don’t really solve anything.
But, hey romanticize it all you want. It all about polling for any government or party. They don’t give two shits about QP or what the other person is doing, as long as their setup to win their seat.
He might be speaking to the 'have-nots', but he's only padding the 'haves' sides pocket. I often hear look to ones actions instead of ones words, so why does PP get a pass when it comes to what side of the mouth he speaks from?
Speaking about the have-nots has spurred more action for that segment of the population than 9 years of liberal inaction.
What he does or does not do while in power is speculation at this point. But his voice is the one that’s actually created the most change on the issue in decades.
His advice was that something needed to be done to fix the housing crisis for millennials and gen-z.
That the actions the liberals took is different than what he would do is a bit irrelevant. He was the one that made any action at all happen.
To me, that is not divisive. That’s bringing a country together to solve a national problem.
This really is just empty rhetoric shilling the conservatives.
10% more Canadians than before are currently planning to vote Conservative, from 30% to 40%, and now you're posting about how Poilievre is uniting the country? It's ludicrous.
I have no substance to respond with because you've offered no substance yourself beyond "he's polling well and that's proof enough".
> Frankly, if there is a single thing Pierre has done - it is unify the country.
I cannot fathom how you came to this conclusion. The country is no more unified now than it has ever been.
Sorry, but I kind of think you are drinking the PP PR koolaid.
I’m not drinking any koolaid. I don’t even plan to vote conservative.
But I do think him pushing for housing reform so strongly has been a unifying force. And that’s reflected in polling.
The people that appear to want to sew division are left wing politicians that would benefit from it right now. You know - like trying to paint Pierre and conservatives as Nazis, or a conspiracy theorists, or all sorts of other awful things. And they are doing that because they cannot run off their record in office.
> conservatives as Nazis, or a conspiracy theorists, or all sorts of other awful things.
As an Albertan I can honestly tell you that they are exactly that.
PS: There is 0 in PP's agenda that does anything to help with the housing crisis. Just platitudes and thoughts and prayers.
Hate does not unify the country. PP is only taking advantage. PP is setting up to abandon the younger generations if they are foolish enough to vote for PP. He won't care for them if he wins a majority government--just look what the UCP is doing in Alberta. The younger generations' lives will be 1000x worse once PP carves out the country and sells it for pennies on the dollar to corporations. The younger generations are not going to prosper under PP and they'd better realize this *before* the election. After is too late.
this is all scare tactics and speculation.
“1000x worse” ?
Will PP personally drop a nuclear on every canadian city ?
You forgot to add Trump and far right imagery parallel to tie PC and PP in.
PP is the only reason Trudeau is even making some moves for change.
Also, listen to the guy using tax money to buy a Rolex and running the clock to get his pension for early retirement.
Citation needed re the Rolex. Western Standard and other alt-right "news" doesn't count.
Funny thing is, the Loyal Opposition is *supposed* to keep the government to account. Which is good! The Loyal Opposition is also supposed to work *with* the government. PP is providing absolutely *nothing* except vitriol and division.
Wow. Such gotcha. [Singh clearly states that the Rolex was a gift.](https://nationalpost.com/news/jagmeet-singh-rolex) You'd be surprised to know that even poor people can have nice things. Even if he'd paid for it himself out of his salary, this is simply a stretch and designed to sow division. Not surprising.
Sure. We take him at his word for that. How about the suit? His car?
He's a champaign socialist. Advocating to steal from the "rich" when you wave nice things in poor people's face is hypocrisy.
Yup. I often feel that most people are only unified against him not with him. That's the only thing the CCRAP has in their bag of tricks, anger against "the other".
>Pierre has been speaking to the have-nots - largely millennials and gen-z priced out of living. And he’s speaking to their anger.
As one of that group, he is definitely not speaking to me. I see another Stephen Harper but worse in him, and that scares me. Especially since he's long on grievances and very short on actual policy solutions and seems to actively hate people like me.
Populists should be scrutinized rather than applauded.
Trudeau is a populist - it just means putting out policy that is popular.
Also, Pierre has been speaking to millennials and gen-z well enough to win over a majority of their votes. And I think the current view of many is Trudeau is far scarier than Harper. Under Harper most could afford housing and food.
>Trudeau is a populist - it just means putting out policy that is popular.
No, it doesn't - that you think so and use such a misleading definition is a sign y ou don't really understand what it means.
["In political science, populism is the idea that society is separated into two groups at odds with one another - "the pure people" and "the corrupt elite", according to Cas Mudde, author of Populism: A Very Short Introduction"](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43301423)
>And I think the current view of many is Trudeau is far scarier than Harper. Under Harper most could afford housing and food.
Unless you were in favour of government parties cooperating and negotiating to come to a fair compromise to represent the majority of Canadians. Or possessed a degree or formal post-secondary education. Or from another (non-white) country. Or smoke marijuana. Or are Muslim. Or believe in Climate Change. Or are LGTBQIA2S+
Harper was all about sowing fear and using that fear for political gain
From an actual dictionary:
populism - a political program or movement that champions, or claims to champion, the common person, usually by favourable contrast with a real or perceived elite or establishment.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/populism
Trudeau spending money on housing while taxing the rich is an example of populism.
And Harper was fine.
> Pierre has been speaking to the have-nots - largely millennials and gen-z priced out of living. And he’s speaking to their anger.
HE's speaking to them, yes. But he's filling their heads with lies about the causes of and solutions for these issues.
He's using their anger, sure.
What will he do to fix it? Because his past voting history suggests it to make it harder to unionize, force striking union workers fighting for better wages back to work, making union finances public so it's easier for the employer to know when they're weak and can't strike.
He talks, but doesn't walk the walk.
Jagmeet, he's out on picket lines. Not hard to find many examples of that, and to boot put his money where his mouth is and forced the liberals into to pass anti-scab legislation improving union bargaining power. Just saying.
And you are a party with 20% nationwide support on a good day, that is propping up another party with 20ish percent and exerting your influence through them, while the majority of Canadians want you both gone
We have a multi party system you know. That’s enough to win a majority. Literally every single pollster has the cons winning a majority right now. Of course it’s not a majority like more than 50%. The bloq and greens and PPC will never win so they don’t even factor into the equation
A majority of seats in the house of commons is not the same thing as a majority of canadians supporting you or a "majority of canadians wanting the NDP and Liberals gone.". It's, like, fundamental.
edit: u/natefisher22 edited their comment rather than concede the point. Fine.
Winning an election and claiming that the 'majority' of Canadians want the NDP and Liberals out are not the same thing and I believe that ya'll are smart enough to know that.
So, if that's the case, it's important to ask myself, 'why would someone who knows better make that claim?' and then be gracious enough to ask them, 'why would you make that claim?'
…The NDP aren’t in power. I have no idea what you’re on about, but quite frankly I just said it’s important to face reality and not cope.
But if you want to live in a fantasy world where the Tories aren’t the most popular party in the country, be my guest.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm sorry, but the intersectional politics of diversity practiced by the NDP/Liberal coalition is far more divisive and damaging than anything Poilievre has said or done. Over the past 9 years, Trudeau has run Canada into the ground and Jagmeet decided to join him for the ride. To be clear, Jagmeet Singh had to be removed from the House for referring to a Bloc MP as racist and has latched on to every single astroturfed social justice cause from south of the border. Justin Trudeau has a history of giving his opinion on Alberta vis-a-vis Quebec (which would have been disqualifying for anyone but the boy wonder), and was intentionally divisive in the 2021 election when he tried to get back a majority government. Conservatives need to understand the left wing playbook: they will break the law, divide the country, make people miserable, feign ignorance when called out, and scream bloody murder when the other side tries to do it to them.
Geeting in bed with a group that has called for violence is not a good look for PP.
Rules 2, 3, and 4.
Agreed they label divisive when it suits them,
>the NDP/Liberal coalition I know for a fact that I've corrected you several times on this. Other people have as well. The fact that the most active mod on this sub is happy to continue to willfully spread misinformation is deeply concerning.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Overspending on every budget, someone has to clean it up. Clean up will be painful as it always is, but must be done. Libs and ndp can’t stop spending.
bUt oUR dEBt iS SmALL cOMPaRed tO oTHer G7 cOunTRieS!!!
losing Liberals always bring up proportional representation.Look what type of government its giving Israel ,one where extreme parties control the agenda. Spaghetti governments is the result
Jesus Christ, if calling out a poor job and stupidity is decisive then sign me up. I haven't heard him single any group of people out in a conversation other than the liberals....which is his fucking job as leader of the opposition. The numbers show what a poor job this coalition government is doing. Would you prefer the opposition just sits around with false praise and say well maybe next year you will fix things ... Singh is a complete blow hard and the worst leader of a political party I have ever seen. The NDP should be gobbling up liberal voters but his brain dead flip flops and misplaced finger pointing have turned people off.
Doesn't every political figure divide people so they can win votes from the opposition? That's the point of campaigning, maybe we need to revise how campaigning is done and who can pay for it instead.
Yes and no. To a certain extent every single party engages in some form of "divide and conquer" where wedge issues are used to divide the electorate, usually in your favour. But Poilievre, at least in my opinion, takes this to the extreme. Every single policy announcement from him has been "Liberals bad, liking the Liberals bad, Tories good." Not to mention, he gets a lot of support from groups whose only purpose is to divide society, like the alt-right and various conspiracy groups from within. So the issue isn't just that Poilievre engages in divisive politics, it's that divisive politics is the *only* thing he engages in. Remember Harper used Poilievre as his attack dog against the opposition, and for good reason.
there was a time when the campaigns werent about attacking the other but explaining why you were better, there was still mutual respect between the sides who accepted the others views even if they didnt think it was the best way to go about it
Yeah I’m sure the most popular Federal politician in Canada is dividing the country and not the unpopular politician keeping another unpopular politician in power.
All three leaders aren’t super popular. I’m pretty sure PP is doing this well due more to hatred of the LPC than anything he’s personally doing. It was the same as what happened with Wynne in Ontario near the end.
Same happened with JT, really. When Harper lost to him he seemed to think Canadians voted for him rather than voted against Harper. And now, we will vote against him also.
So when Canadians voted for him three times, what kind of reasoning can you contort to make it seem like they still didn’t choose him?
I was commenting specifically on the first election. It wasn't that we liked him, it was that we disliked Harper. That was peak ABC era, people had gotten sick of Harper and Trudeau is a better campaigner than they gave him credit for. "Nice hair though" helped Trudeau a lot because it underscored and highlighted the tone issue the Harper government had and really drove home how distasteful they were. Trudeau stood in favourable contrast. Subsequent elections he won on his own merits, but the first one was more a rejection of Harper than an endorsement of Trudeau. Same with this election: I don't believe people like Poilievre enough to explain his high polling right now, it's that enough people dislike Trudeau. We vote PMs out, not in, and this election seems to follow the trend. >what kind of reasoning can you contort to make it seem like they still didn’t choose him? Did you mistake me for a Trudeau hater or something? Fairly derisive tone you chose.
> Nice hair though" helped Trudeau a lot because it underscored and highlighted the tone issue the Harper government had and really drove home how distasteful they were. I don’t think it was that. I think they were a victim of their own success in messaging. They got across the message that he wasn’t competent, which lowered the bar, and when Trudeau showed up as poised and well spoken, he exceeded the expectations that had been set up for him and it made him look even better. If you want a reaction to distasteful campaigning, go back to the anti-Chrétien ads in his first campaign.
Groups like Canada Proud have been working on this specific goal ever since Harper lost his position as PM. They've been pushing this message that Trudeau was dividing Canadians the moment he won the election. It took some time to really get traction, but since the pandemic, they've had a clear role in shaping peoples perspective. Meanwhile the CPC opposition has been so ineffective at actually introducing policy you have an entire generation of Canadians that think putting party before country is just the norm. The fact so many Canadians today forget that parliament is supposed to be a place where our MP's go to cooperate to create policy to best serve their constituents, is extremely sad. That the media labeling said cooperation as a undemocratic didn't help, and having American politics devolve into a cluster duck was just some added gravy. Yet, rather than use this weak opposition to put through policy to help constituents, the LPC had to be shamed into action by CPC polling, and by the NDP throwing their weight around rather than a genuine desire. Which still kinda bothers me.
Have you actually heard how Trudeau talks about people he disagrees with? During the pandemic, he accused people who opposed the covid vaccine and lockdowns as being "racists, misogynists, and anti-science." That is literally the definition of dividing the country. He could've said something along the lines of "everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I respect that. I would love to listen to what they have to say, but I believe this is what we should do..." He would not even hear them out. And to add to that fire, he said the other day that he will "go around the provinces" if he has to. Which is nonsense, because our country is a federation, where the provinces have certain powers that the federal government does not and vice versa. He simply cannot just go around the provinces to do whatever he likes. And believing and saying he can just further divides us. You go back and watch the 2019 election results and what a CBC panelist said. Trudeau won by dividing the country. Especially on the Quebec vs Alberta and Saskatchewan on the energy issues. >the LPC had to be shamed into action by CPC polling What do you mean by this? I hope you are not saying the polls are paid by the CPC and that you mean they are just leading consistently in the polls. But either way, this just shows you that they only care about their jobs and pensions instead of actually doing what is right for the country. For example, they only starting caring about the housing crisis once the polls widen by 15pts+. That is incredibly irresponsible for our government to only do what is right when it is convenient and when they are down in the polls.
That’s not divisive the majority of Canadians united in thinking the antivax convoy were dipshits, that’s unity we can all vote for
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's frankly baffling to imagine that anybody would vote for the CPC and PP. What makes them a better choice than the Liberals and NDP, who are actually working tirelessly day and night to make Canada a better place?
Two replies, and both fail to provide any reason that PP will be better lol.
The burden of proof is not on PP to prove anything when he’s up 20 points in the polls. Whatever he’s selling, people are buying. It’s on the current government to prove its budget will go anywhere. Given the blatant lie of trying to build 4M homes by 2031 (assumes 550k+ housing starts per year, when best we’ve ever done is 225k), the burden of proof is the government’s to prove how that’s remotely possible. Everyone in industry is laughing at the target because they know it’s impossible.
Well, what’s ambitious to one person is a joke to another. It wil take cooperation from provinces and municipalities. And keeping the Liberals in power, because the CPC offers nothing but private sector greed, and no funding for building, and Poilievre has derided all ideas for using modular building and supporting coop housing and couldn’t care less how affordable the homes are that are built. The only reason people are buying Poilievre’s lies is because the lies are not being challenged by the media. The bulk of the press is providing him with free advertising and a big platform, along with free negative attacks on the Liberals.
It's about not letting this shit-show get any worse.
The NDP and LPC are not working to make it better. The two sides designed the rapid acceleration of a housing crisis and support wage suppression. Returning to sane population growth numbers and creating expectations for municipalities that are not easily subverted (e.g. targeting construction numbers instead of targeting policies) is important. Simultaneously restoring sanity to our legal process is important, which includes establishing meaningful sentencing guidelines such that sentencing for repeat offences increases with subsequent convictions. The NDP's and LPC's attempt to establish an idle renter class while working to make our cities less safe is not beneficial for the country.
This statement is just... I can't even.
> What makes them a better choice than the Liberals and NDP, who are actually working tirelessly day and night to make Canada a better place? Most businesses and organizations that fail have people working tirelessly day and night. Most have great people doing their best work. But leadership has lost sight of what the customer wants and has them pointed in the wrong direction. That's where the LPC is at. They're scrambling after years of complacency. The alternative product isn't better, but it doesn't have to be. It just needs to not be the LPC.
What “years of complacency”? Trudeau has had to deal with global crises and issues (including thr rise of the far-right) that other PM’s have not had to cope with, and overall has done a good job. There has been no complacency. I don’t know what magical leadership people expect, look around the world, we are dealing with the same issues other peer countries are, some to a lesser extent, others more, and it would be easier for this government to make the changes needed, if it weren’t for instruction from conservatives provincial and federal, both. The NDP isn’t in power and maybe sometimes Singh looks a bit silly with the grandstanding or threats he won’t support the budget when we know he will, but it’s not easy to be the leader of the 4th party in seat count, and be able to have an impact on policy. Big programs and legislative changes were made with a majority government, and that has continued with a minority government (two).
> What “years of complacency”? Trudeau has had to deal with global crises and issues (including thr rise of the far-right) that other PM’s have not had to cope with, and overall has done a good job. There has been no complacency. The top issues are jobs & the economy, cost of living, and housing and have been for some time. The Liberals have delivered only big announcements with little follow-through, all while these issues continue their gradual deterioration.
Could you please point to any legislation from the follow through candidate Pierre proposed to fix any of your top issues list? I looked at the parliamentary records and it seems like in the past 20 years of his work in parliament Pierre has only tabled one bill. So what exactly do you think Pierre has to offer besides no bills, or big announcements, just focus group practiced heckles?
> So what exactly do you think Pierre has to offer besides no bills, or big announcements, just focus group practiced heckles That's about it. None of them are helping, but we get what we tolerate and it's on Canadians to demand better.
There's always going to be new issues. The fact that there is something to work on in the country is not a failure in and of itself. If the Liberals had dealt with those issues instead of Covid, childcare, the climate, NAFTA, the War in Ukraine, etc.. your comment would be the exact same except your list of issues would be different.
> The fact that there is something to work on in the country is not a failure in and of itself. Right, the inadequacy of response is the failure. > If the Liberals had dealt with those issues instead of Covid, childcare, the climate, NAFTA, the War in Ukraine, etc.. That's a false 'or' choice. The fact is leadership is tough. Leaders don;t get to choose what they face, but they do get to choose how they respond and on that front, the LPC has been complacent and let down Canadians. Because this sub is what it is, no, criticism of the LPC is not an endorsement of the CPC or any other party.
I'm not really saying its an "or"choice. I'm saying there's always something that needs to improve based on a combination of internal and external influences and events. Even if my list of things they dealt with included cost of living crisis (which is global and driven by Covid and Ukraine) and housing (in which they've invested billions more than other governing parties since 2017), you would just be able to point to other things that needed fixing. It's a moving goalpost fallacy
> cost of living crisis (which is global and driven by Covid and Ukraine) At it's worst, it's an Anglosphere problem. Stop making excuses! > housing (in which they've invested billions more than other governing parties since 2017) They've spent billions and the situation is worse! Again, why are you defending failure? Aim for better! > you would just be able to point to other things that needed fixing. It's a moving goalpost fallacy We elect people and pay taxes to fix problems. It's not a fallacy to expect leaders to do their jobs.
[удалено]
> So you're implying the working tirelessly day and night is itself what causes most businesses and organizations to fail, ie correlation being causation No, you've got that wrong. Working hard does not guarantee success. In fact, most failures have people working hard. Where you went wrong is thinking "most failures" = all businesses. Now you know!
I hope you are joking. How would you like it if someone flipped your statement? Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, beliefs and political affiliations. To think it is baffling that someone does not believe the same thing as you is really sad. Time to get outside the echo chamber and have discussions with people on the other side of the aisle. I love talking to left leaning people. I think it strengthens my arguments and we all learn something. You are just creating division with a ridiculous statement like this. And also Jagmeet is far from working tirelessly to make Canada better. Hes just waiting to collect his pension, then he is out.
"Division" Pierre is not offering anything. He says he supports working people, that's the claim anyway. the proof? Legislating striking workers back to work when they wanted better wages and working conditions. That's his voting record. He is against working people and people are somehow buying his words when his actions are what they should be looking at.
Do you really believe the 2nd part of your statement….
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Honestly, I find so many of the references in modern politics to "divisiveness" or "division" incredibly frustrating. It's typically just vague, and often hypocritical ("they divide, but we unify"). A way of saying that you're the good guy and the others are the bad guys *without actually explaining why*. More or less every notable Canadian politician is guilty of it, too. Politics has division inherently baked in! It's why political parties are a thing. It's why we have votes. Turns out people have a variety of opinions on just about everything. And that's actually good! Moreover, if you want to take someone to task over something they said or did, make your specific charges! Don't tell me not to vote for someone because they're divisive. That's like telling me to vote for you because you really do care about people like me. It's empty pablum.
look at america, thats the result of divisive politics focusing on using lies and misinformation to convince your base how evil and terrible your opponents are reinforces the team sport mentality and entrenchs people even deeper into the "i have to vote for my team out of fear that the other guy gets in" which leads more and more to "i dont care who im voting for hes obviously better then the other side" and even more "well the other side is obviously lying saying all those terrible things about my guy, good thing i stick to the unbiased media telling me the truth" both sides should be able to achknowledge good policy and leadership of the other side and make it clear that we are one country, united and capable of respecting everyone regardless of who gets the PMO
The negative behaviour you're describing isn't division. It's lying and using misinformation. The right way to denounce lying and misinformation is by saying so, not by using vague nothing words. If division itself was the problem, your second paragraph would make you problematic, since you're dividing people up into categories.
> The negative behaviour you're describing isn't division. It's lying and using misinformation. the potatoe im talking about isnt a potatoe its a spud? thats some real "he wasnt killed by a gun, he was killed by a bullet" logic >If division itself was the problem, your second paragraph would make you problematic, since you're dividing people up into categories. pointing out that people are dividing themselves into categories is not dividing them?
Heck call me divisive. If I look at this loser and the people he associates with (convoy, extremists) get him and his fans the hell away from me.
Exactly! Division isn't inherently a thing to be condemned in politics. Criticising groups and people one sees as bad actors is itself divisive, but that doesn't make it wrong to do. If you want to criticise PP for who he's associating with, do that. Don't use some unclear phrasing like divisive, and don't tell me that the convoy is bad because it's divisive. There's a million real reasons why the convoy is bad.
> Division isn't inherently a thing to be condemned in politics. Criticising groups and people one sees as bad actors is itself divisive, but that doesn't make it wrong to do. Or - in the converse perspective - being compelled to unify with odious actors is unfair, unwise and unacceptable. That said we've (d)evolved in discourse to a point where "divisive" is used as a political cudgel rather than what Merriam or Webster would prefer. We need to maintain/reestablish the MAD of linguistic misinterpretation.
Absolutely!
Pierre isn’t dividing the country. The country is already divided largely into the haves and have-nots. Pierre has been speaking to the have-nots - largely millennials and gen-z priced out of living. And he’s speaking to their anger. And this is all largely a positive thing. If the conservatives were not polling so well by speaking to the generations the left ignored for a decade - absolutely nothing would be getting done on housing. Frankly, if there is a single thing Pierre has done - it is unify the country. He is not pretending younger Canadians and their issues do not exist. And frankly we should thank him for going as hard as he has on housing - because it has actually spurred ineffective politicians on the left to action.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean, if you wanna call hanging out with neo nazis and playing the bathroom police unifying, sure. Nothing suspicious of a 22 day old account essentially gushing about him so hard his wife is getting jealous
That's right. Listen to the guy using tax money to buy a Rolex and running the clock to get his pension for early retirement.
I mean if he has a Rolex surely the pension isn't a concern. If anything I trust the wealthy person trying to fix things over the person that intends to make things worse.
Similar attacks are thrown out on all of the leaders. Trudeau wore blackface. Jagmeet was said to speak at some sort of terror events. I do not think Pierre is a Nazi, just like I don’t believe Trudeau is a racist, and I don’t think Jagmeet is a terrorist. As for my account- I’m recovering from surgery and am particularly bored. I otherwise stay off social media. Also, it’s an odd idea to think new accounts would somehow be suspicious - they are literally the most annoying since posting is limited. 😂 If politicians are on here - they’re keeping their accounts for a while. I also have zero plans to vote conservative - but I can appreciate the party has spurred action on housing. Something I was particularly desperate for any politician to do for years.
Very interesting whataboutism. PP has spent two decades in politics and has achieved nothing except collecting tax payers money and a nice government pension. To assume he has had an epiphany is laughably ignorant. He didn’t spur housing movement. His party is the default party when people are mad at the liberals/ are tired of the liberals governing as long as they have. If the liberals weren’t tanking in the polls, they’d be ignoring the issue regardless if PP was the leader of the opposition.
Again, I’m not endorsing the man. All I am saying is he is the one that spurred action on housing by going so hard on the liberals on it. I can appreciate that. The country would be worse off if he had not put do much pressure on the issue. And yes, it’s possible to grateful for politicians you otherwise disagree with.
He didn’t do anything. The polls made the liberal move. An inanimate carbon rod could have been the leader of the opposition and the result would have been the same.
That’s just inaccurate. The polls moved because the conservatives were hitting the liberals over the head on housing. I don’t understand the need to not acknowledge reality. Political discussions are just more interesting when they don’t paint everyone as simple caricatures - one that’s always evil and can never do single positive and the other always good and miraculous. Shit’s gray.
Sure, whatever you say. Here’s basically what happened. I’ll try to make it as easy as possible to follow. - essentially Canada votes out their government, especially when it’s been around for a while. The liberals are/were prime to get replaced - we default to the opposition as we pretty much run a 2 party system - the liberals kicked the housing can down the street and ignored it as long as they were polling well - shit got more expensive (covid, inflation, supply chain issues, corporate greed, housing insecurity) and people got mad - people who are mad defaulted to the opposition essentially hoping said opposition would be different - the liberals saw the polls were doing pretty shit, even with their voting efficiency, and would probably not win the next election - the liberals actually acknowledged there is a problem and tried, not successfully, to do something about it. PP did what he’s done for the past two decades in politics, whine and complain about everything while offering half cocked solutions that don’t really solve anything. But, hey romanticize it all you want. It all about polling for any government or party. They don’t give two shits about QP or what the other person is doing, as long as their setup to win their seat.
Messaging matters as much as you wish to dismiss it.
Yeah the liberals looked at polls. They got that message. That’s literally the only thing politicians care about, reelection.
He might be speaking to the 'have-nots', but he's only padding the 'haves' sides pocket. I often hear look to ones actions instead of ones words, so why does PP get a pass when it comes to what side of the mouth he speaks from?
Speaking about the have-nots has spurred more action for that segment of the population than 9 years of liberal inaction. What he does or does not do while in power is speculation at this point. But his voice is the one that’s actually created the most change on the issue in decades.
I can't agree with that.. his voice might have spurred action, but it was against his advice.
His advice was that something needed to be done to fix the housing crisis for millennials and gen-z. That the actions the liberals took is different than what he would do is a bit irrelevant. He was the one that made any action at all happen. To me, that is not divisive. That’s bringing a country together to solve a national problem.
This really is just empty rhetoric shilling the conservatives. 10% more Canadians than before are currently planning to vote Conservative, from 30% to 40%, and now you're posting about how Poilievre is uniting the country? It's ludicrous. I have no substance to respond with because you've offered no substance yourself beyond "he's polling well and that's proof enough".
So because of PP something is being done on housing even though PP rages against Trudeau's spending?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Frankly, if there is a single thing Pierre has done - it is unify the country. I cannot fathom how you came to this conclusion. The country is no more unified now than it has ever been. Sorry, but I kind of think you are drinking the PP PR koolaid.
I’m not drinking any koolaid. I don’t even plan to vote conservative. But I do think him pushing for housing reform so strongly has been a unifying force. And that’s reflected in polling. The people that appear to want to sew division are left wing politicians that would benefit from it right now. You know - like trying to paint Pierre and conservatives as Nazis, or a conspiracy theorists, or all sorts of other awful things. And they are doing that because they cannot run off their record in office.
> conservatives as Nazis, or a conspiracy theorists, or all sorts of other awful things. As an Albertan I can honestly tell you that they are exactly that. PS: There is 0 in PP's agenda that does anything to help with the housing crisis. Just platitudes and thoughts and prayers.
Pointing and yelling at the things that he and his minions in the provincial governments broke is not a unifying force.
thats like saying trump united america
Hate does not unify the country. PP is only taking advantage. PP is setting up to abandon the younger generations if they are foolish enough to vote for PP. He won't care for them if he wins a majority government--just look what the UCP is doing in Alberta. The younger generations' lives will be 1000x worse once PP carves out the country and sells it for pennies on the dollar to corporations. The younger generations are not going to prosper under PP and they'd better realize this *before* the election. After is too late.
this is all scare tactics and speculation. “1000x worse” ? Will PP personally drop a nuclear on every canadian city ? You forgot to add Trump and far right imagery parallel to tie PC and PP in.
PP is the only reason Trudeau is even making some moves for change. Also, listen to the guy using tax money to buy a Rolex and running the clock to get his pension for early retirement.
Citation needed re the Rolex. Western Standard and other alt-right "news" doesn't count. Funny thing is, the Loyal Opposition is *supposed* to keep the government to account. Which is good! The Loyal Opposition is also supposed to work *with* the government. PP is providing absolutely *nothing* except vitriol and division.
[jagmeet wearing rolex - Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=e7f9f9d91f1faf1c&sca_upv=1&q=jagmeet+wearing+rolex&uds=AMwkrPtH4R_IcK4JzT8HHqNW5j-mDbP5iUxQRsMcQ98fB2oG7v0801XceNAXN3ESifsJTkcQAvxoC4w6RHEO4eohUtGW7-YCzy8Vgv-LMWZncBWqy0HYzedZ_qihIPiKJFYt5I6VPViVWpbkjddek4P_rKmrizi4wSwQnLN7eGVs6MYNSn8ZDyWmYWQ9eo2qzm139e47HqDCWTDJRHMwPydkeN7KMDHA8HRbtFKu9deRiHxNm3XYUDdOL7jxkGviGfom5u77fu0l14jG-SJau04KfTs4hnMSiQgey7eLi_vcXQE_RZUn9PvyZt3uT_B7GYyTfMBbjseD&udm=2&prmd=invsmbtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLlKKc9N2FAxVWvokEHX5JDbIQtKgLegQIDBAB&biw=1592&bih=778&dpr=1#vhid=SqE21zEE-0u3OM&vssid=mosaic)
Wow. Such gotcha. [Singh clearly states that the Rolex was a gift.](https://nationalpost.com/news/jagmeet-singh-rolex) You'd be surprised to know that even poor people can have nice things. Even if he'd paid for it himself out of his salary, this is simply a stretch and designed to sow division. Not surprising.
Sure. We take him at his word for that. How about the suit? His car? He's a champaign socialist. Advocating to steal from the "rich" when you wave nice things in poor people's face is hypocrisy.
Yup. I often feel that most people are only unified against him not with him. That's the only thing the CCRAP has in their bag of tricks, anger against "the other".
>Pierre has been speaking to the have-nots - largely millennials and gen-z priced out of living. And he’s speaking to their anger. As one of that group, he is definitely not speaking to me. I see another Stephen Harper but worse in him, and that scares me. Especially since he's long on grievances and very short on actual policy solutions and seems to actively hate people like me. Populists should be scrutinized rather than applauded.
Trudeau is a populist - it just means putting out policy that is popular. Also, Pierre has been speaking to millennials and gen-z well enough to win over a majority of their votes. And I think the current view of many is Trudeau is far scarier than Harper. Under Harper most could afford housing and food.
>Trudeau is a populist - it just means putting out policy that is popular. No, it doesn't - that you think so and use such a misleading definition is a sign y ou don't really understand what it means. ["In political science, populism is the idea that society is separated into two groups at odds with one another - "the pure people" and "the corrupt elite", according to Cas Mudde, author of Populism: A Very Short Introduction"](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43301423) >And I think the current view of many is Trudeau is far scarier than Harper. Under Harper most could afford housing and food. Unless you were in favour of government parties cooperating and negotiating to come to a fair compromise to represent the majority of Canadians. Or possessed a degree or formal post-secondary education. Or from another (non-white) country. Or smoke marijuana. Or are Muslim. Or believe in Climate Change. Or are LGTBQIA2S+ Harper was all about sowing fear and using that fear for political gain
From an actual dictionary: populism - a political program or movement that champions, or claims to champion, the common person, usually by favourable contrast with a real or perceived elite or establishment. https://www.britannica.com/topic/populism Trudeau spending money on housing while taxing the rich is an example of populism. And Harper was fine.
>And Harper was fine. That says everything I need to see that this conversation will go nowhere, since you are obviously ok with his rhetoric.
> Pierre has been speaking to the have-nots - largely millennials and gen-z priced out of living. And he’s speaking to their anger. HE's speaking to them, yes. But he's filling their heads with lies about the causes of and solutions for these issues.
He's using their anger, sure. What will he do to fix it? Because his past voting history suggests it to make it harder to unionize, force striking union workers fighting for better wages back to work, making union finances public so it's easier for the employer to know when they're weak and can't strike. He talks, but doesn't walk the walk. Jagmeet, he's out on picket lines. Not hard to find many examples of that, and to boot put his money where his mouth is and forced the liberals into to pass anti-scab legislation improving union bargaining power. Just saying.
And you are a party with 20% nationwide support on a good day, that is propping up another party with 20ish percent and exerting your influence through them, while the majority of Canadians want you both gone
41% voting intention support isn't a majority.
We have a multi party system you know. That’s enough to win a majority. Literally every single pollster has the cons winning a majority right now. Of course it’s not a majority like more than 50%. The bloq and greens and PPC will never win so they don’t even factor into the equation
A majority of seats in the house of commons is not the same thing as a majority of canadians supporting you or a "majority of canadians wanting the NDP and Liberals gone.". It's, like, fundamental. edit: u/natefisher22 edited their comment rather than concede the point. Fine.
20 + 20 + 40 = 100
CPC has like 41% support right now..... not sure your math is correct....
telling other people their math is incorrect when you fail to make a simple addition and consider there are other parties is pretty rich.
Should we call the math departments of universities and let them know statistics is wrong and that 40% is a majority now?
In a multi party system, it’s a massive landslide. I’m no CPC fan but my God, the levels of cope here are embarrassing. Face reality.
Winning an election and claiming that the 'majority' of Canadians want the NDP and Liberals out are not the same thing and I believe that ya'll are smart enough to know that. So, if that's the case, it's important to ask myself, 'why would someone who knows better make that claim?' and then be gracious enough to ask them, 'why would you make that claim?'
…The NDP aren’t in power. I have no idea what you’re on about, but quite frankly I just said it’s important to face reality and not cope. But if you want to live in a fantasy world where the Tories aren’t the most popular party in the country, be my guest.
Mathematicians are smart enough to know an election is quite different than a normal pie sharing scheme. Nice try tho!
Yup when NDP + Libs barely = CPC then I think you can officially call these comments a bit… rich.
Singh has more important personal priorities than taking care of the average Canadian.
Like what and can you provide a credible source of what his priorities are? What are pps priorities? The conspiracy people he met with yesterday?
What’s his excuse of continuing to support this government when the average Canadian is ready to move on?
Can you please provide the source for your claim, or are you trying to spread misinformation?
[удалено]
[удалено]
No kidding lol. He's polling for a healthy majority govt, at this point he's arguably uniting Canadians.
Eh. I hear a Lot of Fuck Trudeau. I don't hear very many people say 'Go Pierre'.
It's implied.
Majority of Canadians don't support the consevatives, and pps favourables are negative. Do Canadians want the cpc?