Leaderboard

You forgot to add; He is using his position as president to attack political rivals He is using his position as president to influence financial gains for his family and friends He is trying to gerrymander Texas voting He is using the US military to police Democratic 'war torn' cities despite facts that suggest otherwise He defied court orders to return illegal immigrants He is attacking the Fed in an effort to have complete control over policy and the economy He fires employment data persons because he didn't like their data He threatens the media with FCC heavy hand because he doesn't like the negative jokes I'm sure I'm forgetting a lot more bullet points for your poll....

I now present you with a 12" rule that measures 13" inches and a metre known as a fat yard? Nautical miles and leagues will be studied when you're older. Knots are well...we'll see.

Carney’s changing tactics against Trump get the benefit of the doubt from most Canadians at the moment because they understand our country is under grave threat from without. It’s not easy when a powerful friend suddenly turns against you. If the Tories were in charge we would have the same response to rally round the flag and trust the government to do the best it can. I really don’t think now is the time for Poilievre to go hyper-partisan. He needs to be seen to be playing with the team. There are ways to look good in opposition during a national crisis but he seems to lack the subtlety and versatility to play those roles.

Leftists aren't gonna vote until you create the option: "WAAAAAH! You're a racist for suggesting that Trump might not be a dictator!!!!"

The depth of depravity in the Biden admin is just infinite.

G.M. to Stop Making Electric Vans in Canada Amid Trump Tariffs - The New York Times Our car industry is going to be gone in no time at this rate, between companies dropping unpopular electric models and others shifting production elsewhere, the industry is going to be a fragment, and that's going to make life very tough in ontario. Carney doesn't seem to have a plan for the death of the car industry.

I’m a former senior aide to Stephen Harper. Pierre Poilievre is dismantling the principled, trustworthy Conservative Party we tried to build By Dimitri Soudas Contributor Dimitri Soudas is a political analyst for Radio-Canada. He was a director of communications and senior advisor under Stephen Harper and later executive director of the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservative Party that was shaped by the nation-building of Sir John A. Macdonald, the moral conviction of John Diefenbaker, the bold ambition of Brian Mulroney, and the steady discipline of Stephen Harper is far greater than any one man. It is a party rooted in history, principle, and purpose, a party built to serve the country, not the ego of a single leader. No individual, no matter how loud or popular, has the right to rewrite that legacy or distort it into something it was never meant to be. Leader Pierre Poilievre is dismantling the principled, serious and credible Conservative Party Harper worked so hard to lead and bring to power, one of substance, maturity and integrity. As a senior aide to Prime Minister Harper, I had the privilege to witness first-hand his leadership style: serious, principled, steady and deeply committed to the country’s long-term interests. He was the embodiment of what Canadians should expect from a national leader, governing with discipline, competence and a profound respect for Canada’s institutions. He brought credibility to the Conservative movement, not through theatrics, but through thoughtful policy-making, fiscal prudence, and strategic vision. He was never swayed by short-term headlines or the chaos of the news cycle. Instead, he focused on results: balanced budgets, trade expansion, national security, and pragmatic federalism. Harper spoke less, but when he did, it mattered. He built a unified party that reflected the broad spectrum of conservative values, from fiscal responsibility to national unity, without sacrificing seriousness or integrity. In an era of rising populism and political noise, Harper remains a reminder of what real leadership looks like: thoughtful, focused, principled, and unwavering in service to the country. Harper was able to unite fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, progressive conservatives, libertarian conservatives, Red Tories and Blue Tories into a serious, policy-driven coalition grounded in discipline, pragmatism and national interest, a legacy now being unravelled by Poilievre’s politics of spectacle and division. This week, Poilievre accused Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of committing what he described as the worst possible offence for a head of government, violating the Criminal Code and escaping justice. He claimed that Trudeau’s free vacation from the Aga Khan was a clear-cut criminal breach and that the RCMP deliberately chose not to lay charges. Poilievre went further, declaring that Trudeau should have been criminally charged and sent to jail. He went as far as accusing the RCMP leadership of being “despicable” and actively shielding the Liberal government from prosecution. In a rule-of-law democracy, no opposition leader should ever call for a prime minister or any political rival to be jailed. It undermines confidence in our justice system, our federal police and ultimately the Crown. That kind of rhetoric isn’t strength, it’s recklessness and it shows a leadership approach that remains rooted in grievance rather than governance. Months after losing the federal election, Poilievre seems not to have learned the lessons of his electoral defeat. For all the fiery slogans and viral clips, Canadians saw through the performance. What they needed was a prime minister-in-waiting. What they got was a man addicted to opposition, stuck in partisan combat, incapable of transformation and unwilling to rise above the instincts that had always held him back. Voters wanted maturity, reassurance and vision. He gave them grievance. He ran as the angry Question Period debater, not the steady hand of a G7 nation. The result? Swing voters waited for growth that never came. His message was reduced to punchlines. “Carbon Tax Carney” and “Sneaky Mark Carney” may have earned social media points, but it insulted the intelligence of voters craving real dialogue on housing, inflation, crime, immigration, climate and affordability. As Carney put forward a detailed, albeit debatable, vision, Poilievre delivered slogans and sneers. Canadians rightly asked: if this is how he acts in opposition, how would he behave in power? Worst of all, Poilievre failed to build a team. A party rich with talent was never showcased. No foreign affairs lead. No visible finance minister. No credible plans for trade, immigration, or defence. It was a one-man show and when the curtain rose, there was no cast, just more spotlight on him. The most baffling part? Trudeau’s record was wide open. Canadians were ready to hear a compelling case. But Poilievre couldn’t deliver one. He had the opportunity to prosecute a decade of Liberal failures, and instead leaned on hyperbole, exaggeration and recycled sound bites. The contrast never sharpened. The plan never appeared. He delivered none of it. His latest comments show once again he has failed to make the leap from critic to leader. Canadians are tired of the anger. The mockery. The volume. They need calm, confidence, and answers. Yet, despite warnings from advisers, polls, and “common sense,” he is still giving them attacks, blame and fury. In the last election, Canadians didn’t reject conservative ideas. They rejected Pierre Poilievre. Months later, there’s little evidence he has reflected, adapted, or grown. If anything, he seems more committed than ever to the very approach that cost him credibility with the voters he most needed to win. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/im-a-former-senior-aide-to-stephen-harper-pierre-poilievre-is-dismantling-the-principled-trustworthy/article_7a2f717f-2e67-4e70-aa5b-5153c0cb980b.html

You understand NOTHING. I am in favor of a real democracy like you CANUCKS HAVE. NOT the BROKEN DEMOCRACY WE HAVE.

And flat earth levels of self delusion,

Epiphany?

YOU ARE the unconditional DEFENDER of the POTUS just because he was elected by our ARCANE and UNPRECEDENTED RULES that do NOT OFFER "ONE MAN ONE VOTE." AKA are an ANACHRONISM from days that required that unfair departure that gives SMALL STATES POWER DISPROPORTIONATE to THEIR SIZE. AKA a broken democracy.

1. Because that's what he's doing. Not very presidential to say the least... 2. If you're good with him using the position to profit and screw you down along the way with inflation from tariffs that's your call. A couple reads for you; https://www.democracynow.org/2025/9/16/headlines/nyt_uae_chips_deal_linked_to_2b_investment_in_trump_family_cryptocurrency_firm. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/08/18/the-number 3. So you don't disagree... 4. There are lots of facts that say the 'violence' that Trump say's is happening is not. Google it... 5. So you agree it's not a democracy when a president ignores the rule of law. 6. What are you talking about 'rebounding'... Where were you the past 2 years? 7. Take your time, but not hard to find. 8. The president is a traitor and only in it for himself. 9. Yes, you're a dumbass Face it... the guy is a narcissistic huckster who only cares about himself. You Maga's are useless to him now... step aside.

Yes, but that one comes with sprinkles

Meh...Tweenkies will be Tweenkies.

I was asking myself that very question, why is it, that all these brainless ideas happen in BC, and to make it worse why are most of the people who live there defending these ideas like they just invented sliced bread...And we wonder why we don't want NDP to run the country.....

Huh??? I thought that was Portage and Main...

They're scared. When they're trying to convince us or others about how terrible it must be, or how much people hate PP, they're really trying to convince themselves.

So now you expect people who can't work a phonebook to do the required GPS updates prior to driving around in an unfamiliar area huh? Best idea so far.... add invisible letters to it and I'm in.

That's what the same people who badmouth EVs no said then Honda was as niche as Isuzu at first, they weren't seller until the late 70s. In the mid 70s the used Datsun 510s filled campus lots. But you're right, took the gas crises for the Big 3 to small cars. I had one of those Omnis, about the worst POS I ever saw. The wife has the same year Civic. Guess which lasted til the kods came along, which one got traded ASAP. (We did our honeymoon thru the Rockies in that Civic. My ears are still ringing driving that sewing machine for 2 weeks)

The signs should be upside down . . . just foe clarity! You've been had . . . enjoy the joke.

He's a moose, not an elk!

I don't think he was drunk. He may have been but I don't think anyone has said he was. He was carrying someone else's CDL and that CDL was suspended. To make matters worse, the company he was working for wasn't licensed either.

He is demolishing the WH without approval after promising NOT TO, for a ball room to replace the East Wing. (it's our house NOT HIS) He is killing people in speed boats in international waters without approval of Congress. He is treating the DoJ like his personal law firm which totally defies their main function of the pursuit of JUSTICE.

Prove it in a court of law? The DOJ is run by servile minions under his explicit orders while the Supreme Court loves the idea of unchecked presidential authority. Only an authoritarian would deny that America has been moving rapidly in that direction since Trump took office.

You're in a cult.

Oh thank you for your advice. As ignorant, predictable and unwanted though it may be. Maybe you should start demanding the Nobel prize for Economics.

Man, that is bad, but they are a net positive and they only do jobs Americans won't do! Of course, if you were in those cars you probably don't think they are a net positive. And, if you are out of work and can't find a job, you probably don't consider a six figure job as a truck driver as a bad thing.

I see someone subscribes to Al Jazeera

She was groomed to do so. There's no excuse for this still being a big question. It reminds me of the endless inability to understand the difference between a child-soldier and a terrorist. Groomed for it?

Because I do. And im not surprised a squat like you doesn't care about Canada. I doubt you even know where Canada is.

They wouldn't want to hire a white guy by mistake!

If the left were honest, it would be because he makes them feel stupid, so they lash out. But they will say all pf the above because they think their emotional arguments are rational.

Surrender is what eyeball is best known for.

It's really been illustrative of the bias of the mainstream media to watch them enthusiastically embrace his 'Elbows up!' talk during the election, then instantly turn around and congratulate and flatter him for his 'We love Trump!' attitude the instant he was elected. They went from "Carney is going to take on that stinking, horrible Trump! He won't let us get pushed around! He'll show that evil creature who the boss is! He'll stand up for Canada!" to "What a brilliant man to realize the need to flatter and submit to Trump! There's no way we can possibly stand up to the Americans on trade." And the sheeple of the Left have gone right along with them. Carney helped incite a whole new level of anti-Americanism during his election campaign, then went down south, kissed the ring, and told Trump on numerous occasions what a wise and brilliant man he was. And the liberal left just accepts it! I'd love to be in an alternate world where Poilevre got elected, took the exact same position with the exact same words after the election, and see you guys fume and fulminate and shake your angry little fists at him for being a suckholing surrender monkey. Because I have absolutely NO doubt that would be your attitude.

As I've pointed out before, all Trump does is address longstanding grievances the political class has studiously ignored. That's the only reason he's in power. Because the political class ignores the will of the people for only so long before the people say "F you all!" and bring in the populist. Same thing is happening in the UK now. DEI, as much as you adore official racism, has pissed off a lot of people for a long time. And it's been getting worse, more blatant. There are ads pointed out every day, mostly for public sector jobs, which are quite clearly racist in nature and would horrify the likes of you if the wording were reversed to demand only white people apply, or make it clear that 'no blacks wanted'. The way the Left, which is always claiming to be 'for the people,' continues to be utterly baffled by human behaviour is a fascinating thing. It's been quite clear for a century now. The whole Communist/Marxist/Socialist belief systems are predicated on ignorance of human behaviour. He answered a question about the SNC Lavalin affair, agreed it was a fake investigation, and said Trudeau ought to have gone to jail for that (which is certainly arguable). It wasn't a vow to 'get him' if he's elected, simply because he doesn't like him.

You're acting like this was an official speech or release from the office of the leader of the opposition. He was doing an interview. The interviewer asked about it the SNC Lavalin scandal, and he responded. To paraphrase, "Yeah, that was a fake investigation. They didn't even interview him. The RCMP covered for him. The guy ought to be in jail for interfering in a prosecution like that (which is, in fact, illegal).

Show me the polls that say any province is leaving. And then look at those numbers and try to figure how many would actually vote to separate if it came to a referendum. Once they think about actually doing it, they'll realize what a dumb mistake it would be and vote to stay. Look up the definition of rampant then prove it with statistics. If crime's that bad in your neighbourhood I'll call in the military for you. They can patrol your street and pick up your garbage for you. And this way you won't get raped every time you leave your house. You are the archetype of Maple Maga. Talking points straight from Trump's ass. He's right. Canadians get along (except for you and your ilk).

Almost any large Canadian city is better than any large American city. We don't have no-go zones where people don't walk around, like they do.

Every policy the Democrats pursue benefits them, personally, and hurts Americans.

What do having sex in a canoe and american beer have in common? They're both F'ing pretty close to water. We could never join. We're just not the same

When you travel through many American cities you realize how ugly the Toronto skyline is. The newer buildings in the US are made of nice brick and ours are made of cheap ugly glass.

No, don't ask Deluge, because Deluge already knows Don Lemon is a seditious piece of shit - he wants to use the 2nd Amendment to kill patriots and make room for illegal aliens. That's not what the Amendment is for.

Do you actually believe that?

Soudas is spot on... Poilievre's entire schtick is anger and soundbites with little substance. That works for those who enjoy anger and divisiveness but doesn't play well with the majority of Canadian's who have seen enough of this in US politics and don't want/need it here. I'm not even remotely close to a Trudeau fan but find it comical the amount of space that Trudeau continues to occupy in this guys and his supporters heads. He has nothing else so might as well be angry about the last 10 years of Trudeau and find fault when and where he can with Carney to create those soundbites he believes keep him somewhat relevant. For a career politician you'd think his instincts would be better... His political career has plateaued. He's simply not likeable as the election and every single poll show, and is most certainly not a person the majority of Canadian's want or will likely ever want as the face of the country.

A Rebuttal: Via Vesper on "X" "Your take on what Pierre said needs an update from a fellow Montreal Conservative. Your post is a touching eulogy, Dimitris, for a Conservative Party that exists more in nostalgia than in reality. You speak of history, principle, and purpose, while scolding Pierre Poilievre for having the temerity to apply those very principles to a Prime Minister who treats the law as a suggestion box. Let’s be clear: your argument isn’t that Poilievre is wrong on the facts. It’s that his tone is impolite. How very Canadian to suggest that pointing out a Prime Minister’s alleged criminality is a greater offence than the criminality itself. You claim that in a “rule-of-law democracy, no opposition leader should ever call for a Prime Minister to be jailed.” What breathtakingly selective principle. A rule-of-law democracy ceases to be one when its highest official is seen to be above the law. The real recklessness isn't in calling it out; it's in the silent acquiescence to a two-tiered justice system. You accuse Poilievre of “grievance” for stating a grievance that is, according to the evidence, entirely valid. Let’s consult the very source you provided from Democracy Watch. Their request for an independent prosecutor lays out a case that is anything but the fever dream you dismiss it as. To summarize for those who won’t click the link: • 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞: The Ethics Commissioner found Trudeau guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act in the Aga Khan affair. In the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the Ethics Commissioner found he used his authority to "circumvent, undermine and attempt to undermine" the rule of law. • 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐝𝐞: Democracy Watch points to Section 139 of the Criminal Code, which defines "Obstructing Justice." The evidence of a sustained, coordinated pressure campaign on the Attorney General to stop a criminal prosecution fits this definition to a T. • 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐂𝐌𝐏'𝐬 𝐈𝐧𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: As Democracy Watch details, the RCMP never even interviewed Justin Trudeau about SNC-Lavalin, despite a mountain of public evidence. Your post defends this as protecting “confidence in our justice system,” but to any objective observer, it looks an awful lot like the “despicable” shielding Poilievre described. If the RCMP won't investigate a sitting Prime Minister with this much evidence, who exactly will they investigate? You say Poilievre “has not learned the lessons of his electoral defeat.” Perhaps the lesson he learned is that a segment of the electorate is tired of Conservatives who bring a PowerPoint presentation to a knife fight. Canadians saw a Prime Minister who, according to multiple, independent watchdogs, repeatedly violated ethical and potentially criminal standards. What they “needed” was an opposition leader with the courage to name that corruption, not one who wrings his hands over parliamentary decorum while the foundations of accountability are eroded. The legacy of Macdonald, Diefenbaker, and Harper wasn’t built on politely ignoring brazen abuses of power, Dimitris. It was built on conviction. Poilievre’s rhetoric isn’t a distortion of that legacy; it’s a revival of its fighting spirit. The only thing being “rewritten” is the Liberal narrative that their former leader is untouchable."

You being the expert.

I think it's option 3: you are trying to using name calling and false bravado to hide that you are desperately inferior in your debate skills.

Quebec came close to winning their second secession referendum in 1990. Had they won they most likely would have remained with a 'special' status, something like they have today as a 'distinct society'. (Want to see a distinct society in Canada go to Nfld.) Had they achieved secession it would have been worse than Brexit for them and they would have applied for re-entry. They recognise this now and there is very little appetite for leaving. Same is true in Alberta. At the time, had Quebec seceded I thought the Maritimes' best bet would have been the 51st. But that was when the US was a normal democracy. Now 51st is the last thing we would want.