CdnFox
-
Posts
30,191 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
315
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by CdnFox
-
-
3 hours ago, August1991 said:
I would like to be a fly on the wall to witness this.
1. Trump will look Carney directly in the eye and say: "I am the reason you are here." Make no mistake, Trump made Carney Canada's PM. And Trump knows it. Canadian voters fell for Trump's gambit.
2. In America, Trump is a developer who worked in New York real estate, a showman who now gets vote from ordinary, working Americans: He stands up for America. Carney supposedly stood up for Canada! Except Carney worked for Goldman-Sachs and has lived abroad for most of his life.
3. Trump has been through the wringer - we know too much about the guy. No one knows anything about Carney.
There's no doubt that trump expects to get what he wants out of Kearney during the negotiations. Kearney won't be interested in standing up for Canada, he will be interested in structuring this in such a way that it looks like he stood up for Canada even though he didn't.
We'll see what kind of deal we get. Trump is in trouble with his tariffs already so he's been talking about backing off on some of them or at least reducing them. Kearney can pretend that he got those as concessions from trump and make himself look good
-
1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
I know every politician considers themselves leadership material but I don’t see an obvious successor waiting in the wings to replace PP. That last leadership contest was painfully long - they couldn’t go through that again. PP forced JTs resignation and the end of the carbon tax before running an impressive campaign in Trump’s shadow. Furthermore his defeat didn’t just happen. Fanjoy (my iPad wanted fanboy) worked relentlessly for two years to unseat him. Unlike many others, he wasn’t a Johnny come lately.
Well and more importantly he delivered almost 30 new seats 41% of the popular vote.
While the loss of his seat is embarrassing You can't go ignoring those other numbers. He's done better than any conservative leader since Brian Mulroney and that's not nothing.
He's going to have some hard questions to answer but I can't see why anybody will get rid of them with that kind of performance. More importantly that appears to be the new base, he was pulling at that level for months and months so they're not just flashes in the pan or people who temporarily decided to vote conservative.
It looks like he lost his riding due to the trump effect and I'm sure he's furious. The sad thing is as a leader can't watch his own writing very carefully while he's out on the campaign trip and somehow this slip through the cracks. The guy who once said he didn't see any conservative signs out until a week before the end of the election.
He's going to take heat for it and he's going to get smacked around for it but at the end of the day it's hard to walk away from his other accomplishments
-
1 minute ago, herbie said:
Like it or not, believe it or not most people thought the threat to our county superceded their everyday grievances and most of them decided Carney was the best choice. Borne out by the migration of votes from the NDP and BQ.
Crying for change as loud as you can isn't going to work if it's not decidedly change for the better. And the center and the left said Carney was enough change for them.
Live with it. Time to cooperate and not just complain.
Herbie we all know that if it had gone the other way you would be demanding Revolution and assassination of PoilievreS as soon as possible
Here's the thing sparky. Cooperation is a two-way street. The CPC got almost as many votes as Kearney. So will you be demanding that the liberals start to cooperate with the CPC and do things like build Pipelines and cut expenditures and so on? Or is your cooperation only one way?
-
47 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:
Last night Jason Kenney was on CBC saying there is already some bad blood between PPs team and many CPC riding associations members because he had pushed aside “dozens and dozens” of local grassroots candidates and replaced them with his hand-picked appointees. That is also a tradition of sorts but Kenney suggested it went over particularly poorly- not sure if it’s because of the number of candidates it happened to or just they way they went about it. Anyway if true pushing another candidate aside for his own benefit may not be well received.
I only know of a few, but part of the problem was the party did not allow the local ridings to pick a candidate till the last minute. In many cases they parachuted someone in which is a constant problem with liberals but traditionally hasn't been a thing for the conservatives as much and is more bitterly Resented when it does happen within the conservatives as a result. I know of one guy who was pushed out of the way and he's been door knocking and raising money and working hard for almost 2 years now, and his writing did not like that one little bit
They really do need to handle that better. Candidates should be selected earlier so that they can get to work, and you need to respect the riding.
47 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:Yeah but he had a 25-point lead initially and the liberals ended up only 3 seats shy of a majority.
He didn't have a 25-point lead initially. He had a 25-point lead at the best of times at the absolute height against Trudeau.
When Trudeau left and carney came on then it was a different race especially with trump
It's hard to take you guys seriously when you keep trying to compare PP's polling in November 2024 before trump and before justin left with the election race which began after trump's tariffs and after trudeau left and carney had been selected. Carney immediately soared to a much higher place over the CPC
Not to mention the fact that at his best poilievre was pulling about 44%. He got 42%. Are you trying to suggest that a 2% drop, within the margin of error of most of the poles, is some sort of absolutely disastrous event?
I mean seriously. If we're going to have an honest conversation about this you have to stop with the nonsense. Over the two years since his election as leader he managed to get the party up to about 42 to 44% in the polls, he held that point for almost a year and change, and that's what he finished with. What changed was how people felt about the liberals due to the leadership changing and the fact that they got scared by trump. That boosted the liberals up and there was nothing that carney could have done about that.
So let's get real. He didn't blow anything. The liberals were able to capitalize on the fear trump brought to the table and a change of leadership to be able to steal the votes of the block and the NDP and combine them under the liberal banner and manage to win the election. It was an amazing feat and probably once in a lifetime but they pulled it off. The fact that they did something amazing does not mean that Poilievre did something wrong. Any other point in history his performance would have been a runaway major majority
-
2 hours ago, 500channelsurfer said:
To learn more about Canadians' real opinions, polls should be done asking them who they would vote for if we used a 100% proportional representation system.
I am surprised no polling firm does this, in addition to of course polling on their voting intentions under the current first-past-the-post system. A PR poll alone would not be useful.
There have been independent polls about proportional representation of stuff but honestly I can't imagine why they would ask that during an election
-
48 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
The Tories did well esp. with two key groups - younger people and those around Toronto. I’d prefer a more PCesque style but those who say more of the same is the right answer have a strong case.
More of the same with tweaks
There were definitely things he could have done better in this election and the fact that he did well should not stop him from pursuing those improvements
But at the end of the day he got about 42 percent. And unlike the liberals he wasn't borrowing any votes,
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Political Smash said:
Oh right a scrutineer eh you wef sock puppet
Yes you damp re tard
-
2 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:
Pierre Poilievre seemed to have a one dimensionality in most of his exchanges with the Liberals . . . endless slogans, and a personal 'harshness' in his manner. This didn't change the fact that he would be a better policy maker than Trudeau (who had no policy other than to make himself look good) but, there was that harshness that turned many off. This was so very apparent in the taped interview where Pierre Poilievre eats his apple while a journalist tries to bait and trap him. Very arrogant, very disrespectful to any viewer of any stripe. Not the 'stuff' leaders are made of. I did hope the Conservatives would win this election . . .
There's a lot of people that really like that harshness and frankly it was a welcome change after the nervous answers we saw with sheer and erin.
The endless slogan earring was a major problem though.
You can get away with looking arrogant once in awhile. Trudeau certainly did, constantly. But the problem is he never took the opportunities to look really Prime ministerial.
The Apple interview actually boosted his popularity scores as best prime minister quite a bit and got a lot of play. But what you didn't see is that statesman like opportunities where he stood up and looked like a statesman conducting the business of the country. He fell very short there and that was a problem
-
3 hours ago, Moonbox said:
Canadians were plenty upset with the Liberals. Absent of any consideration of leadership, the Liberals were polling under 30%. Add Poilievre and Carney to the mix, and well you saw what happened.
That's not how it works. When the leaders switched the pole changed overnight. Probably ever had been there the whole time so he's not a variable.
It's painfully obvious that the party was not in any way shape or form being held accountable into association from justin. Justin left, the party bounced back.
QuoteIf you want to convince yourself that Carney's brief incumbency and deh media had more to do with Poilievre's defeat than his -20% net favorability and the easy comparisons to Trump that his rhetoric invited, go for it, I guess. 🤷♂️
If you want to pretend that the liberals under Justin Trudeau were pulling exactly the same as the liberals under Carney then You probably need to look at professional help.
It is painfully obvious that people weren't that upset with the liberals. They blamed Trudeau. They believed carney when he said that Trudeau is gone and the problems of the liberals were gone And that his liberals would be different.
His childish to pretend that it didn't happen that way. And it's childish to pretend that trump wasn't a thing.
You take trump out of the equation and carney would have lost the election. You take carney out of the equation and leave Justin Trudeau in place and it would have been one of the greatest landslides in Canadian political history
-
12 hours ago, betsy said:
There were some tensions within the party and between the Federal and Provincial Conservatives. There could be issues among them, that we don't know about.
A pundit had suggested that Ford would want to become leader of the Federal Conservatives, and run for Prime Minister in the next election.Poilievre might have to step down as leader.
I was thinking Lisa Raitt, might make a come-back and become leader.
Your thoughts.The division is primarily between poilievre's Campaign manager and the ford government. That probably won't answer
Ford can only become Prime Minister if Poilievre is thrown out which does not look like we'll be the case at the moment. It would seem that he gets at least one more shot at an election before that
44 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:People knew he was president in November.
But they didn't know about the tariffs. And they didn't know that carney would be in instead of Justin that wasn't noted until january
And at the point where the campaign began carney shot up and it was expected to be a runaway liberal majority.
So no that's not revisionist history that's just you lying about the fact that the polls were different when it was a completely different person and pretending that that applies to the circumstances with Kearney.
-
5 minutes ago, eyeball said:
Judges have made it clear simply locking them up is not an option because they know in the absence of proper medical facilities that means a return to prison-like institutional conditions that violate people's rights as patients not to mention their human rights.
Too bad we spend all our money on climate change and safe supply. We can find a way to lock them up anyway.
At the end of the day we don't have any more money. We can't tax more, the liberals are already on planning on spending us into Oblivion, our debt to GDP is climbing to dangerous levels, and our economy is slowing down.
You have to pick your battles
7 minutes ago, eyeball said:The numbers of people who do something threatening or violent is miniscule compared to the numbers of people who just wander around.
If they have negative interactions with the police lock them up. If they're just wandering around leave them alone. The crime isn't having mental health issues the crime is becoming dangerous
8 minutes ago, eyeball said:If however the health system had an adequate number of well-funded psychiatric hospitals and facilities capable of meeting at the very least the same standards and safeguards any other patient in the medical system expects, judges might be more amenable to medical and legal advice that prescribes the suspension of a person's rights to their freedom is occasionally appropriate.
Well you should have thought of that before you blew our money on climate change and safe supply.
You can't have these things if you run our economy into the ground with other woke agenda policies that behave like an anchor on our economic engines.
You think that there's an infinite magic money want and there isn't. If you want to have this kind of compassionate service you have to have an extremely healthy economy producing at a high level of efficiency so that there's room in the tax base to be able to pay for it. And you can't be wasting money on useless programs like safe supply that just simply got a whole bunch of high schoolers addicted to drugs while we watched fentanyl deaths Skyrocket through the roof
We'll just find something else to charge them with and lock them up for that. Shouldn't be too hard.
1 minute ago, eyeball said:Nope, we just live with it like we live with the risk of dying in a plane crash or having a bolt of lightning strike us. The risk of dying at the hands of a mentally ill person is that remote.
Now we'll just lock them up. People are already starting to call for it. Turns out that you kill a bunch of 5-year-olds and such at a festival with a car and it upsets some folk. I know you're fine with it but a lot of people aren't and they're getting angry
-
1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:
I think we need WAY more community mental health care workers. That’s exactly where the dollars need to go. Raise taxes to do it.
Locking people up isn’t a realistic solution to the problem.
taxes can't go any higher. Investment fleeing Canada, growing unemployment and we only grew 1.4% in the last 10 years. If anything we have to significantly reduce taxes just to survive. Not to mention the money we're going to have to pay back on interest on all the crap we borrow
If you wanted a not lock them up solution you needed to come up with that before we got to this point
-
1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:
Yup...Ignore
Wallow in your pity LOSER.
LOL well it makes a nice change from your pages of melt down
-
10 minutes ago, Moonbox said:
The tone and temperament of a discussion is set by its floor, not by its ceiling. I appreciate what you're trying to say, but nuanced and fact-based discussion don't survive long after the baboon starts flinging poo.
Again, not who we're talking about.
As for the ignore feature, it only works on people with lives/hobbies/friends that don't spend all day polluting every thread on the board with their rageposting. 😑
Awww muffin
How's the math lessons?
You're the one that chases me around the form not the other way around as a rule
-
18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:
Ok screw it then.
You're family??!?! er..... well maybe don't?
QuoteI was thinking you would be reasonable but I see it is too late for you.
You said something stupid and got laughed at and once again you wanted to be my fault
He can't keep blaming me for your stupidity
QuoteWhen you resort to calling out my kids and grandkids... that is a step too far, even for you.
Dude I don't believe you have any. And after you spending two weeks posting ass p*** you don't get to say what's over the line and what isn't. You started this thread, the whole thread was designed to mock and make fun of people and now that you got mocked and made fun of you're having a hissy fit and a mental breakdown.
Not to mention the fact it was you that brought up your alleged kids not me
I hope to hell I'm writing you don't have kids, I can't imagine anyone having to live with that sort of embarrassment as being related to you
-
11 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
There are two powerful constituencies that agree on the status quo: firstly, the patient rights movement that prizes individual liberty over safety and is by no means confined to Canada; secondly, us. We the people have made it clear to the politicians and bean counters that we want to spend scarce health care dollars elsewhere.
Then locking them up becomes the only option. You can't let these people wander around and kill folks.
-
Just now, ExFlyer said:
Yeah, Christmas Morning is tough for my kids and Grandkids.
I'm sure there's many difficulties for your imaginary family
QuoteIf that was supposed to be some sort of insult......major FAIL LOL
HAHAAHA well it was just a simple jest ... till THAT reply
Now it's hilarious 
did this entire thread is a testament to your childish nature.
-
16 minutes ago, suds said:
That just about sums up everything in a nutshell. Instead of focusing on Trudeau, Conservatives should have spent their energy focusing on the Liberal party. Otherwise, when Trudeau's replaced.... problem disappears.
Absolutely. And instead of focusing on the carbon tax they should have focused on their fiscal failings more broadly.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:
Yeah but you gotta wait.. It ain't happening soon
I got to wait. But I'm an adult so I can do that. It's not like when you're waiting for Christmas morning and can't cope
-
Just now, herbie said:
No, he just reverted to calling Carney 'another Trudeau' and stuck to his same song of fear and negativism about Canada. Even our new Tory MP in his first interview this morning kept it up by saying 'Canada is weak'.
But hey equal opportunity here. The usual gloom-sayers can gloat how the evil Singh is gone and they'll not see his pink turban ever again and the rest of us can gloat over Milhouse Poilievre losing his seat.
Now we wait and see if the Tories can offer cooperation on what's good for all Canada or continue on the path of utter obstructionism.
Voting Carney out and removing the liberals would be what's in best interest of Canada
But I suspect they'll want to see a new NDP leader come into power first
-
Just now, WestCanMan said:
Aside from what's already developed, that ALR here is what's left that you could realistically build on.
We have developed the sides of mountains before - the British Properties being a prime example of land that wasn't great for building which was turned into some of the most expensive homes in the country - but it only makes sense around highly developed areas with lots of amenities, coastal views, etc, etc.
Compare "building on the side of one of the Selkirk mountains" to places like Texas, Wyoming, Ohio, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Florida, Utah, N & S Dakota, Montana... You can't swing a dead cat down there without it crossing a major Hwy, river system or railroad. Everything is interconnected AF. There's major infrastructure within a few miles of everywhere down there.
They don't have to build on the sides of mountains there, and none of those places are cold and dark like Fort Mac, Flin Flon, Buffalo Narrows...
We're as big as the US but have mountains, ice, and the outback. Building here isn't the same.
I absolutely positively 100% guarantee you that if we needed the room and we had to build and there was the jobs to fill we would find a way even if it meant removing the ALR.
The problem isn't having places to build.
-
1 minute ago, cougar said:
Relax guys. Your opinions don't matter any more. He won.
He won a minority. Which means you one for now
-
2 minutes ago, Barquentine said:
169 when a majority is 172? Sounds like a huge minority to me (and an oxymoron to boot)
And a minority the issue is how close the other parties are to you, not how close you are to the finish line.
If you miss becoming a majority by 25 votes, It requires three of the other parties to wipe you out then that's not so bad.
If you miss becoming a majority by 1 vote but any two parties can take you out that's not so good.
now the seats are still being counted and we don't know exactly where it's going to settle but it is not a massive minority
-
11 minutes ago, herbie said:
Has that decaying meatbag in the White House called Carney to congratulate him on his win yet?
Everyone else has.Every world leader possessing any sense of decency that is.
He's in the media bragging about how he was the one that got carney elected. I'm sure he'll get around to calling him shortly
Carney vows to bring together all Canadians, Can start by returning the lyrics in O Canada to "in all thy sons command"
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Hell about 40% of this country can't even tell the difference between a man and a woman so how are you sure?