LinkSoul60

And you know me so well to know how I've voted over the past elections don't you. Sure.... Go get a Poilievre tattoo if you're that enamoured with him....

Are you trying to convince me or yourself that Poilievre is likeable and is PM material? Again, the facts say that the majority of people don't think so and don't want him as our PM so nothing more I can add to that. No doubt that his failure also has something to do with what he stands for, and what he doesn't stand for.... Find Pierre’s Voting Record on the House of Commons Website. VOTED AGAINST: Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing Affordable housing and addressing Canada’s housing crisis (2006, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014, 2018 and 2019) Bill C-48 Raising the federal minimum wage (2004) Bill C-2 Tax cuts for the working middle class (2015) Bill C-64 Free diabetes medication Bill C-19 Tax-free first home savings account (2022) e-4516 Free Contraceptives $10-a-day child care Dental care The National School Food Program The Canada Child Benefit Pharmacare Voted 8 times against federal anti-scab legislation (2004-2023) In 20 years as a MP, he has voted against protecting the environment 400 times Voted against expansion of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), the most significant improvement to Canada’s public pension system in 50 years (2016) Voted against a 10% increase to the Old Age Security pension for those aged 75 and above (2021) Voted against taxing the rich by opposing raising the capital gains inclusion rates (2024) Subsidized daycare Same-sex marriage Stronger gun control WHAT HE’S FOR: Voted for $43.5 billion cut to healthcare funding Voted for $196.1 billion cut to funds for surgery and emergency room wait times As Housing Minister in Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, he allowed 800,000 affordable rental units to be sold off to corporate landlords and developers. Voted to increase the age of eligibility for Old Age Security (OAS) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) from 65 to 67 (2012) Pierre promoted allowing employers to abandon the pension they promised to workers Supported hiking the retirement age from 65-67 Supported C-377 and C-525 bills, which tried to bury unions Supported eliminating dependable defined benefits pensions and replacing them with inferior plans that take all the risk off banks and bosses and put it on the backs of workers, replace with Pooled Registered Pension Plan (PRPP) employer participation and contributions are voluntary Defined marriage as a union between ‘one man and one women t the exclusion of all others” (2005) Said Indigenous Peoples needed to learn the value of hard work more than they needed compensation for residential schools (2008) – “are we really getting value for all of this money” value of hard work, independence and self-reliance Worked to bring American-style anti-union laws to Canada (2013) Made it harder for Canadians to vote (2014) by introducing the Fair Election Act Promoted a ‘niqab ban’ (2015) “not going to succumb to political correctness in order to accommodate a practice that it is not aligned with Canadian values” Followed the American far-right playbook to use anti 2sLGBTQI+ language (2023) – radical gender ideology on kids – woke gender ideology imposed on our children – radical gender ideology – religion of gender ideology, proponents of radical gender ideology. Called child care a ‘slush fund,’ and tried to cut programs that support the middle class (2021) Encouraged Canadians to ‘opt-out on inflation’ with volatile crypto-currencies (2022) Used misogynist YouTube tags to court far-right supporters (2022) – men going their own way: term coined by misogynistic men who try to cut women completely out of their lives Pushed an anti-vaccine agenda (2023) Committed to free votes, allowing his MP to bring forward anti-abortion legislation (2023) endorsed by an anti-choice group. Interview with Jordan Peterson was sponsored by an anti-choice group. Supported illegal convoy blockades (2023) calling them “cheerful, patriotic, optimistic Canadians” Delivered a speech to a group that claimed it was a “myth” that residential schools robbed Indigenous children of their childhood (2023) Visited and courted far-right extremist groups such as Diagolon (2022-2024) Turned his back on Ukraine (2024) – voted against support Said he’d use the notwithstanding clause, overriding Canadian’s rights (2024) Talked down pandemic supports that helped millions of Canadians pay their bills during the crisis (2020) “we are conservatives we don’t believe in that”, we “don’t believe in big fat government programs” Posed with someone wearing a ‘straight pride’ shirt during Pride season (2023) Used the term ‘tar baby’ in the House of Commons (2009) Terminated the federal Housing Accelerator Fund, cutting billions of dollars from housing construction and making it harder for municipalities to build more homes. In January 2025, Poilievre stated he is only aware of two genders and expressed that the government should not involve itself in questions of gender identity. Has publicly stated that he will defund the CBC Big donors are real estate investors: Richard Abboud, the CEO of an REIT called Forum Asset Management is listed as donating $7,875 to the federal Conservative party since 2017, according to Elections Canada records. Poilievre’s chief strategist is a lobbyist for Galen Weston and Loblaws His deputy leader lobbied to protect a for-profit long-term care company that saw record profits and high fatalities during the pandemic His caucus chair is the chairman of a major grocery chain

Exactly....

How do you think Poilievre would have negotiated zero tariffs for Canada?

It's your liberal government too.... I get what you're trying to say but I'm of the belief we all have the opportunity to form our own opinions rather than listening to 'his' or 'hers' and believing that's the gospel. Of course there are weak minded people that believe everything that's in print or the TV, but that just doesn't apply to 'liberals'. It is what it is and if Poilievre wants to change the masses opinions of him then he's going to have to work at it.

I get what you're saying, and only commenting on the way I tend to form opinions of people. The media obviously plays a part in that but I'd like to think I can separate my own thoughts and opinions from a commentator, whomever it may be. Poilievre has a challenge ahead of him to get that negative opinions changed.... Maybe....?

Politics aside.... By the opinions of Canadian premiers and those on the other side of the political aisle like Danielle Smith, he's an affable and likeable person. He carries a much different persona than Poilievre does and that obviously appealed to people.

As always, get to the root of the problem if you want to fix it.... If you believe CBC is the reason people don't like Poilievre then that's on him to change the narrative. I don't buy that CBC is the reason though.... people had more than enough opportunity to watch and listen to him talk for himself and didn't need CBC commentary for that. You either like or dislike some people for your own reasons in whatever they may be, and typically the only person that can change that is the person you have the opinion of.

I don't remember specifics of shootings the last few years but any facts I can find say there isn't a 'trans shooter' problem. That's just political rhetoric.... https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/most-mass-school-shootings-are-not-carried-out-by-transgender-people-2024-09-06/ A lot of other links and all similar...

With due respect.... call it what you want and justify it being CBC's fault if you'd like. Facts are facts...regardless of how they became facts.

Have you fact checked that comment, or just anecdotal given your political leanings?

That's your perspective which is fine and that you're obviously entitled to. The fact of the results don't support that though.... The fact is that he lost and that the majority of people do not have a positive impression of him. https://www.policymagazine.ca/poilievre-is-back-with-more-of-the-same/ Though he won the leadership of the Conservative Party handily in 2022, capturing 68% of the vote on the first ballot, Poilievre has not been as successful in connecting broadly with the Canadian public (and with women voters in particular). Back in October of 2024, when the Conservatives held a 21-point lead over the Liberals, an Abacus Data poll found that there were still more people who held a negative impression of Poilievre than a positive one. Now that the 2025 election has come and gone, and the Conservatives remain the Official Opposition, an Angus Reid poll finds that while 68% of Conservative voters support Poilievre, 54% of those who thought about voting Conservative but ultimately decided against it want to see him replaced. Poilievre’s viability as leader depends on convincing the latter of these voter groups to give him another look.

Because a big part of Carney's platform is to make Canada a leading energy superpower? Sure, educated urban 'lefties' are oblivious to Canada's natural resources.... Are you serious? Because Polievre said so.... Take your blue hat off for a minute and read where there will be an announcement in 2 weeks around port infrastructure. That's bad news or is the only thing conservatives care about is another oil pipeline from AB to the coast? Yes, you don't build ports in a couple weeks, it obviously takes time. I have no idea what's going to happen in 4 years but will assume that if port and other infrastructure projects are in full motion that will bode well for Carney. I'd suggest that you know very little of the VCE ETF that you apparently own. Think about it.... the better the assets within the ETF perform the better the fund performs. That's common sense and not that hard to understand is it....? Do you think the fund price rises or falls just 'because' or do you think there's a correlation between the assets performance and the funds performance? So what if Carney has significant equity holdings. That's financially astute and has been dealt with in a blind trust. I have no idea how much Poilievre has invested in VCE, nor do I care. You can't tell me though that he doesn't want those assets within the fund to perform well....because that makes the fund perform.

You're aware then that there is a direct correlation to the performance of assets within the fund like BN, CPKC, RY, etc... and the ETF's performance. The funds performance is only as good as the assets within its performance. I'd say congrats if you had the BN holdings that Carney does....

Boges said it, apparently he's taking French lessons; There are certainly barriers between Ford and Parliament Hill. For one, he has only Grade 9 French. But he’s taking lessons. “Comme ci, comme ça,” the premier answered when I asked how it was going. According to one insider, Ford is serious about a run and believes he can win without Quebec if he can connect in Alberta. https://torontolife.com/deep-dives/the-insatiable-political-ambitions-of-doug-ford/

What more can be said....? Poilievre lost the election and his Ontario riding for a reason. One of those is the obvious, people preferred Carney. The second is that women and persons in the older age groups in particular generally don't like the guy... his persona and lack of charisma are not endearing. Call it what you want....if a person doesn't like you because of persona you project, they're not voting for you.

I'd think commons sense would be able to figure this out.... Many elderly that are compromised do stay at home.... in their senior living or long term care homes. Many cancer and other compromised patients stay in the hospital. I'm sure they'd love to be home, but their health is compromised. If you believe the last published data (I could quickly find) of 0.045% having non-serious complications and 0.011% having serious complications, then sure, they're in jeopardy. Correct. It's your choice to get vaccinated or not. It's not your choice to potentially expose the virus to those who are vulnerable.

There is an analogy of talking to a brick wall that applies here. I'll stay away from that....

He's a real guy that people can relate to. Down the road and post-Carney, a good bet to be our next PM.

If I objectively look at the ongoing and vast investments around the world in cleaner and/or renewable energy, could I arrive at the subjective opinion that the investments are justified, or is that an objective opinion?

Your argument of cost is with the companies investing in clean energy, not the 'climate deniers'. Corporate investments are ongoing and all towards cleaner and/or renewable energy. That's not going to stop. Look no further than the Mag 7 and their recent investments in energy to support data centres, which you're paying for in some fashion when you pay your gas or electricity bills and/or buy their products or services. https://www.renewableinstitute.org/google-launches-20-billion-renewable-energy-initiative-to-fuel-ai-advancements/ Google have revealed a partnership with renewable energy developer Intersect Power and the investment fund TPG Rise Climate to generate sufficient renewable energy to power multiple gigawatt-scale data centres. The overall investment in renewable energy is estimated at $20 billion, with Intersect already funding the first project.

lol... don't look if it's that repulsive to you.... People understand what they've done, and don't think it turns people off at all. Tattoos have been commonplace forever, and more so now. Admittedly though.... I do scratch my head at those who get tattoos on their face. A bit too aggressive of a look for my liking....

So the solution is to elect politicians who have no investments so there is no potential conflict of interest? Again, Poilievre holds investments in Brookfield, big 6 banks, Enbridge, CPKC rail, etc.... No conflict of interest there, or only because Carney holds more, and is a 'lib'?

I understand what you're asking and why, but struggle with 'justify the investment'... First, I'd comment the same as Herbie, 'we need to invest because we have to'. The world gets it, and the fact is we are and will continue to invest in cleaner energy here and globally. The cost of not investing is far greater to future generations than the financial cost to this and upcoming generations. It's like saying we can lessen the price of cars if we removed electronic and structural safety features, or lessen the cost of home construction if they didn't have to meet building code. Not directly on subject title so apologies... but can't get my head around 'case to justify'. Leaving a better world behind for when we're not here is my justification.

And, your point is, what? It's called investing.