Moonbox

That's exactly what I was making fun of you for, you absolute clown. I'll take the UK government being so impressed with how Carney performed that they hired him as the first non-British citizen to run the Bank of England in 300 years over the retarded yapping of an all-day internet no-life. 🤡

Okay sure: 🤡🤡🤡

Hold on there. If they invest in Bitcoin...

On the one hand, we have reality, where the Bank of Canada Governor attends to monetary policy independently of the government, and where Carney was judged to have done such a good job that he was recruited as the first non-Brit to run the Bank of England in 300 years. On the other hand, we have the flailing insistence of our forum's pre-eminent NEET telling us Carney had nothing to do with it. 🤡🤡🤡 ...and the fact that you think the former Conservative leader endorsing the new Conservative leader should be compelling tells us how much of a donkey you are.

That's why I called us "previously" reliable...until the old Reform Party losers and the culture-war assclowns took over the Party. Because you really couldn't get a much starker contrast than Carney to Trudeau. You're comparing a spoiled and empty-headed dandy who'd never had a real job in his life, to a big-brain economics PhD who keeps getting sought out and recruited to hold some of the most prestigious positions in his field. Reality exists beyond what the Conservative spin room is telling you, FYI.

Sorry, but nobody's twisting your words. You've just brought up the damage Trudeau did "under Carney", as if Justin was dancing to his tune, or something. Give me a break. Are we to believe that you read his book? 🙄 Yes, we know. That's called blind partisanship. You view everything as an all-or-nothing battle of Good vs Evil, and that everything the bad people (Liberals) say or do is by-default wrong in your mind, while you believe in and support basically everything the Good Guys say, regardless of how dumb it is.

Guess who else was "un-elected"? Or do we call it de-elected?

The election's over man. Carney was one of many informal advisors for Trudeau during the COVID response. He was made chair of their economic growth taskforce in September of 2024, which never had a chance to do much of anything. Trying to pin Trudeau's failures on Carney was a flimsy and desperate line of attack, and Canadians didn't buy it. Time to move on. No, you can't give me dozens of examples of the Liberals promoting right-wing conspiracy theories and adopting MAGA politics for the Canadian audience. You just can't. It's a comfy thought that you were the thoughtful ones, and nobody on the other side was, isn't it? Here's the crux of the problem for Poilievre though: Canadians DID like a lot of the CPC platform. Carney DID adopt a lot of it, and guess what happened? Canadians chose Carney as the better option to deliver on it, without the culture-war bullshit or a toxic shrill in charge.

Because they don't like Poilievre, and they hate his MAGA slob campaign manager. It's not just Ford either. PC Premier Tim Houston from Nova Scotia wants nothing to do with him. Poilievre makes enemies everywhere he goes. That's what happens when you're a caustic asshat.

Enough for him to lose an election to a party that was 20-25 points behind only a few months ago. It is quite simple. Poilievre has -20% net favorability. ~60% of the country can't stand him, and that number's remained steady for as long as he's been around. In that context, sure, he did exceptionally well...for a loser who lost his own seat. 😆 I hope that thought comforts you in the coming years. Hope and wish that the man who couldn't pivot from his slogans and says he rarely changes his mind, and who his party had to hide in the final week of the election has a come to Jesus moment. Pray that the next ~4 years of Trump doesn't leave baggage. Bet on the NDP coming back strong after losing official party status and bleeding its supporters to both the CPC and the Liberals. It'll all work out the way you want it to 🫂.

and then there was Trump, and Poilievre sounded like him, so they were. 🤡 Yeah but nobody gives a shit what you think or what you say. This weird notion you have that insisting on something hard enough manifests it in reality is good for nothing but laughs. Like with so many things, you can't handle a debate falling outside the narrow confines of your hysterical tribalism, so you warp reality around yourself to make it fit. The idea that previously reliable conservative voters want nothing to do with Pierre Poilievre's retarded populism literally breaks your brain.

He managed to get 50% of his constituents to vote against him and boot him out of office. It seems you're the one having trouble understanding. 😆

It's not just about how many people vote for you. It's also about how many vote against you. While you cope with the loss and soothe yourself with the idea that he increased the share of the popular vote, digest this along with it: The Liberal vote was the highest it's been in 45 years. You have to be 41 different kinds of stupid to pretend that losing the election is a "fantastic performance", especially when it's losing to a party that was polling around 20% months ago. 🙃

They'll do it again too, if the CPC and Poilievre deliver more of the same. It wasn't just the NDP and Bloc supporters either, but the Greens and a lot of Small C conservatives as well. I voted for Harper the whole time he was PM, and I spent my first 7 years on this forum arguing on his behalf. People like me want nothing to do with MAGA or Poilievre's cheap karaoke version of it. Quebec is the province where Poilievre is the least popular. I don't think he regrets not signing on with the dude that most of the province hates. 😑

Nobody forgot, it's just that PP still managed to make himself look like the worse option. I agree. This is Poilievre's campaign manager - hardcore MAGA and culture-war donkey: When you spend 3 years calling people names, shouting three word slogans, bullshitting, peddling conspiracy theories about globalist woke-radical-left agendas etc and doing basically everything you can to invite comparisons to Trump, that's what you're going to get. Nobody anticipated how much of a mess Trump would make, but the mess was assured. Poilievre sowed the winds of Trumpian populism, and he reaped the whirlwind. His caustic badgering and his circling the conspiracy vortex brought the toolbags from the PPC back into the fold, but he also united basically everyone else against him. It wasn't a fluke. They didn't "lend" their votes to Carney. They rejected Poilievre, and unless he really changes, they'll do it next time too.

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. If 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. 🤷‍♂️

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. 😑

I think the fertile ground was laid before Trump started pooping everywhere. The question you need to consider is why didn't the threat of Trump benefit Poilievre? Why couldn't he capitalize on that, given how disgruntled Canadians were with the Liberal Party?

I'm not sure who you suppose considers shadenfreude a wholesome pleasure, or when/where exactly you were expecting "true dialogue" from the hysterical manbabies in question. Also, if you were to tell me that you didn't spare yourself a chuckle at the thought of them seething in their basements, wondering how it all went wrong, I wouldn't buy it. You don't have to admit though. 😆 I can appreciate not rubbing salt in the dejection of regular conservative voters, but that's not who we're talking about. Maybe, but those "external factors" are likely to be the next 4 years of Trump and the chaos and failure that brings. I don't think Poilievre is going to have a lot of luck blaming "Trump pooping all over the place (and himself)" on the Liberals. The cause and effect in this case is a lot easier to digest for the average voter than the esoteric economics of inflation and money supply. Something I would worry about in the future, if I actually cared. One of the benefits of not being a hysterical ideological zealot is that your ego and identity aren't shaped by politics or what people are saying on an interweb forum. 🤷‍♂️

Yes. A lot of the criticisms are justified. The Liberal record does deserve to be highlighted. I think a plurality of Canadians agreed on what the problems were and how the Liberals mishandled it and in many cases made it worse. The problem was that they didn't agree that PP was a serious leader best equipped to deal with it. Highlighting affordability and how the Liberals have ballooned the public service and the deficit is a compelling message, but that not when it's wrapped in Trumpian packaging and all of the nonsense that comes with.

I think where he actually did a good job was in places like Windsor where he was able to flip NDP to CPC, broke into the 905, and how he was more in-tune with younger folk. The problem is that those gains were overshadowed by the fact that he got even more people to vote against him. He grew the Liberal vote more than he grew the Conservative one, and that's no-bueno. I think the telling part of all of this is that at the ending stage of the campaign where the CPC started to gain ground in (especially in Ontario), was when they removed Poilievre entirely from the advertisements and messaging. The commercials during the Leafs games didn't even mention him.

Some, maybe? Which of the above that Flyer's mocking do you think understand what perspective even means? I think we can oblige ourselves a bit of shadenfreude after enduring years of their rage-posting and conspiracy theories. I don't see this as a win for Carney or the Liberals either. The Liberal Party, especially, didn't earn it or deserve it. Rather, I see it as a repudiation in Canada of Donald Trump and Pierre Poilievre, and their cultivation of incoherent populist rage and worthless culture-war bullshit. I could end up being very wrong, but I think the CPC are fooling themselves if they think that their creep leader has momentum and can ride it into the next election. The better part of 4 years of Trump are ahead of us, and it's already a debacle and only getting worse. Poilievre will need a massive rebranding and image overhaul to shake the association, but I'm not sure he's capable of it like Harper was.

Compared to who? He's not even really progressive in the context of the CPC. He spends way too much time and energy railing about "woke radical left ideology" for that statemen to be credible. You're right about this, but for the wrong reasons. Poilievre lost because he borrowed too much from Trump, and sounded too much like Trump. If he hadn't spent the last 3 years calling people names, circling the conspiracy vortex, playing culture-war and repeating 3-word MAGA-style slogans ad-nauseum, the comparison wouldn't have stuck. Worse, however, is how he couldn't (or wouldn't) pivot when these all became liabilities. He just kept running it down the middle.

Weeks into the campaign and Trump's tariff war, he was still throwing his slogans around and verbing the noun. He was still railing about woke this, woke that, radical left this, radical left that. This was an own-goal of epic proportions. Pierre's fluffers are out there trying to paint this as a big win for them because he increased the CPC's vote, but the bigger story is that he increased the Liberal vote by even more. 🫠