Jump to content

Trudeau is going to lose.


PIK

Recommended Posts

Trudeau threatens Canada with another election in 18 months if he doesn't get his majority!

 

A few minutes later Trudeau said that if he only obtained another minority there could be another election in 18 months' time, which would make it the eighth federal vote in 19 years.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canadas-trudeau-struggling-campaign-defensive-over-election-call-first-debate-2021-09-03/

 

This election wasn't even necessary to begin with!
And there he was, on national tv, threatening to plunge us back into a costly, unnecessary election!
Everything that's plague-ing us will be back on-hold for more weeks of campaigning!


While we're all grappling with a 4th wave - while our economy is struggling to get back on its feet - while people are worried about the rising cost of living - while the cattle industry is on the brink of collapse - while natural disasters are happening everywhere (just look at the flood in NYC) -

all he damn cares about is his majority!

Edited by betsy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you're mad Trudeau called an election

even though it gives you the opportunity to unseat him as PM, which you claim is of the utmost importance

would you rather him just stay in power for longer and then call the election in a few years?

if anything, according to your own logic, that getting rid of Trudeau is what matters most, Trudeau did you a favor by calling an election, so why are you complaining about it?

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/31/2021 at 2:49 PM, Yzermandius19 said:

yeah and CPC voters will feel the same

then give O'Toole a pass for governing just like Trudeau

just because he isn't Trudeau

and he'll actually get more of the Trudeau agenda passed

than Trudeau ever did

You really re taking the weirdest stance I've seen on this site, and that's really a high bar to surpass. O'Toole clearly isn't anything like Trudeau nor would he govern anything like Trudeau. He's not conservative enough to suit me but he's one hell of a lot less of an arrogant snot of a progressive identity politics idiot than Trudeau.

Edited by Argus
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Argus said:

You really re taking the weirdest stance I've seen on this board, and that's really a high bar to surpass. O'Toole clearly isn't anything like Trudeau nor would he govern anything like Trudeau. He's not conservative enough to suit me but he's one hell of a lot less of an arrogant snot of a progressive identity politics idiot than Trudeau.

O'Toole is bad on identity politics

the only real difference is he panders a little less shamelessly on it

but he cucks to it nonetheless, so even if he doesn't constantly harp on it

he isn't going to prevent it's spread either

he'll fold in the face of it, like clockwork

 

he would govern almost exactly like Trudeau

the only real difference would be what he says

not what he does

and even there, he sounds a lot more like Trudeau than Scheer

who sounded too much like Trudeau and was clearly a cuck

and he certainly sounds a lot more like Trudeau than Harper

who for all his talk, got nothing done, and caved to Liberal agenda constantly himself

 

see Doug Ford for a prime example

of how cuckservative politicians claim to be on the side of conservatives

and blow sunshine up their asses

but governs as if he was a liberal

and many conservatives are totally fine with this

just because his party affiliation

as if that is a meaningful distinction

 

O'Toole is clearly more of a cuck than Ford

and yet look how indistinguishable Ford is

from the Liberals who came before him

especially in the wake of covid

so why you'd give O'Toole the benefit of the doubt

after the Doug Ford debacle

is just very naive

 

Canadians don't even know what a real conservative is

they just elect fakes who aren't as vocally progressive as their opposition

yet govern as if they were vocal progressives regardless

 

how many times do you need to get burned on that hot stove

before you realize that if you touch it

you're gonna get burned again?

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2021 at 8:11 AM, Shady said:

Like father like son. 

This actually reminds me more of the "caesar salad special" train and Justin's own trouble wth protestors lol. 

Back when P.E. Trudeau was PM he gave the finger to a bunch of people in Salmon Arm BC who were protesting (because of the growing inflation and Trudeau's attack on the resource sector), and then the train was pelted with vegetables and rocks the rest of the way through Canada.

Now Justin is facing seriously angry protestors while he's out trying to campaign, and it's got a lot to do with his attacks on the energy sector and inflation as well (of course there's much more to the protests against Justin but that's an aside).

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol - Trudeau held us in suspense for his so-called "BOLD" plans......and when finally he unveiled it,  what did he give instead?

  A rehash of promises he never kept, in his 6 years as PM! :rolleyes:

 

 

Pro-Liberal media are trying to define O'Toole with "assault weapons."  Trudeau has become more offensive in his attack!

 

To be too "cool," isn't appropriate now.  O'Toole has to push back.   You can push back without going overboard about it.   Show some fire!   3 out of 4 Canadians think this election is unnecessary!  Tap into that!

Show and mirror the silent OUTRAGE which a lot of  people actually feel over this  frivolous election!   Voice their outrage!

 

  O'Toole must start to be passionate about hammering this: 

 

This unnecessary election is costing us money and time, energy, and LEADERSHIP ..............at a crucial time with this 4th wave,  and economic struggle.   

We went to this election for what?  A rehash of unkept promises by Trudeau!

And ,Trudeau has the gall to threaten us to another wasteful election if he doesn't get what he wants!

 

DRUM THAT IN!

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Libs have nothing else but to get ugly. And most people will not fall for it this time. The Lib political machine is not what it used to be. The purge of senior libs has hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"About time!" says Blair, with Justin Trudeau on a campaign rally, for O'Toole to blah-blah-blah!

:rolleyes:

 

Blair should be looking and wagging his finger at  Trudeau!

Trudeau has no concept of "about time!"   He's never learned or grasped the concept of it! He's still too slow!   Look how long it took him to decide to review the allegations against Raj Saini - and by the time he acted,  it's just a tad too late to remove Saini's name on the ballot!

 

About time you skedaddle and vacate the PMO, Justin!

 

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, PIK said:

The Libs have nothing else but to get ugly. And most people will not fall for it this time. The Lib political machine is not what it used to be. The purge of senior libs has hurt.

 

They're really playing the assault weapon angle.   It's gonna work, if O'Toole doesn't fire back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, betsy said:

 

They're really playing the assault weapon angle.   It's gonna work, if O'Toole doesn't fire back.

He needs to point out the weapons banned were not assault weapons, that the Liberals simply expanded the definition, and that most were banned because they 'looked' militaristic, even though they had the same actual abilities/characteristics as other guns with plainer wooden frames. He also needs to point out that Trudeau has loosened sentences for gun crime and that murders and shootings are on the rise and are all coming from street gangs using smuggled US weapons, mostly hand guns.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Argus said:

He needs to point out the weapons banned were not assault weapons, that the Liberals simply expanded the definition, and that most were banned because they 'looked' militaristic, even though they had the same actual abilities/characteristics as other guns with plainer wooden frames. He also needs to point out that Trudeau has loosened sentences for gun crime and that murders and shootings are on the rise and are all coming from street gangs using smuggled US weapons, mostly hand guns.

Climate Barbie was right if you shout it loud enough and often enough Canadians will believe what ever you tell them.. It is almost like Canadians are not smart enough to do their own research, that they have to be spoon fed everything.... and if it comes form the liberals it has to be true... Any one with fire arms has debunked the liberals truth many times over...And yet some how legal gun owners are to blame for everything that is wrong in this country... And now Justin is providing funding to ban all handguns across the country....all in the name of keeping Canadians safer what a load of horse shit... we don't need  a leader, what we need is for people to start thinking on their own.... Canadians deserve Justin and his merry band of lying sacks of shit.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "assault style" gun ban(emphasis on "style") is another step to Trudeau's ultimate goal  of a total gun ban. He and Bill Blair are just fearmongering but a lot of people will fall for it. I'm no gun expert but no fully automatic guns can be bought in Canada. Trudeau is going after semi-automatic guns today and the banned list will of course continue to grow. I did not hear all of the Trudeau/Blair act but I did notice they mention the gun lobby repeatedly but I heard nothing about getting tough on gang shootings. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, ironstone said:

The "assault style" gun ban(emphasis on "style") is another step to Trudeau's ultimate goal  of a total gun ban. He and Bill Blair are just fearmongering but a lot of people will fall for it. I'm no gun expert but no fully automatic guns can be bought in Canada. Trudeau is going after semi-automatic guns today and the banned list will of course continue to grow. I did not hear all of the Trudeau/Blair act but I did notice they mention the gun lobby repeatedly but I heard nothing about getting tough on gang shootings. 

Thats because legal gun owners are to blame for all violent crime in Canada. or so the story goes, " These weopons are designed to kill people in the fastest time possiable" The only people in Canada allowed to own or operate assualt weopons are RCMP, DND and other federal and provincial depts...and the odd collector, the weapons banned by Justin were made for the public, they can't be used any where other than on a range and sports shooting..., can not be used for hunting, or any other use....

Not one even mentioned why non firing "look a like" wpns or pellet or bb guns , or airsoft are on the list, and lastly a long list of legal hunting shotguns and bolt action rifles are also on the list, thats what the public knows of so far, but the RCMP have been adding tones of new weapons' to the list... including more shotguns and bolt action rifles...None of which even fit the description of what the liberals describe as weapons' designed to kill as many people in the shortest time...

But the liberals fail to mention it is illegal's to own any magazine that holds more than 5 rounds...shot guns and bolt action rifles have the same rules, none carry more than 5 rounds...with exception of pistol, mags but they have been pinned to only hold 5 rounds...having an unpinned mag in your procession means you forfeit all your weapons and privilege's of owning a firearm for life only a retard would risk everything on that...How we even got pellet , bb and airsoft's and paintball guns on the list amazing because our kids have been using these deadly firearms for dozens of years and no one has died from one yet...

They use the 3 or 4 mass shootings we have had in the last 20 years as a reason why, ya i said 20 to 25 years... and yet the US has one mass shooting ever week .... But some how we need tighter gun control, for legal gun owners the illegal gun owners are safe, they don't have to turn their stuff in... 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Argus said:

He needs to point out the weapons banned were not assault weapons, that the Liberals simply expanded the definition, and that most were banned because they 'looked' militaristic, even though they had the same actual abilities/characteristics as other guns with plainer wooden frames. He also needs to point out that Trudeau has loosened sentences for gun crime and that murders and shootings are on the rise and are all coming from street gangs using smuggled US weapons, mostly hand guns.

 

He has to make that point across.   The pro-Liberal media are trying to bury him by  focusing on this.  Listening to him yesterday, at least he is making clarifications.   HOWEVER, the Liberals are making his clarification like as if he's been flip-flopping.

The O'Toole campaign has to nick  this pronto, the way they did with abortion!  It has to be so that it won't affect O'Toole.  I don't know why they were caught flatfooted on this issue!  

 

The TVA debate mattered - at least in Quebec. The next two  debates will be fiery - at least, Trudeau will be.   As Ambrose pointed out, Trudeau has been rattled.   He is on panic-mode, and he'll really go after O'Toole.  O'Toole has to be prepared for  them AT EVERY POSSIBLE ANGLE! 

It'll be nice if he has a planned clever come-back to throw at Trudeau - something that will catch on, and stick! 

Lol - Trudeau has a record of so many dumb-calls to pick on!  It shouldn't be too hard.  Inject a little bit of humor at it....... without seeming to laugh at Trudeau.  

O'Toole should bring up past dumb-calls he's made - like giving 12 million dollars to Loblaws for energy-saving fridges (for his supposed  green initiative)!  Multi-billion conglomerate would need 12 million dollars handout?   Like, what was that all about?

Many homeless would've been modestly housed with that 12 million!

 

Maybe, since Trudeau's been so proud of his record - that's what the Cons should bust!

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

on guns

These are mostly hunting rifles and shotguns you guys simply reclassified as assault weapons to pretend you were doing something about violet crime, when in reality all you actually did was lower sentences for for criminals who use and posses illegal firearms.

on abortion

You guys have been bringing this up for thirty years and for what? This is settled and 80% of Canadians are pro choice. Stop trying to scare Canadians. I thought you were the guy who was going to run a positive campaign and all we hear from you is fearmongering.

on health care

Every country in the world other than Cuba has a mix of public health care supported by private healthcare. All our European partners have it and they seem to have much lower wait times than Canada. What have you done about wait times in the last six years prime minister? Nothing.

on climate change

Conservatives prefer targets which are actually achievable to these fantasies you like to spin. Your plan won't accomplish what you say it will and you know it. You're just putting out a big number to impress people while having no intention of ever reaching it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CPAC says the gap is now closing between the Conservatives and Liberals, no surprise there.

Watching CPAC it's clear how the political parties all think voters are stupid, more so for the progressive parties. The leftist parties constantly talk about the importance of diversity(skin colour and dozens or hundreds of genders I presume) but they will not tolerate diversity of opinion. All major party candidates tell voters they will be the voice for the constituency but the harsh reality is that they are running in this election to promote the interest's of their party first and foremost. Governments will pay for this and that, few will admit that the taxpayer will bear the full cost when all is said and done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ironstone said:

CPAC says the gap is now closing between the Conservatives and Liberals, no surprise there.

Watching CPAC it's clear how the political parties all think voters are stupid, more so for the progressive parties. The leftist parties constantly talk about the importance of diversity(skin colour and dozens or hundreds of genders I presume) but they will not tolerate diversity of opinion. All major party candidates tell voters they will be the voice for the constituency but the harsh reality is that they are running in this election to promote the interest's of their party first and foremost. Governments will pay for this and that, few will admit that the taxpayer will bear the full cost when all is said and done.

Diversity of opinion is not tolerated by the Canadian media. All mainstream reporters, commentators and opinion makers are required to hold the same left wing values and beliefs on all social policy issues. And they insist all politicians do too. Any opinion not supported is anathema, and uttering it blaspheme. Look at what happened to Stockwell Day's commenting gig when he ever so hesitantly pushed back against the idea Canada was 'systemically racist'. Gone! Never to be seen again!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. All mainstream reporters, commentators and opinion makers are required to hold the same left wing values and beliefs on all social policy issues. Any opinion not supported is anathema, and uttering it blaspheme.
2. Look at what happened to Stockwell Day's commenting gig when he ever so hesitantly pushed back against the idea Canada was 'systemically racist'. Gone! Never to be seen again!

 

 

1. You're hyperventilating again.   The parameters around diversity have been discussed to death.  Other than that, I don't know what you're talking about.
2. Such an argument - "are we systemically racist" - is such a complex question that it's separated from the questions of practical policy to the point where it's an intellectual exercise.  Surely that question can be set aside for those who want to answer it, while the grown-ups can talk about policies and trade-offs.  Of course, that approach itself would likely be decried by some, but I would defend it against those protests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You're hyperventilating again.   The parameters around diversity have been discussed to death.  Other than that, I don't know what you're talking about.

Fine. Tell me where are the right wing/conservative news organizations expressing right wing/conservative views. Name me some names of conservative columnists on the 'unacceptable' side of social issues. Who dares to write on the wrong side of gay rights, abortion, immigration, gun control, multiculturalism, the death penalty, etc.?

48 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Such an argument - "are we systemically racist" - is such a complex question that it's separated from the questions of practical policy to the point where it's an intellectual exercise. 

Except that no nuance is allowed in this question. If you fail to accept that Canada is systemically racist you will likely be anathematized from and by the mainstream media. Admit you are a racist and take a goddam knee!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. Tell me where are the right wing/conservative news organizations expressing right wing/conservative views.

2. Name me some names of conservative columnists on the 'unacceptable' side of social issues.

3. Who dares to write on the wrong side of gay rights, abortion, immigration, gun control, multiculturalism, the death penalty, etc.?

4. Except that no nuance is allowed in this question.

5. If you fail to accept that Canada is systemically racist you will likely be anathematized from and by the mainstream media. Admit you are a racist and take a goddam knee!

 

1.  Well, there are the biggest newspapers in Canada to start.  The National Post ?
2. Barbara Kay ?
3. Set some goalposts maybe.  "Wrong side" ?  There is plenty being written on these topics.
4. I agree and you bring up another point that I haven't considered.  If it's going to be an intellectual discussion, then the gating and rules of discussion need to allow for all voice and topics.
5. This is the way our mass media has always worked.  There has been a narrow spectrum of possibilities discussed, because the channels have never been trusted enough to allow all views.  You can lament that "shutting down immigration" isn't discussed, but for various reasons so are economic discussions, discussions of trade policy, nationalization of industries, two-tier health options.   There is no "public" that is believed capable of handling these issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Well, there are the biggest newspapers in Canada to start.  The National Post ?

The National Post has virtually no columnists who write from a conservative viewpoint on social issues. BTW, the biggest newspaper in Canada is the Globe, followed by the Toronto Star

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:


2. Barbara Kay ?

This Barbara Kay?

Thanks to the excommunication of James Bennet and (effectively) Bari Weiss from The New York Times, the vicious hounding of Margaret Wente at Massey College, and the CBC’s sadistic shaming of veteran broadcaster Wendy Mesley, the poisonous phenomenon I am describing here is by now well-known. Every editor feels like he is one Tweet away from getting mobbed and fired. And so the range of permissible opinion shrinks daily. Many columns now read as if they were stitched together from the same few dozen bromides that one is still allowed to say. In a Canadian media industry that regularly lauds itself for courageous truth-telling, the goal is now to hide one’s true opinion rather than declare it.

As recently as today, my editor assured me that my job was not at risk. But every week seems to deliver new restrictions and anxieties. And a writer shouldn’t have to feel like she is imposing on her editor, or asking him to exert himself as a special favour, merely so she can give voice to mainstream principles that most Canadians believe. Even when my columns appear in the National Post without any kind of delay or objection, I feel a lingering worry that some stray word or phrase will cause an editor to suffer blowback. If I were a less experienced writer who needed the money or the exposure, these are concerns that I would accommodate. But I’m fortunate enough to not be in that position.
https://bayobserver.ca/2020/07/25/national-post-columnist-reveals-why-she-is-quitting/

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:


3. Set some goalposts maybe.  "Wrong side" ?  There is plenty being written on these topics.

All of it from the progressive side of the question.

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. This is the way our mass media has always worked.  There has been a narrow spectrum of possibilities discussed, because the channels have never been trusted enough to allow all views.  You can lament that "shutting down immigration" isn't discussed, but for various reasons so are economic discussions, discussions of trade policy, nationalization of industries, two-tier health options.   There is no "public" that is believed capable of handling these issues.

I disagree. Most fiscal issues are open for discussion. I can't think of one which isn't. Two tier health is really presented as a social issue - ie, either equity for all or the system is immoral. But if there were conservative oriented mainstream media these and other opinions could be freely expressed. There isn't.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. The National Post has virtually no columnists who write from a conservative viewpoint on social issues. BTW, the biggest newspaper in Canada is the Globe, followed by the Toronto Star

2. This Barbara Kay?

3. All of it from the progressive side of the question.  

4. Most fiscal issues are open for discussion. I can't think of one which isn't. Two tier health is really presented as a social issue - ie, either equity for all or the system is immoral. But if there were conservative oriented mainstream media these and other opinions could be freely expressed. There isn't.

1. *COUGH.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post#Current

2. I didn't know she quit...

3. So if I find a single non-progressive viewpoint being expressed, say by Rex Murphy, then I have proven you wrong ?

4. So, I concur that my examples are financial but "open for discussion" and discussed aren't the same.   By saying The National Post is not conservative, then you are arriving at the discussion daring someone to point out that your perspective is slanted, if not biased.  I hear leftists say this all the time, eg. The NDP is not left, Bernie Sanders isn't but they usually add a caveat that they would never expect the average person to agree with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...