Will this lead to a blowout? Most Liberal Voters Doing So To Block CPC: Poll

[Jack9000]

when election comes the cons will win 36-38% support and squeek out a   majority . i highly doubt they get above 40 once a campaigns starts either way they will have power for  4 years and destroy the country even more.

[Dougie93]

the Conservatives will not save us

they are all Laurentian Elites 

just like their Liberal cohorts, they are saying anything to get themselves into power at this juncture

but once ensconced in power, they will side with their own class in the end

cowards, sycophants, cronies & traitors

this is not the counterrevolution at hand

false dawn

[Zeitgeist]

29 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Hardner is an Laurentian Elite

they don't believe that the rules apply to them

I will at least give him credit for being Canadian therein

as opposed to the Orwellian youth and so future in this land

whom are completely detached from our history, and in fact reality itself

INGSOC lives

 

 

 

Yes Hardner gets an indulgence from me because I think his head is still in the just post-Cold War era of the hopeful mid-90’s.  He doesn’t know the extent to which woke lunatics are dictating policy and have instilled a kind of Maoist Cultural Revolutionary fear in workplaces and public fora.  This platform can’t really exist in Canada. Moderate questioning makes you “alt right”.

Edited January 27 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yes Hardner gets an indulgence from me because I think his head is still in the just post-Cold War era of the hopeful mid-90’s.  He doesn’t know the extent to which woke lunatics are dictating policy and have instilled a kind of Maoist Cultural Revolutionary fear in workplaces and public fora.  This platform can’t really exist in Canada. Moderate questioning makes you “alt right”.

love thine enemies

that is what it means

to put on the full armour of God

invictus

[Moonlight Graham]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sounds so hopeless... And yet you picked a date exactly halfway through the 18 years or so that was half governed by Conservatives.

Stop with the chicken little thinking.  True Conservatives are optimistic and don't denigrate their fellow citizens, radicals do.  

What if it's mostly the truth though? At least we have MAID.

Doomlight Graham is back!

It's not hopeless though if the suicide cult leader can be voted out.

Edited January 27 by Moonlight Graham
Wanted to call Trudeau a cult leader

[Moonlight Graham]

5 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

the Conservatives will not save us

they are all Laurentian Elites 

just like their Liberal cohorts, they are saying anything to get themselves into power at this juncture

but once ensconced in power, they will side with their own class in the end

cowards, sycophants, cronies & traitors

this is not the counterrevolution at hand

false dawn

CPC are wolves in sheepdog clothing. 

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

What if it's mostly the truth though?  

How is this hysterical statement possibly true or even provable ?

"The populace has become weak and cowed under threat of cancellation, reduced to unthinking babies who are letting the state take care of them and tell them what they should think and do."

You need to start deciding if you want to engage with serious analysis and discussion, or give credit to emotional expressions like that.     If you like, you can half half the board calling the other fascists and racists, and the other half calling the first half woke and cowed babies.... or you can have a discussion board where people actually talk about ideas and what they mean.

Times like these require us to post productively, in my opinion.  Not blubbering online.

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

CPC are wolves in sheepdog clothing. 

preaching to the choir

I am a politically agnostic servant of the Crown with no party affiliation whatsoever

my only fealty is to the House of Windsor

God save the King

[Moonlight Graham]

26 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

preaching to the choir

I am a politically agnostic servant of the Crown with no party affiliation whatsoever

my only fealty is to the House of Windsor

God save the King

The Crown doesn't make any decisions whatsoever though, Parliament does, who are supposed to represent us.  It's not the 15th century anymore.  Serving the Crown just means you follow the law.  We should all follow the law... usually.

[Dougie93]

10 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The Crown doesn't make any decisions whatsoever though, Parliament does, who are supposed to represent us.  It's not the 15th century anymore.  Serving the Crown just means you follow the law.  We should all follow the law... usually.

on paper, all MP's are all sworn to serve His Majesty The King

the reason your government is so incompetent & corrupt

is that those MP's no longer hold to the oaths of the 17th century actually

Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy being founded in 1690

by the Dutch Regent, William of Orange

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Jack9000 said:

when election comes the cons will win 36-38% support and squeek out a   majority . i highly doubt they get above 40 once a campaigns starts either way they will have power for  4 years and destroy the country even more.

LOL - man we can hear your desperation from here   You're obviously realizing he's going to win big and that upsets you.

Fair enough. But i think you better start steeling yourself  for more like 8 years at least.

[TreeBeard]

6 hours ago, Jack9000 said:

when election comes the cons will win 36-38% support and squeek out a   majority . i highly doubt they get above 40 once a campaigns starts either way they will have power for  4 years and destroy the country even more.

I think the Cons will win a convincing majority (40% +/-2%) if Trudeau stays as leader.  He has nothing new to say and what he does say is often hypocritical and pandering. 
 

A new leader?   All bets are off and the Libs probably win another minority. 

Edited January 27 by TreeBeard

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

A new leader?   All bets are off and the Libs probably win another minority. 

I disagree. The situation would be so close to the Kim Campbell set up that the results could be identical.

If the electorate smells that they are being played like that, they punish.

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I disagree. The situation would be so close to the Kim Campbell set up that the results could be identical.

If the electorate smells that they are being played like that, they punish.

I don’t think Trudeau, or the Libs, are seen as Mulroney and the Cons of the time. 

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

I don’t think Trudeau, or the Libs, are seen as Mulroney and the Cons of the time. 

Mulroney was seen in a more positive light. The polling is pretty clear. Hence the thread.

Polling strongly indicates the libs are wearing this, not just Justin.  Which is why nobody's chomping at the bit for him to step down and let them take over.

Again - a very sizeable portion of their current pathetically small support is only there to try to keep the CPC out.  When it becomes clear that this is not possible, those people could easily decide to stay at home and the actual voting support to fall to as low as 17 percent.  That might not be high enough to win any ridings other than a handful in toronto. They might very well fall below 20 seats.

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

on paper, all MP's are all sworn to serve His Majesty The King

the reason your government is so incompetent & corrupt

is that those MP's no longer hold to the oaths of the 17th century actually

Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy being founded in 1690

by the Dutch Regent, William of Orange

They don't hold to any oath.  Power over king or country.

[Army Guy]

10 hours ago, Jack9000 said:

when election comes the cons will win 36-38% support and squeek out a   majority . i highly doubt they get above 40 once a campaigns starts either way they will have power for  4 years and destroy the country even more.

This is the country that Canadians voted for, this is what they want, and if it is destroyed Thats what Canadians wanted...This is what happens when Canadians think all they can do is vote then fall asleep for the next 4 years...and everything is going to be rainbows and unicorns...like Dexter said " Surprise motherfu*ker"...look what we did while you were sleeping...

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

I think the Cons will win a convincing majority (40% +/-2%) if Trudeau stays as leader.  He has nothing new to say and what he does say is often hypocritical and pandering. 
 

A new leader?   All bets are off and the Libs probably win another minority. 

Well stop with all the suspense which new leader ?..which Liberal is going to bring in a minority, unless you got someone in the wings, i'm pretty sure PP has the support to beat most if not all Liberals today...I'd be willing to wager that remark...

[Army Guy]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sounds so hopeless... And yet you picked a date exactly halfway through the 18 years or so that was half governed by Conservatives.

Stop with the chicken little thinking.  True Conservatives are optimistic and don't denigrate their fellow citizens, radicals do.  

Question? he said 2015, the same year justin was elected...did i miss something...

[Moonlight Graham]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

How is this hysterical statement possibly true or even provable ?

"The populace has become weak and cowed under threat of cancellation, reduced to unthinking babies who are letting the state take care of them and tell them what they should think and do."

You need to start deciding if you want to engage with serious analysis and discussion, or give credit to emotional expressions like that.     If you like, you can half half the board calling the other fascists and racists, and the other half calling the first half woke and cowed babies.... or you can have a discussion board where people actually talk about ideas and what they mean.

Times like these require us to post productively, in my opinion.  Not blubbering online.

It's a provocative statement.  It uses a bit of emotional language maybe.  We can even call it somewhat inflammatory.  But it's still true.  Maybe you mostly just dislike the tone of it and want something more civil and constructive that won't make anyone react in anger.  We could try to civilize the statement and change some of the language to something more civil, but the meaning will be largely the same.

Instead of policing tone, tell us why you don't agree with the statement.  Let's break it down.

I do think we've become more afraid to have opinions contrary to modern social norms.  This makes us just accept things even if we don't quite agree out of fear of repercussions.  We've become more compliant in the real world, maybe not on twitter where we can be anonymous.  They want compliance, not disagreement or debate, and fear is used as a tool to enforce compliance.

People who are less self-reliant and more reliant on government to help them with the necessities of day to day life become more dependent and less independent.  Children are dependent and healthy well-functioning adults are  independent, so we become more like child dependents to the government "nanny state" as they call it.  When we help people too much they never learn to survive on their own, which is extremely detrimental in the long run.  "Teach a man to fish...".

I don't need anyone to "take care of me", I only need some help when I'm in a dire situation but not normally day-to-day.  I don't need anyone to pay for my dentist, prescriptions, daycare, or retirement.  It feels good to not have to do some things for ourselves, but it's like a disease that erodes our competence.  For the poor?  Sure, they do need some help, they're not able to take care of themselves, so they're like dependents.  I've met some poor people who say "I'll never take welfare", they don't want handouts, they want to deal with things themselves and stand on their own 2 feet.  Not to say there's anything wrong with welfare for people in need, at least short-term.

The people also aren't clamoring for some of the changes the government enacts, they just do it without asking us if we want it.  The Liberals have always tended to think they're the smartest people in the room and tell us what we need.  The current Liberals are also heavy handed and use the power of the state to enforce their goals even when its contrary to our rights in a liberal democracy.  The compassionate left are well-meaning but don't understand that sometimes they treat people like overbearing helicopter parents.  Every virtue, when taken to an extreme, becomes a vice.  Including compassion.

 

 

[CdnFox]

49 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Well stop with all the suspense which new leader ?..which Liberal is going to bring in a minority, unless you got someone in the wings, i'm pretty sure PP has the support to beat most if not all Liberals today...I'd be willing to wager that remark...

Changing leaders even if they have a decent one dosen't always mean much.  The 'other' trudeau stepped down when he was unpopular and the libs got taken out in one of the greatest defeats in our political history.  Mulroney stepped down and kimmy was seen as a strong leader and that was it for the pc party, never recovered.

People don't just dislike Justin. They KNOW the libs backed him and supported him and the liberal brand has taken a hit.  Moreover the polling strongly suggests that most of PP's supporters aren't voting for him to get rid of trudeau - they genuinely LIKE him.

At least trudeau has a successful and well experienced election team. Anyone new has to create their own team and come up with a strategy and get ready for it all while the new leader still has to be pm.  A new leader could easily make things much worse

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

...This is what happens when Canadians think all they can do is vote then fall asleep for the next 4 years...and everything is going to be rainbows and unicorns...like Dexter said " Surprise motherfu*ker"...look what we did while you were sleeping...

What would you have us do between elections? It seems there's little to nothing else voters are good for except voting. What did you have in mind, write a few letters, volunteer, show up for a rally/protest, battle it out in places like this?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

What would you have us do between elections? It seems there's little to nothing else voters are good for except voting. What did you have in mind, write a few letters, volunteer, show up for a rally/protest, battle it out in places like this?

Oh lets seee....

Participate in the conventions to select party policy for the future? Organize letter and other campaigns to draw focus to specific issues of importance? You'd be amazed how effective that can be

Serve with local riding planning and policy councils?  Recruit people to serve on the front lines in the next election?

Speak out against bad actors even if they're with the party  you like? (instead of defending them night and day and pretending you never supported them )

How about helping to pick the next party leader, or encourage leadership candidates?

How about helping pick the next  person running in your riding or perhaps even neighbouring ridings. Maybe even help recruit someone to run,

Organize like minded 'donation' blocks, where you all donate a small amount monthly and agree to send a specified extra amount when the party 'does good' and withhold when they 'do bad', that can be very effective in sending a message.

Need more? Becasue there is more if you still have some free time.

I've done ALL those things, and they had a significant impact.  Voting is only a small part of what makes a democracy.

If all you do is vote then that's like going to a restaurant and having them bring you a random dish off the menu and hoping you like it.  You need to get involved.

Or - sit on your sofa and whine or pretend you work on the local council when really you sit on your ass and biatch  

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. It's a provocative statement.  It uses a bit of emotional language maybe.  We can even call it somewhat inflammatory.  But it's still true.  Maybe you mostly just dislike the tone of it and want something more civil and constructive that won't make anyone react in anger.  We could try to civilize the statement and change some of the language to something more civil, but the meaning will be largely the same.

2. Instead of policing tone, tell us why you don't agree with the statement.  Let's break it down.

3. I do think we've become more afraid to have opinions contrary to modern social norms. 

4. This makes us just accept things even if we don't quite agree out of fear of repercussions.  We've become more compliant in the real world, maybe not on twitter where we can be anonymous.  They want compliance, not disagreement or debate, and fear is used as a tool to enforce compliance. 

5. People who are less self-reliant and more reliant on government to help them with the necessities of day to day life become more dependent and less independent.  Children are dependent and healthy well-functioning adults are  independent, so we become more like child dependents to the government "nanny state" as they call it.  When we help people too much they never learn to survive on their own, which is extremely detrimental in the long run.  "Teach a man to fish...".

6. I don't need anyone to "take care of me", I only need some help when I'm in a dire situation but not normally day-to-day.  I don't need anyone to pay for my dentist, prescriptions, daycare, or retirement.  It feels good to not have to do some things for ourselves, but it's like a disease that erodes our competence. 

7. For the poor?  Sure, they do need some help, they're not able to take care of themselves, so they're like dependents.  I've met some poor people who say "I'll never take welfare", they don't want handouts, they want to deal with things themselves and stand on their own 2 feet.  Not to say there's anything wrong with welfare for people in need, at least short-term.

8. The people also aren't clamoring for some of the changes the government enacts, they just do it without asking us if we want it.  The Liberals have always tended to think they're the smartest people in the room and tell us what we need.  The current Liberals are also heavy handed and use the power of the state to enforce their goals even when its contrary to our rights in a liberal democracy.  The compassionate left are well-meaning but don't understand that sometimes they treat people like overbearing helicopter parents.  Every virtue, when taken to an extreme, becomes a vice.  Including compassion.

 

 

1. I don't like the tone but I also find the assertion unfalsifiable.  What do you do with the claim that Canadians are "unthinking babies" ?  Or that they have been brainwashed as such?

2. You can't debate an insult.  If Canadians are brainless dolts how can they also support Poilievre then?

3. What norms?  There are no such norms.  

4. You have made an assumption that this is what this is about.

5. Explain exactly how long term policies are making Canadians dependent? 

Like... the increasing gap between rich and poor, monopolies, reduced rent protection?  Do you actually know anyone who is working poor, who is struggling though full-time employed?  Who has been renovicted?  Who has had to leave their town due to costs of life?

6. What's your employment, housing, support situation?  Is it typical of the median Canadian?  

7.  Welfare recipients are even more challenged than working poor.  I don't have the data to say what's going on with them lately though.  

8. The Conservatives have their own version of this, which was the surveillance legislation put forward in the years following 9-11.  I don't think any government has been particularly good at consulting with the public.  Harper's trade deals were the same deal as liberal ones.

 

[Gaétan]

The Conservatives and the Liberals are twin brothers of the rich who have been exchanging power since the constitution, if we elect the Conservatives we will be tired of them after 8 years and want to get rid of them just like the Liberals, if you want a real change you have to vote for the NDP or the Green Party. Nobody of these two leaders deserve to be prime minister, they look sympathetic but so is the devil,   They both support the genocide of the Palestinians, so they are not really what they sound like, in fact the genocide is the worst crime of humanity, you have to look at everything they do, not just what they say, they will both say they will give you money, but don't be so stupid they will take it back immediately.