CdnFox Posted January 8 Author Report Posted January 8 Looks Like leblanc has at least some common sense, he won't be running he says. He was one of their best chances i think. But even he had no chances of actually winning. They'll have to come out with the rules pretty quick. They say they're still going to allow foreign students over 14 to vote for the leader despite evidence the chinese use that to affect the race, we'll see if they change their mind. Quote
Queenmandy85 Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 (edited) It is interesting that the three front runners in the race for the head grit, are all westerners. It looks like a dead cert we are going to have a western Canadian as Prime Minister, however briefly. I think the last westerner PM was Joe Clark, the only politician who ever beat a Trudeau. When Mr. Poilievre is appointed, we'll have a two-fer. Two westerners in a row. Edited January 11 by Queenmandy85 Quote A Conservative stands for God, King and Country
herbie Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 So they're not going to hold it until March 9. What hope in Hell does anyone have they can turn things around in two weeks before Parliament resumes and they're instantly hit with a no confidence vote? Quote
CdnFox Posted January 11 Author Report Posted January 11 1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said: It is interesting that the three front runners in the race for the head grit, are all westerners. It looks like a dead cert we are going to have a western Canadian as Prime Minister, however briefly. I think the last westerner PM was Joe Clark, the only politician who ever beat a Trudeau. When Mr. Poilievre is appointed, we'll have a two-fer. Two westerners in a row. Stephen harper was a westerner. Technically Kim campbell was too, if we're counting her as a prime minister. However it would be the first liberal party leader who was prime minister who was from the west. But really freeland and carney aren't westerners, even tho freeland was born there. Clark is but she just shot herself in the foot friday so we'll see if she even runs now Quote
Army Guy Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 (edited) Even liberals and future liberals leaders are now saying the Carbon taxes are not the answer, but rather hurting our economy...Here is Cristy clark answer she wants to axe the tax and come up with another liberal scheme to solve our climate crises...And i think as time goes on we are going to find more Liberal candidates also axing the tax to find middle ground the conservatives have already claimed... Edited January 11 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Politics1990 Posted January 12 Report Posted January 12 well my top pick is marc carney by a mile . after that i guess i would go clark even though shes more a old tory then a liberal. they got to avoid letting freeland win at all costs. 37 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Even liberals and future liberals leaders are now saying the Carbon taxes are not the answer, but rather hurting our economy...Here is Cristy clark answer she wants to axe the tax and come up with another liberal scheme to solve our climate crises...And i think as time goes on we are going to find more Liberal candidates also axing the tax to find middle ground the conservatives have already claimed... there only turning on it because the public have turned on it and are 2 stupid and listen to the conservatives instead of actually doing reasearch to look into it and relize its a good thing . Quote
CdnFox Posted January 12 Author Report Posted January 12 1 hour ago, Politics1990 said: well my top pick is marc carney by a mile . after that i guess i would go clark even though shes more a old tory then a liberal. they got to avoid letting freeland win at all costs. there only turning on it because the public have turned on it and are 2 stupid and listen to the conservatives instead of actually doing reasearch to look into it and relize its a good thing . Freeland and Carney are probably the top runners with Carney in the lead slightly. But freeland would be a disaster for them. To be honest.... carney will be too. It's possible he might turn out to be worse, but there's just no way to say. Freeland is polling higher than him right now as first choice for leader, but that's probably because nobody knows who he is. But with only a month to campaign and then right into an election with no time to sell himself to the nation.... It's really really hard. I don't know why the hell he's going now. If he gets mauled the libs will toss him for sure. Clark would have been a very interesting choice but she just completely shot herself in the foot Friday and will probably not be in the running anymore. Quote
Army Guy Posted January 12 Report Posted January 12 22 hours ago, Politics1990 said: well my top pick is marc carney by a mile . after that i guess i would go clark even though shes more a old tory then a liberal. they got to avoid letting freeland win at all costs. there only turning on it because the public have turned on it and are 2 stupid and listen to the conservatives instead of actually doing reasearch to look into it and relize its a good thing . It is not going to matter which liberal you vote for, Justin has poisoned the waters many ways waiting to long to resign, and not giving people a chance to tell canadians who they are...The smart choice would be to wait, let some patsy take the election and be PM for a month, then get kicked out becasue of low results....by waiting they negate all of that, and hopefully take their chances in the next party leadership race and build upon that....Running now is just a waste of 300,000 k leadership fee, only to be a side note in the history books... Carbon tax is a good thing, how is it a good thing, if emissions in Canada continue to raise year over year..Are we investing any carbon tax moneys into carbon reduction programs, instead of just giving it back to Canadians, and while this would be appreciated by those that live in large cites where public transport is available those in rural Canada pay the difference. If they had taken all of this funding raised by carbon taxes and made a program to convert all homes from oil to either gas, or heat pump, huge rebates for solar, used the money to convert all coal fired power plants to natural gas or some other from of energy system...then i would say yes we were on the right track but right now giving me back less than what i spend is BS, and then not doing anything of any real value....makes no sense to me...and the 2/3 of Canadians who thinks the carbon tax is a scam....Maybe you can educate us...stupid people... 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
CdnFox Posted January 12 Author Report Posted January 12 4 minutes ago, Army Guy said: It is not going to matter which liberal you vote for, Justin has poisoned the waters many ways waiting to long to resign, and not giving people a chance to tell canadians who they are...The smart choice would be to wait, let some patsy take the election and be PM for a month, then get kicked out becasue of low results.... Which is likely exactly what's going to happen to mark carney. it looks like most of the other leading contenders are going to back out. I can't blame them they're thinking exactly the same thing you are. So they're going to keep their 350k in their pockets for the next convention and leadership race. Carney will win the nomination, especially with the field cleared of those who are the more serious contenders to take him on. He has never fought an election campaign and will get clobbered. He has no real ties in the liberal party and they will hate him and stab him in the back in the same way they did ignatieff. Nobody is even going to know who he is, he's going to get one lousy month as a leadership candidate to introduce himself to all of Canada who is not paying attention right now and then he'll be into an election. So he's going to lose a lot of seats. At this point I would guess that the liberals will be reduced to less than 50 seats, probably in the 35 to 40 range. Are constitution is such that a loss automatically means a leadership review. And all those people who kept their money in their pockets from this campaign will be saying that carney is not the person to rebuild the party. He will get punted and a new leadership campaign will take place. To steal a pinocchio reference, the libs are luring Carney to Pleasure Island and it won't be long before he winds up looking like a donkey. 1 Quote
cougar Posted January 13 Report Posted January 13 On 1/6/2025 at 11:24 AM, CdnFox said: Trudeau to resign as prime minister after Liberal leadership race | CBC News So he gets to retire with full pension in Toffino , probably getting back together with Sofie and her drug empire while we get to b-it-ch about somebody else. Who that would be, I have no idea, but I am sure we will continue b-it-ching. Quote
SpankyMcFarland Posted January 13 Report Posted January 13 (edited) The first question that should be asked of the party and these contenders: what is this race for, exactly? To lead the party into one election or a little bit longer or for two elections? If it’s just the one, many can do it. But if it’s to rebuild the party after what will probably be a big defeat, then at least one of these candidates doesn’t look fit for purpose. Try as I might, I can’t visualize Mark Carney three years from now pumping the flesh in Bumblefrig nowhere after yet another ghastly chicken dinner and pretending to listen to a horde of tedious hicks when he could be dispensing wisdom at Davos. I also don’t like the idea of some banker waltzing into a job he hasn’t earned the hard way as an MP. Freeland would have the will to face the outback but she’ll be older too. And as for Christy Clark, is she even a Liberal at all? There’s an argument to jump a decade and look for somebody in their forties. My own preference would be for Freeland and I’d keep her on for the next time, initially at least, if she got a decent haul of the popular vote. The seat count should be irrelevant although I realize MPs may not share that view - FPTP will make it look far worse than the fall in the popular vote. Bear in mind I thought Garneau was a better bet than the young man with sunny ways last time out so my instincts in these races are usually very wide of the mark. One other feature - absolute no hopers throwing their names about as possible contenders just to big themselves up in the party, or so they hope. More frequently, they invite ridicule from their peers. Edited January 13 by SpankyMcFarland 1 Quote
eyeball Posted January 13 Report Posted January 13 On 1/11/2025 at 3:28 PM, Army Guy said: Even liberals and future liberals leaders are now saying the Carbon taxes are not the answer, but rather hurting our economy... These fùcking surrender monkeys know damn well carbon pricing that is 90% revenue neutral is the least harmful answer. It works, it's the least costly, and doesn't hurt the economy anywhere near as much as the unrealistic ineffective options they're hinting at. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
CdnFox Posted January 13 Author Report Posted January 13 2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said: The first question that should be asked of the party and these contenders: what is this race for, exactly? To lead the party into one election or a little bit longer or for two elections? I And it's the question nobody is asking. And it's such an obvious one that it makes me feel like it's being asked behind closed doors and probably the people that are putting their money on the table right now are being lied to. Trudeau is pushing Kearney hard inside the party, but loyalty to Trudeau is falling fast. I suspect he will be used as a sacrificial lamb, and shot appropriately, and eaten at the next Leaders victory celebration. There's no way to guarantee that the party will let you have more than one chance. If you lose it's an automatic leadership review regardless and the Liberals are Cutthroat internally. I suspect we will be seeing a book in Carney's future and I expect that the end of it will be heavily tear stained. 1 Quote
Army Guy Posted January 13 Report Posted January 13 16 hours ago, eyeball said: These fùcking surrender monkeys know damn well carbon pricing that is 90% revenue neutral is the least harmful answer. It works, it's the least costly, and doesn't hurt the economy anywhere near as much as the unrealistic ineffective options they're hinting at. You say it works, but has it actually reduced our nations emissions levels...because the media is reporting a constant rise in our emissions year after year since implemented...which would suggest to all those surrender monkeys that it is not as effective as it was touted to be... Carbon pricing is hurting the economy, and when you combine other liberal policies designed to cut back on our fossil fuel industry, so we have less money to spend , and we earn less money because of other polices....sounds like a loser of a program to me...and as for unrealistic options are you suggesting nuclear, SMR's ,natural gas, hydrogen, etc...can't be much of a crises if we are not looking at all the options including those the environmentalist don't like.. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Legato Posted January 13 Report Posted January 13 17 hours ago, eyeball said: These fùcking surrender monkeys know damn well carbon pricing that is 90% revenue neutral is the least harmful answer. It works, it's the least costly, and doesn't hurt the economy anywhere near as much as the unrealistic ineffective options they're hinting at. Less costly than what? Who's hinting? Quote
CdnFox Posted January 13 Author Report Posted January 13 17 hours ago, eyeball said: These fùcking surrender monkeys know damn well carbon pricing that is 90% revenue neutral is the least harmful answer. It works, it's the least costly, and doesn't hurt the economy anywhere near as much as the unrealistic ineffective options they're hinting at. It's not 90 percent neutral and it does nothing. You had 10 years to prove it works. It doesn't. And it never will It's expensive and about to get more expensive, it hurts the economy more than you pretend, it's utter crap. It's so ineffective and horrible that the libs didnt' even bother to set goals for what it would achieve or track it. This is 100 percent your fault and the fault of people like you. For a decade you've called anyone who even DARED to ask for stats on how its' doing "climate deniers" and you had free reign to make it work. Now it's utterly failed and Canadians know it. And they're sick of 'climate change' as a result. Well done. 5 minutes ago, Legato said: Less costly than what? Who's hinting? Well doing absolutely nothing would be less costly and more effective, so ...... Quote
Legato Posted January 13 Report Posted January 13 3 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Well doing absolutely nothing would be less costly and more effective, so ...... We (as a retired couple) probably break even in the summer but lose badly in the winter (propane heating cost). . Quote
eyeball Posted January 13 Report Posted January 13 19 minutes ago, Army Guy said: You say it works, but has it actually reduced our nations emissions levels... Yes. Go look it up. 20 minutes ago, Army Guy said: because the media is reporting a constant rise in our emissions year after year since implemented... So what, you say it's also reporting that climate change causes wildfires and you know that's wrong too. 26 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Carbon pricing is hurting the economy I bet the media told you that. 28 minutes ago, Army Guy said: ..and as for unrealistic options are you suggesting nuclear, SMR's ,natural gas, hydrogen, etc...can't be much of a crises if we are not looking at all the options including those the environmentalist don't like.. They may not like them but they're inevitable....just not for at least a decade. That's what makes them unrealistic at the same moment in time we're also throwing out the only measure that works that's also happens the least expensive and harmful to the economy. That doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence these other options will be pursued very enthusiastically. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted January 13 Report Posted January 13 1 minute ago, Legato said: We (as a retired couple) probably break even in the summer but lose badly in the winter (propane heating cost). Hence the incentive to find alternatives to invest in. I know it makes your head explode but it's supposed to harm the economy. The trick is making it as less harmful as possible and carbon pricing/tax is it. Everything else costs more. Go ask Scott Moe. Or...get your representatives to plainly and honestly declare they simply do not care one way or the other about climate change and burn baby burn. Why is that so hard? Wouldn't it make things a lot easier if governments just said go have an apple and a nap? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted January 13 Report Posted January 13 20 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Now it's utterly failed and Canadians know it. And they're sick of 'climate change' as a result. Well done. Should be as easy as apple pie then for Poilievre to loudly and proudly declare Conservatives don't give a damn. How come he isn't doing that? Even as Liberals are throwing in the towel Conservatives are still planning on taking action on climate change. How do deniers explain that let alone stomach it? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
CdnFox Posted January 13 Author Report Posted January 13 39 minutes ago, eyeball said: Should be as easy as apple pie then for Poilievre to loudly and proudly declare Conservatives don't give a damn. How come he isn't doing that? Even as Liberals are throwing in the towel Conservatives are still planning on taking action on climate change. How do deniers explain that let alone stomach it? Well we'll see won't we. Next election is a 'carbon tax' election and we'll see if people still want it. I like PP's chances And which actions on climate change specifically did you want me to comment on? Quote
CdnFox Posted January 13 Author Report Posted January 13 Here's what we've got left: The complete loser who thinks you don't have to speak french is out So it looks like it's going to be between Clark, Carney and freeland. Clark shot herself badly in the foot friday. She would have been a great dark horse candidate for them and someone who could have helped them rebuild a little after the loss but i think shes' going to be out of the running pretty quick. Freeland might as well BE justin trudau. He torpedoed her again by saying she was part of every decision and always by his side and always in the room. If this election is about change and dislike of trudeau, she's going to fail hard. So Carney may not be the best choice in the minds of many inside the party, but i think he's going to win. The entire Trudeau team is putting a lot of pressure in behind the scenes for him. He'll win, then get gutted like a pig and roasted for their next banquet. Quote
eyeball Posted January 13 Report Posted January 13 41 minutes ago, CdnFox said: And which actions on climate change specifically did you want me to comment on? First I'd like to see some consensus from Conservatives and right-wingers in general on why we even need to take any action in the first place. Either its bullshit or it isn't or it's somewhere in between. Where do conservatives fall on that spectrum? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
CdnFox Posted January 14 Author Report Posted January 14 54 minutes ago, eyeball said: First I'd like to see some consensus from Conservatives and right-wingers in general on why we even need to take any action in the first place. Good question. Did you feel we need to? If so why? Quote
eyeball Posted January 14 Report Posted January 14 12 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Good question. Did you feel we need to? If so why? You're not getting it. It's conservatives who need to ask themselves why they would take any action given so many think it's bullshit. Get back to us when they can answer that, especially Poilievre and even more so the dedicated deniers amongst his base. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.