Is Poilievre screwing up again?

[Barquentine]

23 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Fascists are socialist.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/difference-between-fascism-and-socialism

"Fascism is characterized by extreme nationalism; enforces strict social, economic, and often racial hierarchies; is corporatist and imperialist; supports autocratic control of the government (as by a dictator); promotes strict traditional gender roles and military values; and forcibly suppresses opposition. Fascist movements throughout history have also been typified by their opposition to Marxism, democracy, and political and cultural liberalism.

Since the term socialism entered English around 1830, it has consistently referred to a system of egalitarian social organization in which private property (not to be confused with personal property) and the distribution of income are subject to social control."

Not the same thing. The first sound like the US right now. There's no real socialist countries anymore. Maybe Cuba but probably not for much longer.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Barquentine said:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/difference-between-fascism-and-socialism

"Fascism is characterized by extreme nationalism; enforces strict social, economic, and often racial hierarchies; is corporatist and imperialist; supports autocratic control of the government (as by a dictator); promotes strict traditional gender roles and military values; and forcibly suppresses opposition. Fascist movements throughout history have also been typified by their opposition to Marxism, democracy, and political and cultural liberalism.

Since the term socialism entered English around 1830, it has consistently referred to a system of egalitarian social organization in which private property (not to be confused with personal property) and the distribution of income are subject to social control."

Not the same thing. The first sound like the US right now. There's no real socialist countries anymore. Maybe Cuba but probably not for much longer.

 

Sorry kid. I know that everyone on the left hates to hear it but fascism is a type of socialism.0

The defining characteristic of a socialistic model is that it seeks to control the economy either directly through ownership or indirectly through excessive taxation and regulation.

Fascism is socialism even if the left absolutely hates that fact

[Barquentine]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Fascism is socialism even if the left absolutely hates that fact

Gee Dr, Fox. How come when you cite Merriam Webster it' a factful source. But when I cite it it's a Liberlal, Leftard, commie string of lies? I ain't neverr seen no one smrt as you.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary:

Fascism
A political system based on a very powerful leader, state control of social and economic life, and extreme pride in country and race, with no expression of political disagreement allowed

Socialism

The set of beliefs that states that all people are equal and should share equally in a country's money, or the political systems based on these beliefs

 

[CdnFox]

37 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Gee Dr, Fox. How come when you cite Merriam Webster it' a factful source

 

Miriam Webster is a dictionary. It offers definitions of words, but it's not a research document. If you were turning to that for your entire knowledge of sociopolitical sciences then I can see why your arguments are so weak so often

Fascism is a direct evolution from Marxism. It is a socialist model that attempts to 'overcome' the 'weaknesses' of socialism. 

This kind of thing was rampant in europe at the time, dozens of socialist models were springing up, from full on communism to marxism and state ownership models to market based socialism and all kinds of variants. 

Sorry that your entire knowledge of the history of political science and movements comes from "websters"   LOLOLOL

OH and look, you couldn't make a single argument as to why i was wrong other than "but but but dictionary says!!!" 

Edited July 19, 2025 by CdnFox

[Legato]

2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Gee Dr, Fox. How come when you cite Merriam Webster it' a factful source. But when I cite it it's a Liberlal, Leftard, commie string of lies? I ain't neverr seen no one smrt as you.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary:

Fascism
A political system based on a very powerful leader, state control of social and economic life, and extreme pride in country and race, with no expression of political disagreement allowed

Socialism

The set of beliefs that states that all people are equal and should share equally in a country's money, or the political systems based on these beliefs

 

In fact, in 1943, Benito Mussolini promoted the “socialization of the economy,” also known as fascist socialization; for this process Mussolini sought the advice of the founder of the Italian Communist Party, Nicola Bombacci; the communist was the main intellectual author of the “Verona Manifesto,” the historical declaration with which fascism promoted this process of economic “socialization” to deepen anti-capitalism and autarchism, and in which Italy became known as the “Italian Social Republic.”

On April 22, 1945 in Milan, the Fascist leader would declare the following:

“Our programs are definitely equal to our revolutionary ideas and they belong to what in democratic regime is called “left”; our institutions are a direct result of our programs and our ideal is the Labor State. In this case there can be no doubt: we are the working class in struggle for life and death, against capitalism. We are the revolutionaries in search of a new order. If this is so, to invoke help from the bourgeoisie by waving the red peril is an absurdity. The real scarecrow, the real danger, the threat against which we fight relentlessly, comes from the right. It is not at all in our interest to have the capitalist bourgeoisie as an ally against the threat of the red peril, even at best it would be an unfaithful ally, which is trying to make us serve its ends, as it has done more than once with some success. I will spare words as it is totally superfluous. In fact, it is harmful, because it makes us confuse the types of genuine revolutionaries of whatever hue, with the man of reaction who sometimes uses our very language.”

https://fee.org/articles/theres-no-denying-the-socialist-roots-of-fascism/

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Miriam Webster is a dictionary. It offers definitions of words, but it's not a research document.

So why don't you show us some research documents that corroborate your oft repeated claim fascism is left wing phenomenon.

And don't forget extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, sources, gravitas, peer review, refutability...that sort of thing.

Again, think quality not quantity.

I'm afraid anal plucks won't cut it.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

So why don't you show us some research documents that corroborate your oft repeated claim fascism is left wing phenomenon.

I've done so many times, and in fact there are some in that link I provided if you follow the ones in the post, which you obviously didn't bother to look at

In fact I provided very specific references and documents and research as well as corroborating actual historical speeches he made.

Your problem is you can't remember anything for more than 5 minutes and demand it keeps getting repeated. I provided more than enough here (along with legato's stuff)  to make a strong case that fascism is socialism. You're the one tying it to the left wing, obviously subconsciously you believe that socialism and the left wing and fascism are in fact connected

 

Ooopsie!  

 

Mussolini believed that fascism was an improved version of marxism and explained very frequently and extreme detail why he felt that way and the problems with Marxism that he was trying to fix.

And this is how most socialistic regimes wind up. With a corrupt group or leader at the top calling the people for whatever social agenda they've got

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I've done so many times

You haven't done any such thing, not even once.

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You haven't done any such thing, not even once.

Not only have I done so many times but consistently you lie about it even when I provide the proof.

Really it's all the left wing has these days, all you can do is try and lie your way around the truth

[Barquentine]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And this is how most socialistic regimes wind up. With a corrupt group or leader at the top calling the people for whatever social agenda they've got

Yes, and that's also true of unregulated Capitalist regimes.

"a corrupt group or leader at the top calling the people for whatever social agenda they've got" sounds just like our southern neighbour.

And while Fascism may have some roots in Socialism, things evolve, and we have a different accepted understanding of them now.

To take your argument to extremes, Muslims, Christians and Jews are the same: they all have Abraham at their source.

[Barquentine]

15 hours ago, Legato said:

In fact, in 1943, Benito Mussolini promoted the “socialization of the economy,” also known as fascist socialization

https://freedomandprosperity.org/2022/blog/fascism-socialism-and-mussolini/

Mussolini’s fascism was different than traditional socialism in that the goal was to have the government control the economy, but not to have government take over “the means of production.”

The same roots but different then. Now our definition and understanding of the two are quite different.

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Yes, and that's also true of unregulated Capitalist regimes.

There is no such thing as an unregulated capitalist regime. Name one that exists anywhere on the planet. In fact name one that's existed in the last 200 years.

The difference is that capitalism is not a political model. It's a financial model. You can have several different styles of government and still have a capitalist market. So the market inevitably always becomes regulated to one degree or another, there is no laissez-faire capitalism in the world

But socialism and all of its forms absolutely requires government. By its very nature it is the management of production and society through a centralized authority. It literally has to be a form of government to exist.

That's why it's possible for a capitalist government to corruptly funnel money into its pockets but not inevitable. For socialism however it is inevitable because more and more power gets centralized and into the hands of a few

Quote

"a corrupt group or leader at the top calling the people for whatever social agenda they've got" sounds just like our southern neighbour.

Our southern neighbors have a house of commons and a senate to protect against those abuses, and if they feel they are being abused and the government is acting outside of their interest they will get a chance to resolve that in about a year and a half or less. Well you might very well argue that trump's behavior borders on the dictatorial or investing too much power in one person, the system in the states is self-correcting and the problem tends to be short-lived unless the people believe it is in their best interest

And a socialist state that doesn't happen as a rule

 

Quote

And while Fascism may have some roots in Socialism, things evolve, and we have a different accepted understanding of them now.

Our understanding now by true scholars is that it's just another form of socialism. It definitely is different than Marxism, it's actually inDesign much closer to the democratic socialism we see now in Europe.

One person was able to corruptly control that power but that is the case with virtually all socialistic models. Inevitably one person or one small group at the top controls everything. China, the Soviet Union, Stalin, cuba, Venezuela, and you see the same sort of thing in Open market socialistic countries as well.

The more socialistic a country is the more it is likely to wind up with power being corruptly held by a small group at the top. Even Canada saw that under Trudeau.

Quote

To take your argument to extremes, Muslims, Christians and Jews are the same: they all have Abraham at their source.

They are both religions. And they have similar origins yes. So somebody was to ask me if muslims were religious, and somebody were to ask me if christians are religious, I would say yes. Both are religions and both share a lot of common traits. They are not the same but they are definitely both religions

Fascism and communism are both forms of socialism. They are not the same, but they are definitely both socialism

The only reason there's any pushback against this concept is because the left does not want socialism to be associated with things like Stalin or mussolini or Hitler or any of these other places like Venezuela where it has led to a bad end. They're denial is based on their echo chamber, not on facts.

 

The definition of socialism has been broadly accepted as being the control of the economy either directly or through excessive regulation and taxation by a government or in some cases a similar entity and usually implies control over social elements as well

"Socialism is a political and economic system where the means of production, like factories and land, are owned or controlled by the community as a whole, rather than by private individuals or corporations. It's an ideology that emphasizes social ownership, aiming to create a more egalitarian society with reduced inequality. Socialism encompasses a range of views on how to achieve these goals, from market-based approaches to more centralized systems. "

defiinition of socialism - Google Search

 

Mussolini and the fascists embody that perfectly

 

"The son of a socialist blacksmith, Mussolini believed in government ownership and government control of the economy. He became outraged when socialists opposed Italian entry in World War I, because he figured that Italy could emerge from the war with an empire like Great Britain, France and Germany. So he blended nationalism with socialism and came up with economic fascism. This involved private ownership and government control of the economy. Individuals continued to own their property and their businesses, but without the right to do what they wanted. Government told everybody what they must do and not do.

“Anti-individualistic,” Mussolini wrote, “The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [or libertarianism, as it’s also called] that denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State… If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government.” "

The Economic Leadership Secrets of Benito Mussolini | Cato Institute

also:

But he originated an economic system — economic fascism — that was acclaimed in his heyday, influenced U.S. economic policy during the 1930s, and is surprisingly similar to some of President Obama’s policies. 

 

 

Mussolini was a socialist. He was a strong socialist. He invented a socialist system based on socialism. His father was a socialist and so was he

 

Sorry kid. Fascism had nothing to do with the right wing in the slightest. Fascism was a socialist model and before world war II it was considered to be a very successful or prominent model amongst socialists

Edited July 20, 2025 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

 

14 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

https://freedomandprosperity.org/2022/blog/fascism-socialism-and-mussolini/

Mussolini’s fascism was different than traditional socialism in that the goal was to have the government control the economy, but not to have government take over “the means of production.”

 

Exactly. You literally just proved what I was saying was correct.

There are many socialist models where the government controls the means of production through taxation and regulation without owning it. We see one of those models today in the form of democratic socialism.

So Mussolini was different than traditional socialism, communism was different than traditional socialism, Marxism was different than traditional socialism, and fascism was different than traditional socialism. But they were all a form of socialism

Thanks for proving the point

[taxme]

On 7/18/2025 at 3:13 PM, Moonbox said:

Able to, yes.  Bother to?  No.  There's not much point in answering a ridiculously predicated question like this.  

Not really.  I'd argue that the Liberals did a terrible job and that Trudeau was the worst PM we've ever had.  I suspect that most Canadians even agree with that. 

That's what makes Poilievre's failure even more pathetic.  His echoing of the dumbest parts of Canada's right wing and his Maple MAGA monkeying convinced the voting public that he was an even worse option than the bad one we already had.  YIKES!

Anything that a conservative has to say will always be seen as ridiculous with extreme left wing lieberals like you. The only reason as to why Canada keeps going is because of all the bullshit leftist lieberal red tape that keeps it together from falling apart.

It is pretty sad that not one left wing lieberal here can tell me as to what the left wing lieberals have done in the past ten years to help keep and make Canada great? Can you, lefty? 

Phk Canada, it started to die in 1980 when old man comrade and gay Turdeau won the election that year. The first words out of his communist mouth were "welcome to the new Canada". We are seeing by what that fool meant way back then.

Canada is pretty much dead and it needs to die and RIP. Both communist and gay Turdeau traitors to Canada have done a great job of trying to destroy this once great white British/European country and turn it into a 3rd world hell hole. Your new lieberal dictator in Ottawa wants you to eat bugs for dinner. 

Poilievre would have made Canada great again. But thanks to imbecile lieberals like you around, you just helped in making Canada even worse than what it is already. the only chance for conservative Canadians to survive is for Trump to send in the military. 

why is it that lieberals like you always like to call conservatives a bunch of right wingers all the time? Conservatives are not right wingers, they are patriots, unlike you left wing lieberals who only want to destroy Canada. Get lost, loser. 🤣

[taxme]

On 7/19/2025 at 6:31 AM, LinkSoul60 said:

Your Prime Minister.  You can refer to him as, Mr Prime Minister Carney.

I prefer to call him dictator of Carnage and will still globalist dictator arse hole that we had in Ottawa for ten long suffering years. of stupidity and corruption. I cannot believe that they are still imbeciles like you around that would vote for those two left wing lieberal imbeciles that virtually have destroyed this once great white British/European country. If you really think that Carnage gives a crap about you, you have to be one stunned and stupid buffoon. Take this. 😛

[ExFlyer]

Just some facts

"If Pierre Poilievre wants to attack Mark Carney over conflicts tied to 574 companies, then let us apply the same test to him, including past investments.

 

Before the last election, Poilievre held foreign investments through funds like American Century and iShares MSCI, based in the United States, Singapore, and Switzerland. These types of funds typically include 500 to 2,000 companies each. He sold them before the election and now says he brought the money home to Canada.

 

Today he owns two Canadian Vanguard ETFs: VCE, the FTSE Canada Index ETF with 50 large-cap Canadian companies, and VCN, the FTSE Canada All Cap Index ETF with over 100 to 250 Canadian companies. Those include major firms like Royal Bank, Shopify, TD, Enbridge, and Brookfield. He also holds Bitcoin through the Purpose Bitcoin ETF and owns more than eight thousand dollars in Bitcoin personally. He and his wife own rental properties in Calgary and Ottawa.

 

Using his logic that exposure to a company equals conflict, Poilievre has likely been tied to well over a thousand companies across past foreign funds and current domestic ETFs.

 

Yet he has not divested these holdings, and he has not placed them into a truly blind trust, unlike what he demands of Carney.

If he truly believes that any financial exposure creates a conflict, then he should sell off his holdings or place them in a blind trust that he cannot see or control.

 

Canadians deserve consistent rules for everyone in public office, not one set for his opponents and another set for Poilievre.

If he will not apply his own standard to himself, then his attacks on Carney are nothing but political theatre."

 

J Cotter

[taxme]

On 7/18/2025 at 5:51 PM, TreeBeard said:

How is it a genocide?

When this globalist communist government in Ottawa brings in approx. 80 - 85% of our new immigrants from non-white countries every year, for the past several decades now, it is not hard to figure out that white people are fast becoming a minority in their own white homeland, and this is all a part of the communists globalists takeover in Ottawa in trying to commit genocide of the white people of Canada which btw has been going on for decades now. If you are white, wake and woke up, you dummy. 😒

On 7/18/2025 at 6:26 PM, herbie said:

Yeah, yeah we all heard that from f*cking fascists all our lives. Tell us something new if you can ever think of one.

I am pretty sure that your brain is really looking like it is very low on braincells. I know, the truth hurts. LOL.

[CdnFox]

46 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Just some facts

"If Pierre Poilievre wants to attack Mark Carney over conflicts tied to 574 companies, then let us apply the same test to him, including past investments.

 

Before the last election, Poilievre held foreign investments through funds like American Century and iShares

No problem. But He  didn't sit on their board of directors. He won't be working for them when he gets out of politics. He has no intimate knowledge of their workings or anything like that.

I mean if you hound shares in apple I guess you could kind of think of things that might benefit Apple. But it's very different than being an Insider and knowing exactly what apples intentions were and exactly what assets it has

Carney worked directly with these companies, and knows intimately what they were doing and how their futures were supposed to look. It's extremely easy for him to make decisions based on that that would help them without other people realizing how much it would help them

I tell you what, no problem, get carney to sign that he will never ever be associated with these business again and will only hold them as investments and never work for them or serve on their board of directors and we'll get Poilievre to do the same.

I Think you would find pretty quick that Poilievre would be fine with it but carney is not

 

[ExFlyer]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No problem. But He  didn't sit on their board of directors. He won't be working for them when he gets out of politics. He has no intimate knowledge of their workings or anything like that.

I....

 

Of course not...he has never had a real job LOL. 

He has been sucking off the government teat his whole life LOL

Who knows where he will be when out of politics...you certainly do not know.

And for sure he "has no intimate knowledge of their workings" or any workings other than sucking the government teat LOL

[ExFlyer]

Yes, Erin O’Toole did win his own seat in the 2021 federal election.

He was re-elected as the Member of Parliament for Durham, a riding in Ontario, with a comfortable margin.

So while he lost the federal election as party leader, he did not lose his seat, unlike what happened recently with Pierre Poilievre (as you mentioned in earlier messages about Carleton).

a comparison between O’Toole and Poilievre’s leadership paths

 

L Alison

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Of course not...he has never had a real job LOL. 

 

You mean because he's worked for the government all his life?

So being a teacher wouldn't be a real job?   orrrr,,,, being a pilot for the military?  

Almost weekly you find a new and exciting way to prove that you've been lying you're through your teeth about ever having served in the military or been outside of your mom's basement. When you grow up you'll learn more about real jobs.

In the meantime carney is still funneling double the amount of money Trudeau was into third party contracts, most of which are single source, and will enjoy your comfy retirement on taxpayer dollars. And you seem to be fine with that

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Yes, Erin O’Toole did win his own seat in the 2021 federal election.

He was re-elected as the Member of Parliament for Durham, a riding in Ontario, with a comfortable margin.

So while he lost the federal election as party leader, he did not lose his seat, unlike what happened recently with Pierre Poilievre (as you mentioned in earlier messages about Carleton).

a comparison between O’Toole and Poilievre’s leadership paths

 

L Alison

What are you even talking about, who mentioned Erin O'Toole?

The voices in your head are working overtime

[herbie]

Working to BE the govt is not working FOR the govt.

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, herbie said:

Working to BE the govt is not working FOR the govt.

If you're talking about an actual election then sure. You're working for yourself

After you're elected though everything you're doing is working for the government.

The vast vast vast majority of Poilievre's time has been working for the government.

[WestCanMan]

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If you're talking about an actual election then sure. You're working for yourself

After you're elected though everything you're doing is working for the government.

The vast vast vast majority of Poilievre's time has been working for the government.

When you think about how basic all the things are that you have to explain to herbie, it becomes obvious that he's going to vote Libbie all his life, no matter what. 

Chrystia Freeland could say "We're going to execute H-e-r-b-i-e" and he'd vote for her. 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

When you think about how basic all the things are that you have to explain to herbie, it becomes obvious that he's going to vote Libbie all his life, no matter what. 

Chrystia Freeland could say "We're going to execute H-e-r-b-i-e" and he'd vote for her. 

That's not true. My calculations indicate that there's only a statistical 50% chance that he will vote for the liberals and any given election. The other 50% of the time he gets which end of the pencil to use wrong.