The Gov't Privy Council was testing out the "elbows up" message months before trump announced tariffs at taxpayers expense for the liberals.

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Give it up LOSER!! LOL

 

Awww you're reduced to begging again 

Grovel harder little guy  

6 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

OH WOW...another LOSER comes to his rescue....  Not much to brag about LOL

 

 

Kid, he's not rescuing anyone...  he's pointing at you and laughing   Which is what pretty much evyerone here does

[ExFlyer]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Awww you're reduced to begging again 

Grovel harder little guy  

Kid, he's not rescuing anyone...  ...

Of course he is...he is recusing you because you are nowhere. No point, no proper retorts just a plain old LOSER LOL. 

As always LOL

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Quote

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Kid, he's not rescuing anyone...  he's pointing at you and laughing

Of course he is...

LOL well at least you've finally admitted your role here   Object of ridicule and hilarity  

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I would be if he intended to keep any of his promises.

So you regret voting for him?

Live and learn I guess. This is why I haven't voted for a Liberal in 45 years or more.

[Moonbox]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Which I don't.

You're doing it right here: 🤣

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I simply ask a question, if he's so terrible that nobody would vote for and so reprehensible that he couldn't possibly win an election, how did he manage to get almost 42% of the vote?

10 years of mismanagement by a deeply unpopular government that the Canadian electorate had soured on did most of the work.  Still, Poilievre managed to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory and did almost everything he could during the campaign to "only" get 41% of the popular vote.  What he really managed was to boost Liberal support by 11% from the previous election, and make the Conservatives lose what shouldn't have been loseable.  Good job!  

You can cope and seethe about how it was all Trump's fault, but there's a reason why this all blew up so spectacular in his face.  Modelling your campaign off the slogans and rage-baiting of the MAGA circus unsurprisingly invited comparison!  

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So you regret voting for him?

 

I regret that you did if it's any help  

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You're doing it right here: 🤣

Oh dear, english comprehension problems again have you?   You're a shining example of why our educational system needs to be revamped

Quote

10 years of mismanagement by a deeply unpopular government that the Canadian electorate had soured on did most of the work.  Still, Poilievre managed to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory and did almost everything he could during the campaign to "only" get 41% of the popular vote. 

That doesn't explain anything. If that were the case then he would have beaten carney. I know politics isn't your thing but if you check careful you'll find that carney is a liberal. There wasn't any fatigue with the liberals there was fatigue with Justin Trudeau. Justin was gone as carney was so fond of pointing out

Quote

What he really managed was to boost Liberal support by 11% from the previous election, and make the Conservatives lose what shouldn't have been loseable.  Good job!  

But he didn't boost liberal support. If he was boosting liberal support he would have done it when Justin was still around. You can't argue that the reason he was popular was liberal fatigue and at the same time argue that he boosted liberal support. The two are mutually exclusive.

As we all know the truth of the matter is that trump scared the NDP into voting liberal. Liberal core support didn't really raise much but when you take 28% liberal support and slap it with 12% NDP support and then throw in an extra 10% or so From the Block in Quebec this is what you get.

So it doesn't explain in the slightest why Poilievre did so well. Like I said you cannot argue that People hated the liberals and yet loved the liberals.

Nice try, I see you're still struggling with math but it was a good effort.

[LinkSoul60]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Hey ret4rd, just in case you didn't know this, the LPOC wasn't just Trudeau. It was the other 150+ losers that were elected with him, which you voted for again. 

And look where it got us, dummy...

Carney: "PUNITIVE TARIFFS! HAHA!!!! TAKE THAT, TWUMPY!"

Trump: "Get rid of those, boy."

Carney: "Yes sir."

 

1 month later....

Carney; "DIGITAL SERVICES TAX!!!! HAHA!!!! TAKE THAT, TWUMPY!"

Trump [on a mean tweet]: "Get rid of that, boy."

Carney: "Yes sir."

CBC: "Carney scrapped the DST to foster trade relations with the US! He's so dreamy! Canadians love Carney!!! We're so lucky to have him! Carney could win the Tour de France with all of this back-pedalling."

Winning the PM seat and the Tour de France in the same year.... be quite the accomplishment don't you.

I'm looking on google for what your guy has won but can't seem to find anything... maybe just a bad connection.  The election is over....get over it and move on.  Root for your new PM's success....it ultimately benefits you doesn't it.  Moving forward, call him Mr Prime Minister.

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

Have you ever sought treatment for alexithymia?

[ExFlyer]

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You're doing it right here: 🤣

10 years of mismanagement by a deeply unpopular government that the Canadian electorate had soured on did most of the work.  Still, Poilievre managed to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory and did almost everything he could during the campaign to "only" get 41% of the popular vote.  What he really managed was to boost Liberal support by 11% from the previous election, and make the Conservatives lose what shouldn't have been loseable.  Good job!  

You can cope and seethe about how it was all Trump's fault, but there's a reason why this all blew up so spectacular in his face.  Modelling your campaign off the slogans and rage-baiting of the MAGA circus unsurprisingly invited comparison!  

Keeping espousing that PP got 41% of the vote seems to negate the fact that 59% did not vote for him

It seems that like the American electorate, the less educated you are the more apt you are to vote conservative.

PP supporters are less educated.

Or, the more educated you are, the less you support Polievre.

"The study found that Pierre Poilievre’s favourability decreases the more educated one is. Positive impressions of Poilievre sit at 49% among Canadians with a high school diploma, and 40% among college and trade school graduates. Just 23% of Canadians with university degrees have a positive opinion of Poilievre.

Conversely, favourability of Liberal leader Mark Carney increases the more educated one is (48% among high school graduates, 74% among university graduates)."

https://cultmtl.com/2025/04/favourability-of-pierre-poilievre-decreases-with-education/

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Have you ever sought treatment for alexithymia?

LOL no but I see you're still struggling with denial  

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Keeping espousing that PP got 41% of the vote seems to negate the fact that 59% did not vote for him

It seems that like the American electorate, the less educated you are the more apt you are to vote conservative.

PP supporters are less educated.

Or, the more educated you are, the less you support Polievre.

"The study found that Pierre Poilievre’s favourability decreases the more educated one is. Positive impressions of Poilievre sit at 49% among Canadians with a high school diploma, and 40% among college and trade school graduates. Just 23% of Canadians with university degrees have a positive opinion of Poilievre.

Conversely, favourability of Liberal leader Mark Carney increases the more educated one is (48% among high school graduates, 74% among university graduates)."

https://cultmtl.com/2025/04/favourability-of-pierre-poilievre-decreases-with-education/

It would also seem absolutely true that just like the states left-wing voters and liberals suffer from far more mental health issues  

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

LOL no but I see you're still struggling with denial

That's just your pistanthrophobia flaring up again.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

It would also seem absolutely true that just like the states left-wing voters and liberals suffer from far more mental health issues

Did you know the belief that everyone else is insane can severely impact your social life, relationships, and ability to work or go to school?

[Moonbox]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That doesn't explain anything. If that were the case then he would have beaten carney.

The Conservatives probably would have, if not for the fact that they had a leader that a strong majority of Canadians don't like, don't trust, and who was making Trumpy noises while the country got insulted by Trump!

[CdnFox]

Just now, Moonbox said:

The Conservatives probably would have, if not for the fact that they had a leader that a strong majority of Canadians don't like, don't trust, and who was making Trumpy noises while the country got insulted by Trump!

If that's the case how did he get 41%?

. All you do is talk yourself into circles. He's horrible terrible no good very bad everybody hates him. But he got 41%, and the reason for that is because Trudeau was so terrible. But you know was gone, So if Trudeau was the problem and Trudeau was gone why did he get 41%? But he's a no good very bad terrible person that nobody likes!

I mean even you have to realize your circular logic is beginning to sound pretty childish at this point. He can't say that he did well because he was such an improvement over the liberals and then say the liberals one because they were such an improvement over him. That's just not how logic works.

The fact is almost as many people wanted him to be prime minister as Carney. What put carney over the top is that trump managed to scare the NDP voters so bad that they fled the NDP and the natural place for them to go was the liberals. To the point where it is now being expected that the NDP party will not survive due to their lack of support and severe financial hardship.

So it had nothing to do with Poilievre not being able to win. He actually did very well and the loss was pretty small. He added seats and he held the liberals to a minority. Definitely not a victory but not bad. Other than he lost his writing which was a horrific embarrassment, but as I said other than that the feet but it's not a bad defeat. So a rational person cannot claim that he lost because he was so hated

[eyeball]

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If that's the case how did he get 41%?

The other 59% went to everyone else. It is what it is.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

That's just your pistanthrophobia flaring up again.

 

Oh look who's proud that he learned a word with more than two syllables   I know you've been trying so long, maybe your mommy will give you a gold star now

Quote

Did you know the belief that everyone else is insane can severely impact your social life, relationships, and ability to work or go to school?

Maybe that's why liberals have so many more mental health issues  

[WestCanMan]

22 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I'm looking on google for what your guy has won but can't seem to find anything... maybe just a bad connection. 

Maybe stop looking on CBC for information, dipshit. How old are you?

[Moonbox]

On 7/9/2025 at 8:49 PM, CdnFox said:

If that's the case how did he get 41%?

It's why he only got 41% of the vote.  

It's why outside of the Prairies, the Conservatives lost everywhere, and generally lost badly.

It might have been enough in previous elections, and that was probably even deliberate strategy on the part of PP's MAGA slob campaign manager.  Solidify the base, bring in the retards from the People's Party, grab a few marginal seats here and there, and win with ~40%.  

Unfortunately for them, rage-baiting and echoing the screeching of the dumbest parts of the electorate has its costs. It makes people dislike you, and when ~60% of the country actively dislikes you and distrusts you, it gets a lot harder to win!  

He even lost his own riding!  Humiliating!  🙃

[CdnFox]

24 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It's why he only got 41% of the vote.  

41% is more than almost any other leader has gotten going back to Mulroney with a couple exceptions.

It's like saying someone ONLY won 100 million dollars.

It's a fantastic outcome. Almost any other point in history it's a majority government. So how is that possible if he's so unloved as you say

26 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It's why outside of the Prairies, the Conservatives lost everywhere, and generally lost badly.

But they didn't. They came in like one seat behind the liberals in British Columbia which is hardly losing badly and even in Ontario they only came up something like six short. In fact it was a very very close race outside of Quebec and the maritimes

So what you're saying is they were highly competitive and either one or came close to time all across the country except Quebec and the maritimes and.... what was your point again?

30 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

t might have been enough in previous elections,

And will likely be in future elections but regardless it's still a great outcome. Wasn't enough to win but it's an excellent showing. So you have yet to explain how he could do so well, better than harper better than everybody going back to Mulroney and better than most of the liberal leaders if he's so terrible

31 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Unfortunately for them, rage-baiting and echoing the screeching of the dumbest parts of the electorate has its costs.

The cost seems to have been to reward him with the most seats since harper, the best popular vote since Mulroney.

Again, you don't seem to be able to offer a single insight as to why he has done so well?

It's almost as if you're completely full of shit and don't want to admit it

Fact is he had a very good showing. If it wasn't for the liberals cheating the system a bit and trump creating a false crisis that carney pretended to be able to solve that would have been a majority. And I don't know that carney is going to get lucky enough to have the same circumstances in the next election which will probably happen within 18 months to 2 years.

But at the very least we can see you don't know what you're talking about. It was a simple question and you haven't been able to answer it.

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's like saying someone ONLY won 100 million dollars.

Well winning 100 million dollars is winning 100 million dollars.  What did Poilievre win?   Not the election.  Not even his own seat.

Still, according to you:

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's a fantastic outcome.

Which is a weird thing for you to say right after you denied trying to frame his losing the election as some sort of success.  As usual, you can't even keep track of the shit you're saying, let alone debate what anyone else is.  🤡👍

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Well winning 100 million dollars is winning 100 million dollars. 

I see your math skills are improving that's a start    And winning 41% of the vote is winning 41% of the vote.

 

Quote

What did Poilievre win?   

41% of the vote.

Which is better than almost any leader going back to Mulroney. Only a handful of times has anyone done that well. So why he didn't win the election he definitely did win a very respectable chunk of the vote. So your argument that he's utterly unelectable and nobody would vote for him doesn't make much sense

And official opposition status of course which is nice. And a minority government.

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Which is a weird thing for you to say right after you denied trying to frame his losing the election as some sort of success. 

And I'm still not trying to say it's some sort of success, I'm saying that it was a good result and he did not lose by much. Still lost but you can't call it a disastrous defeat .

You have claimed that he was absolutely smoked, destroyed in every province other than the prairies, you insist he's unelectable and hated by all.

But the truth is he got a pretty good result. Not enough to win maybe ashamed of and certainly not the horrific defeat you're trying to portray.

And you still haven't managed to explain how he did that well if all the things you say about him are true.

Let's recap. I know you're easily distracted so I want to make sure we're on track.

Did not win the election, there's no doubt that it was a loss. However, he did not lose by much, he did better than almost any other conservative leader in decades and in fact better than most of the liberal leaders for decades, increased the seat count, and actually did very competitively in all of the provinces except Quebec and the maritimes.

So while he didn't win he did not lose by much and it's pretty obvious that he definitely could get enough support to win the next election .

Which raises the question of why you are so freaked out that you have to insist that he did terribledidn't come close was horribly defeated outside of the prairies etc etc. Sounds like you're a little worried that he is very electable.

the liberals may not be able to cheat their way to a victory next time. That's obviously got you worried

[Moonbox]

On 7/11/2025 at 7:40 PM, CdnFox said:

I see your math skills are improving that's a start    And winning 41% of the vote is winning 41% of the vote.

...which resulted in losing the election, and losing his own seat.  This, according to you, is a "fantastic result", somehow comparable to winning 100 million dollars?  

On 7/11/2025 at 7:40 PM, CdnFox said:

Which is better than almost any leader going back to Mulroney. Only a handful of times has anyone done that well.

Someone like Mulroney (or maybe even Harper) would have probably won.  

On 7/11/2025 at 7:40 PM, CdnFox said:

So why he didn't win the election he definitely did win a very respectable chunk of the vote. So your argument that he's utterly unelectable and nobody would vote for him doesn't make much sense

Nope.  That's just something stupid that you made up to debate against, because you're not capable of much else.  

My argument is that Poilievre is the reason the Conservatives lost the election, just like it was my argument that he was their best shot at losing it during their leadership campaign years.  He didn't disappoint!  🙃

[CdnFox]

40 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

...which resulted in losing the election, and losing his own seat.  This, according to you, is a "fantastic result", somehow comparable to winning 100 million dollars?  

So you took days to think about that before answering the best you could come up with is twisting my words entirely out of context  

He added 8% to the conservative vote. Roughly a 25% increase in vote give or take.

He also added 25 seats over the last election.

Those are fantastic results. See what you like it's a good solid performance. Yeah, he didn't win so it's not the result we were looking for but there's no doubt it was an excellent achievement. 

You'd have to be stupid or utterly ignorant of politics not to look at that and say that was a strong showing.  It was actually a more substantial increase than the liberals got, and despite the liberals doing so well they were held to a minority which is surprising. Considering every other party in Canada lost seats and in some cases were all but wiped out adding that many seats and that much of the popular vote is indeed a strong showing.

And despite the fact he didn't win, that sets a base he can build on for the next election which is critical. He's now within Striking Distance of a majority government just by adding the same number of seats as he added this time.

 

I know this is really heartbreaking for you. I know you desperately wanted your beloved liberals to have run away with it and the empower for the next 5 years and the next 5 years after that and for the conservatives to be completely destroyed.

But that's not what happened. The conservatives did very well. That was a strong performance. They didn't win but they radically improve their position the advantages. And it's unlikely that that will be the case next time, carney's shine is already beginning to start to slip and when he fails to deliver anything meaningful by this time next year people are going to be angry they trusted him

It would be wrong to say Poilievre didn't do well. He did. Carney did a little bit better, but that doesn't change the fact that the CPC did well. 

 

Is that clear for you now? I hate when I have to spell everything out for you 10 times in crayon, I assume you've got your head around it now. This wasn't a victory but it was a good showing and it did improve their position to win a victory next time. That's a simple truth

51 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Someone like Mulroney (or maybe even Harper) would have probably won.  

He actually did better than harper.

And the reason he lost wasn't because he didn't do well, the reason you lost is because the NDP completely fell apart after jag meet sold them out for a pension. Conservative voters didn't flock to the liberals, NDP voters and block voters did. Trump was an unusual factor that scared the bejesus out of the left and they did as trump wanted. Trump wanted the liberals to win and he wasn't shy about saying it or bragging about it afterwards. He thought carney would be easier to deal with and he is turning out to be exactly right. But that wasn't unusual circumstance

And once again I'm stuck explaining basic politics to you 🙄

53 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Nope.  That's just something stupid that you made up to debate against,

No that was your actual point. That's what you were saying. You've said it a million times actually. You've said that you feel that poilievre is the problem and he's not electable and that people hate him. You've made that point over and over

Now when you can't defend that position you're trying to pretend you never said it. But literally everyone here knows you're a liar. You're trying to claim that you've never said that poilievre can't win an election and the people don't like him then all I can say is that your credibility has somehow managed to drop below robosmiths.

 

 

[Shady]

On 7/8/2025 at 2:15 PM, ExFlyer said:

So...you're ok with using tax payer money to  .....let an unelected person without a seat to live in Stornaway, the elected opposition housing rent free??  LOL

Kinda hypocritical Eh?

We had an unelected person as PM from January to April.  Regardless, whether is Pierre or Scheer living in Stornaway, it’s the same cost.

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

So you took days to think about that before answering the best you could come up with is twisting my words entirely out of context  

When you say stuff like that, you're just confirming you have nobody in your life, and nothing else to do with your time. 

I'm sorry I kept you waiting muppet, but there are more interesting things to do and people to talk to on a summer weekend than a loser seething on the internet like you.  

As for twisting your words, LOL.  I'm just outlining how retarded your reasoning is.  If saying Poilievre is the reason the Conservatives only got 41% is somehow the same as me saying someone "only" won 100 million dollars, then you're implying these are similarly "fantastic" outcomes.  If not, then your statement is retarded.  

Doesn't matter to me which one you want to go with.  You've clowned yourself again either way.  🤡👍