Pierre is back!

[Shady]

Hopefully Pierre can fix this too.  Liberal policy has led us to having to sell our natural gas to the United States, who in turn sells it to Europe at a big profit.  If you support Liberal policy, you support idiocracy.

 

[WestCanMan]

12 minutes ago, Shady said:

Hopefully Pierre can fix this too.  Liberal policy has led us to having to sell our natural gas to the United States, who in turn sells it to Europe at a big profit.  If you support Liberal policy, you support idiocracy.

 

Same as our oil. Alberta oil sells in the US for 60% of the price of all the other oil there. 

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

We're talking about the context you've framed here,

we're not and you know it. 

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

You said he apologized for something then not now. If you're saying he apologized to Canadians somewhere else later on, where did he do that, and what did he apologize for?

I said he didn't lie. You know that's true so you're desperately trying to change the channel so you look less stupid.  Sorry you just look more stupid, 

 

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, it's clear your definition for lie come from the same dictionary your definition of apology does.

Yawn, yes dear 🙄🙄🙄

Like i said, a liberal lies so naturally he can't tell the difference from the truth  

[ExFlyer]

10 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Same as our oil. Alberta oil sells in the US for 60% of the price of all the other oil there. 

So...is Alberta still so good? Or should Alberta sell at same price as all other oil???

Ask Alberta Premier why not.

[I am Groot]

On 8/26/2025 at 9:52 PM, LinkSoul60 said:

Poilievre is invested in (VCE) Vanguard FTSE Canada Index ETF, where Brookfield Corp is one of the top assets. Think he's hopeful?

I'm invested in VCE. So what? I don't consider that I can substantially benefit from anything Brookfield does. It's only 4.4% of the ETF, after all. And the ETF is one of many stocks and ETFs I own. 

I don't have stock options on Brookfield like Carney does, though.

[Barquentine]

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But there were dozens of deals that he got to work on while he was in harper's gov't. You can look them up yourself.

 So you can't name any. You're just making shit up! And pretty well every mp gets to 'work on' gov't policies.

[I am Groot]

23 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

What does this Mean? Nothing....    Really... I thought Canadian's were close to unanimous in that we have to start unleashing our natural resources to the world?   

Why would you even imagine that was true?

Conservatives have been close to unanimous about that. Everyone else has been close to unanimous in opposing that. urban lefties have no concept of what this country's wealth was based on. They don't think we need the natural resources industry. The've fully bought into climate alarmism lies and many of them want to shut the oil and gas industry down.

23 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

This is terrible news....  I think we need to get the focus back to Trudeau's shortcomings and deporting immigrants.

It's not terrible news. It's not good news. It's really not news at all. It's a distraction. It's essentially meaningless, as the German reporter in my cite pointed out, until and unless we put in place pipelines and port upgrades. And given how long it takes this country to do such things, there is ZERO chance any of that will take place before the next federal election, even if that's four years away.

22 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

So the solution is to elect politicians who have no investments so there is no potential conflict of interest?

Again, Poilievre holds investments in Brookfield, big 6 banks, Enbridge, CPKC rail, etc....  No conflict of interest there, or only because Carney holds more, and is a 'lib'?

I don't think you know much about investments.

To say one has investments in an ETF like VCE is merely to say he has investments in Canada. It means nothing. But Carney has direct shares and stock options in Brookfield and a couple of others. And unlike what's in an ETF these are not a tiny subset of his portfolio like a stock in an ETF. And there is no 'blind trust' that keeps him from knowing this. 

Edited August 28, 2025 by I am Groot

[LinkSoul60]

16 hours ago, blackbird said:

If people would pay more attention to the policies and decisions of the government when voting instead of just the personalities of the politicians, we might have a better country.  Perhaps think of how carbon taxes on industry are pushing up the cost of living for everyone.  Think about all the Liberal government regulations that hamstring mining companies, pipeline companies, oil companies and make it impossible to develop our natural resources.  If you would quit being obsessed with the candidates personality and personal experience and realize it is the party's policies that are the important issue.  Policies are what make and break Canada, not the leader's charismatic behavior.  This is why Canada is in such a mess.

What more can be said....?  Poilievre lost the election and his Ontario riding for a reason.  One of those is the obvious, people preferred Carney.  The second is that women and persons in the older age groups in particular generally don't like the guy...  his persona and lack of charisma are not endearing.  Call it what you want....if a person doesn't like you because of persona you project, they're not voting for you.

[Shady]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

So...is Alberta still so good? Or should Alberta sell at same price as all other oil???

Ask Alberta Premier why not.

Because you libtards have made it more expensive to sell to other markets, so the United States has leverage over our prices.  Thanks again libtards for your amazing policies over the last decade.

[CouchPotato]

13 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

The second is that women and persons in the older age groups in particular generally don't like the guy...  his persona and lack of charisma are not endearing.

Carney has no great persona or any charisma. He was elected. I would say Pierre is far more likeable than Carney, but of course that is subjective. But imo he is a far better speaker than Carney and much more personable. Carney is completely dry in tone, lifeless, and speaks in meaningless word salad. More important than the persona Pierre projects is the way the gov't funded media chooses to cover it. It's no coincidence that it was the CBC boomer crowd that voted heavily for him.

The guy is very likeable. He speaks clearly and doesn't use the same meaningless fluff Trudeau and Carney resort to. The obstacle for Pierre is not his personality. It's the legacy media in Canada. Conservatives have to find more ways to get their narrative out there and combat the Liberal friendly media.

Here is an excellent interview with Pierre, for anyone interested.

 

Edited August 28, 2025 by CouchPotato

[LinkSoul60]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

I'm invested in VCE. So what? I don't consider that I can substantially benefit from anything Brookfield does. It's only 4.4% of the ETF, after all. And the ETF is one of many stocks and ETFs I own. 

I don't have stock options on Brookfield like Carney does, though.

You're aware then that there is a direct correlation to the performance of assets within the fund like BN, CPKC, RY, etc... and the ETF's performance.  The funds performance is only as good as the assets within its performance.

I'd say congrats if you had the BN holdings that Carney does....  

[eyeball]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

we're not and you know it.

You're just filled to the brim with shit today aren't you?

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I said he didn't lie.

You even said he apologized.

 

[LinkSoul60]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Why would you even imagine that was true?

Conservatives have been close to unanimous about that. Everyone else has been close to unanimous in opposing that. urban lefties have no concept of what this country's wealth was based on. They don't think we need the natural resources industry. The've fully bought into climate alarmism lies and many of them want to shut the oil and gas industry down.

Because a big part of Carney's platform is to make Canada a leading energy superpower?

Sure, educated urban 'lefties' are oblivious to Canada's natural resources....  Are you serious?

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

t's not terrible news. It's not good news. It's really not news at all. It's a distraction. It's essentially meaningless, as the German reporter in my cite pointed out, until and unless we put in place pipelines and port upgrades. And given how long it takes this country to do such things, there is ZERO chance any of that will take place before the next federal election, even if that's four years away.

Because Polievre said so....  Take your blue hat off for a minute and read where there will be an announcement in 2 weeks around port infrastructure.  That's bad news or is the only thing conservatives care about is another oil pipeline from AB to the coast?  Yes, you don't build ports in a couple weeks, it obviously takes time.  I have no idea what's going to happen in 4 years but will assume that if port and other infrastructure projects are in full motion that will bode well for Carney.

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

I don't think you know much about investments.

To say one has investments in an ETF like VCE is merely to say he has investments in Canada. It means nothing. But Carney has direct shares and stock options in Brookfield and a couple of others. And unlike what's in an ETF these are not a tiny subset of his portfolio like a stock in an ETF. And there is no 'blind trust' that keeps him from knowing this. 

I'd suggest that you know very little of the VCE ETF that you apparently own.  Think about it.... the better the assets within the ETF perform the better the fund performs. That's common sense and not that hard to understand is it....?  Do you think the fund price rises or falls just 'because' or do you think there's a correlation between the assets performance and the funds performance?  

So what if Carney has significant equity holdings.  That's financially astute and has been dealt with in a blind trust.

I have no idea how much Poilievre has invested in VCE, nor do I care.  You can't tell me though that he doesn't want those assets within the fund to perform well....because that makes the fund perform.

[ExFlyer]

33 minutes ago, Shady said:

Because you libtards have made it more expensive to sell to other markets, so the United States has leverage over our prices.  Thanks again libtards for your amazing policies over the last decade.

Are you saying that the US is telling Alberta what to charge for Alberta oil???

Fact is "Alberta crude is generally not cheaper than US crude like West Texas Intermediate (WTI); it typically trades at a discount due to its lower quality and landlocked location. While Western Canadian Select (WCS), Alberta's benchmark, has seen its price differential narrow due to increased pipeline capacity, WCS still sells for less than WTI"

"Alberta crude oil is a heavier, thicker crude with higher sulfur content, which is a lower-quality grade compared to the lighter, sweeter WTI crude that serves as a North American benchmark"

So, it has zero to do with what political party is in power.

[LinkSoul60]

32 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

Carney has no great persona or any charisma. He was elected. I would say Pierre is far more likeable than Carney, but of course that is subjective. But imo he is a far better speaker than Carney and much more personable. Carney is completely dry in tone, lifeless, and speaks in meaningless word salad. More important than the persona Pierre projects is the way the gov't funded media chooses to cover it. It's no coincidence that it was the CBC boomer crowd that voted heavily for him.

The guy is very likeable. He speaks clearly and doesn't use the same meaningless fluff Trudeau and Carney resort to. The obstacle for Pierre is not his personality. It's the legacy media in Canada. Conservatives have to find more ways to get their narrative out there and combat the Liberal friendly media.

Here is an excellent interview with Pierre, for anyone interested.

 

That's your perspective which is fine and that you're obviously entitled to.  The fact of the results don't support that though....  The fact is that he lost and that the majority of people do not have a positive impression of him.  

 

https://www.policymagazine.ca/poilievre-is-back-with-more-of-the-same/

Though he won the leadership of the Conservative Party handily in 2022, capturing 68% of the vote on the first ballot, Poilievre has not been as successful in connecting broadly with the Canadian public (and with women voters in particular).

Back in October of 2024, when the Conservatives held a 21-point lead over the Liberals, an Abacus Data poll found that there were still more people who held a negative impression of Poilievre than a positive one. Now that the 2025 election has come and gone, and the Conservatives remain the Official Opposition, an Angus Reid poll finds that while 68% of Conservative voters support Poilievre, 54% of those who thought about voting Conservative but ultimately decided against it want to see him replaced. Poilievre’s viability as leader depends on convincing the latter of these voter groups to give him another look.

[CouchPotato]

28 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Back in October of 2024, when the Conservatives held a 21-point lead over the Liberals, an Abacus Data poll found that there were still more people who held a negative impression of Poilievre than a positive one.

And I would argue that that is less a function of Pierre's persona or lack of charisma and more a function of media landscape in Canada. It was quite noticeable even back when he first became leader of the party and started showing his first signs of gaining popularity that the CBC went on the attack against him quite regularly. Something they rarely did with the actual Trudeau gov't that was in power in spite of many scandals. 

[Shady]

Maybe Pierre can fix this too, and reverse the Liberal temporary worker nonsense that they continue without regard to actual Canadians.  And the Liberals also changed the law to allow international students to work up to 20 hours a week, taking even more jobs from youth.

 

Edited August 28, 2025 by Shady

[LinkSoul60]

2 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

And I would argue that that is less a function of Pierre's persona or lack of charisma and more a function of media landscape in Canada. It was quite noticeable even back when he first became leader of the party and started showing his first signs of gaining popularity that the CBC went on the attack against him quite regularly. Something they rarely did with the actual Trudeau gov't that was in power in spite of many scandals. 

With due respect.... call it what you want and justify it being CBC's fault if you'd like.  Facts are facts...regardless of how they became facts.

[Shady]

6 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

And I would argue that that is less a function of Pierre's persona

I think it's partly due to his persona.  Canadians would rather vote from somebody they like personally, but is worse for the country, than vice versa.  Hopefully that will change soon, and Canadians will value policy over personality.

[CouchPotato]

3 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

.  Facts are facts...regardless of how they became facts.

That is true. But that means that the smartest course of action is to address the 'how they became facts' part, because it won't matter who the conservative leader is if those who control the mainstream narrative will continue to spend more time criticizing the opposition (as long as they are not Liberals) than the actual government. 

 

[CouchPotato]

4 minutes ago, Shady said:

I think it's partly due to his persona. 

Political opinions aside. Does Carney actually come across as likeable to you? I mean it's not that I would say he is loathing or anything like that, but he is not charismatic by any measure.

[Shady]

Just now, CouchPotato said:

Political opinions aside. Does Carney actually come across as likeable to you? 

Not at all.   He has the personality of a cardboard box.

[CouchPotato]

11 minutes ago, Shady said:

Not at all.   He has the personality of a cardboard box.

Yeah, I am sure if I met him I would not hate him either. Maybe I might like him. You know, if he wasn't a politician I didn't dislike. But there is nothing charismatic about him. In fact I don't think charisma is all that common among Canadian politicians. 

Charisma or the benefits of charisma can be manufactured. Take Zelensky for instance. Most people did not know who he was before the invasion. But all it took was a few weeks of glowing exposure in the media and some women on talk shows saying 'I'd marry him.. he is so cute.', and just like that people who literally know nothing about the guy all thought he is sooooo amazing and women start saying he is cute. A few weeks earlier if you had shown the same women a picture of that guy they would have never been in love with him.

That's not to say that Zelensky necessarily would come across as a bad guy if you met him, but there is no doubt in my mind that his sudden fame was manufactured.

South of the border conservatives understand the power of the narrative and that they had to overcome it. They are far more active than we are. There are a lot more conservative podcasters now, and that is a good thing, but we still are not as active as Americans are. We need a movement.

Edited August 28, 2025 by CouchPotato

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Barquentine said:

 So you can't name any. You're just making shit up! And pretty well every mp gets to 'work on' gov't policies.

LOL what kind of cheezy bullshit answer is that    Are you seriously suggesting no trade deals were done during harper's time?    You're a twat  

And yes, every mp gets to work on policy, gets to be part of the discussion and observe what's happening with trade deals from the inside, gets to work on budget issues and such and becomes intimately familiar with how govt works and how to get things done. 

That's called professional experience. Which is why people who are very experienced mp's tend to make good mp's   and are the best choice by and large for the Prime mp. 

Carney had none of that. Carney literally has no clue how our government system works in its details or how government budgeting works or any of that. He's never been intimately involved in a trade deal negotiation or the like, he doesn't understand the relationship between the government and the first nations, the guy couldn't even put together a budget despite having all of the information and knowledge ready because they were the government. When harper took over he put forward a budget within a couple months on schedule.

And all of that means that Carney Has to rely heavily on advisors. Every government that has ever relied heavily on advisors as wound up effing things up horribly

You're literally proving my point. Yes, mPS learn how government and negotiation works. Bankers don't. Poilievre has over two decades of experience in government working on exactly the kinds of things we need to deal with now, he's made tons of contacts throughout the government system and with the provincial governments and he understands how this stuff works. 

As you yourself have pointed out, poilievre has the experience that carney doesn't because that's what happens when you're an MP.

14 minutes ago, Shady said:

Not at all.   He has the personality of a cardboard box.

There are a lot of people who say he gives off that father figure vibe and they find it comforting. But I think that will wear thin quickly

[LinkSoul60]

16 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

That is true. But that means that the smartest course of action is to address the 'how they became facts' part, because it won't matter who the conservative leader is if those who control the mainstream narrative will continue to spend more time criticizing the opposition (as long as they are not Liberals) than the actual government. 

 

As always, get to the root of the problem if you want to fix it....   If you believe CBC is the reason people don't like Poilievre then that's on him to change the narrative.  I don't buy that CBC is the reason though....  people had more than enough opportunity to watch and listen to him talk for himself and didn't need CBC commentary for that.  You either like or dislike some people for your own reasons in whatever they may be, and typically the only person that can change that is the person you have the opinion of.