Poilievre OBLITERATED the LPOC's Super-Sycophant at CBC, Rosemary Barton

[blackbird]

20 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I'm not freighted of Mr. Poilievre. I am freightened for him. His all consuming passion has been to become Prime Minister. He had it almost within his grasp and now he sees it slipping away. 

I admit I don't think he would have made a very good PM. He seems to be unable to listen to advice. Jean Charest would have been far better.

 

Jean Charest is more of a liberal than a conservative, same as you.  Why pretend to be conservative all the time.  You are a liberal and you think the Conservative Party should be more liberal.  What a pointless thing that would be.  What would be the use of having two liberal parties and no conservative party? One just slightly more liberal than the other.

Edited November 8, 2025 by blackbird

[WestCanMan]

45 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

In 1952, I asked my Dad what a communist is. He said it is someone who talks too much. It is time I heeded his advice. 

Go Riders.

Was he watching his show? Listening to the Riders game on the radio? 

[WestCanMan]

29 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Jean Charest is more of a liberal than a conservative, same as you.  Why pretend to be conservative all the time.  You are a liberal and you think the Conservative Party should be more liberal.  What a pointless thing that would be.  What would be the use of having two liberal parties and no conservative party? One just slightly more liberal than the other.

That's the kind of "conservative" that the CBC wants... 

"If you choose a liberal cultist as the leader of your party, we will tell the peons that it's ok to vote for you." - CBC

[WestCanMan]

51 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Was he watching his show? Listening to the Riders game on the radio? 

Yeah he was 🤣

FYI a commie isn't "someone who talks to much". It's someone who thinks that the answer to happiness is to let all the money in your country flow through the hands of an entirely trustworthy "Dear Leader" type, like Xi, Putin, Stalin, Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.

[CdnFox]

On 11/7/2025 at 11:58 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

The title is ironic. It is Mr. Poilievre who is going to be obliterated. He is following in the tracks of John Diefenbaker and Justin Trudeau. Although I was a Diefenbaker loyalist up to the end, both leaders refused to recognize when it is time to go.

We cannot win an election with Mr. Poilievre. While we will always need the support of the reform / social credit rump in the Party, it is time for Conservatives to take bake the control of the Conservative Party, the Party of MacDonald.

 

You're not even remotely tiny bit a conservative so spare me the whole we can't win nonsense.

And clearly we can win, he pulled for a year at about 41 to 42%, he brought in 41 and a half, he's pulling about 41 and a half right now. That certainly is enough in most circumstances to win an election

This is why liberals like yourself are putting in so much energy to try and convince conservatives to get rid of him. 

I'm a little concerned that he doesn't seem to have learned all the lessons he could have since the last election but there is time and we will see. But let's not pretend that he can't win an election, in fact there's an excellent chance he can especially with the way that Mark Carney's shine is coming off of him

[Queenmandy85]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I'm a little concerned that he doesn't seem to have learned all the lessons he could have since the last election but there is time and we will see. But let's not pretend that he can't win an election, in fact there's an excellent chance he can especially with the way that Mark Carney's shine is coming off of him

Do you think Pierre will be appointed Prime Minister before 2030?

The CPC is polling almost even with the Grits, but Pierre is 20 points behind the Prime Minister. That is a steep hill to climb. It is not impossible, but if I were a betting man, I would not put money on him. 

I am a Progressive Conservative, and a Red Tory. I liked John Diefenbaker for his support for the monarchy. I supported Erin O'Toole. Carney is a strong supporter of the King. Pierre, not so much from what I have seen.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Do you think Pierre will be appointed Prime Minister before 2030?

I think his chances are better than not. Carney is at his peak, he can only fall and will as he continues to disappoint and fails to deliver and people still can't afford rent and food. The ndp will get back on it's feet,  And PP has settled in to a solid 41 percent of the vote as his base level.  He only has to improve in a few key demographics and carney only has to fall a litlte and PP  will win. 

Of course you never know if you can force an election when you need to which is what killed him last time. 

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The CPC is polling almost even with the Grits, but Pierre is 20 points behind the Prime Minister. That is a steep hill to climb. It is not impossible, but if I were a betting man, I would not put money on him. 

Popularity is meaningless. Harper was behind every single one of the opponents he defeated in popularity by a good margin.

Under the right conditions, Canadians don't care if they like the guy they just care if he can get the job done

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I am a Progressive Conservative, and a Red Tory.

I think you're a little bit left of that

[Queenmandy85]

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Popularity is meaningless

Good point. Ed Broadbent was the most popular choice of PM. 

 

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I think you're a little bit left of that

I shy away from lables (said the self-identified red tory 😀). They smack of ideology, such as social democracy or libertatrianism, which is the silly idea that one over-arching theory will solve all problems.  Every problem has its own solution. The two issues I am most concerned with are the monarchy and climate change. 

Down the scale from those are defence policy, or the lack of it, and, just for you, enhancing the CBC.

18 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Do you think Pierre will be appointed Prime Minister before 2030?

I asked this as a lead in. I propose a wager. I will bet that Pierre Poilieve will not be appointed Prime Minister before noon,  Nov. 10, 2030.

This is not a bet for money. My Church forbids gambling and also, I think I am right, but not certain. 

What say you?

[herbie]

The only thing PP ever obliterated was any respect for himself.

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Good point. Ed Broadbent was the most popular choice of PM. 

Exactly. 

I mean, don't get me wrong. It's not a BAD thing to have    But many pm's didn't have it and still did quite well. 

7 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 

I asked this as a lead in. I propose a wager. I will bet that Pierre Poilieve will not be appointed Prime Minister before noon,  Nov. 10, 2030.

This is not a bet for money. My Church forbids gambling and also, I think I am right, but not certain. 

What say you?

Sure although calling it a bet seems a little far-fetched with nothing to put down but let's call it a prediction. You predict he won't, what the heck I'll take the opposite position and predict he will. I think that that's the most likely outcome, although it certainly not guaranteed. But i WILL throw in the caveate "assuming he survives his leadership review'.  I mean I think he's going to but obviously if he doesn't then this becomes moot

[Queenmandy85]

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Exactly. 

I mean, don't get me wrong. It's not a BAD thing to have    But many pm's didn't have it and still did quite well. 

Sure although calling it a bet seems a little far-fetched with nothing to put down but let's call it a prediction. You predict he won't, what the heck I'll take the opposite position and predict he will. I think that that's the most likely outcome, although it certainly not guaranteed. But i WILL throw in the caveate "assuming he survives his leadership review'.  I mean I think he's going to but obviously if he doesn't then this becomes moot

Excellent. I accept your conditions. I will mark my calendar. Thank you.

I should warn you that, while I did bet on Cassius Clay to beat Sony Liston in their first title match in 1962, and Stanfield to beat Trudeau in 1972. I also predicted Carter would beat Reagan, Clark would defeat Mulroney for the leadership, Secretary Clinton would defeat Trump in 2016, and Trump would defeat Harris. There are many other examples but the first and last are the only ones I was right. I actually predictey Trump in 2024 just to make sure he lost.

Bases on all of that, you can understand why I don't wager for money. Cheers.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Excellent. I accept your conditions. I will mark my calendar. Thank you.

I should warn you that, while I did bet on Cassius Clay to beat Sony Liston in their first title match in 1962, and Stanfield to beat Trudeau in 1972. I also predicted Carter would beat Reagan, Clark would defeat Mulroney for the leadership, Secretary Clinton would defeat Trump in 2016, and Trump would defeat Harris. There are many other examples but the first and last are the only ones I was right. I actually predictey Trump in 2024 just to make sure he lost.

Bases on all of that, you can understand why I don't wager for money. Cheers.

LOL  

Well, It's all about the balance of probabilities, so there's always that element of luck. Nobody knows for sure. Which absolutely won't stop me from claiming that I'm a genius who understands the universe on a fundamental level better than everybody else and that you should bow before me if it turns out  I'm right    

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

LOL  

Well, It's all about the balance of probabilities, so there's always that element of luck. Nobody knows for sure. Which absolutely won't stop me from claiming that I'm a genius who understands the universe on a fundamental level better than everybody else and that you should bow before me if it turns out  I'm right    

Well said.😀