Mark Carney as majority PM

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Petrified? ... Of you???

 

Yup.  

Like I said, your behavior is similar to that of a Chihuahua. Barks like crazy and hides under the furniture when the big dogs show up because it's constantly petrified and feels inadequate. Piddles on the floor as a sign of submission while still yapping like crazy because if it's insecurities

I'm not the first to point this out to you, neither is goddess, others have said the same sort of thing.

Rational adults don't simply repost loser loser loser a million times in post over a million times. It just never happens. 

Rational adults don't wake up every morning and run around putting down arrows on the people they don't like as fast as possible.  That is both neurotic behavior and childish. 

And you can't even help yourself. It's completely compulsive with you.

Everybody sees it.

Edited April 21 by CdnFox

[SpankyMcFarland]

8 hours ago, Goddess said:

U of T economist, Josef Steinberg responds:

"I get that this elbows-up crap plays well politically within Canada, but as Kevin A. Bryan, Chief Economist, CDL Toronto states, it's "economic malpractice."

Our physical proximity to the US isn't a weakness---it's one of our most valuable endowments.

So what does he propose? Elbows down? Abject surrender? 

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

So what does he propose? Elbows down? Abject surrender? 

I don't know.  Everyone else seems to have figured it out.

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't recommend destroying our economy, though.

 

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

So what does he propose? Elbows down? Abject surrender? 

Neither. It was a dumb metaphor to begin with. Guess the mass is excited but achieves nothing.

What you do is enter into negotiations with a focus on mutual benefits and areas where you can agree that you can become stronger. You also look for give and take, things at Canada can give up that makes the US situation better and things that America can give up that makes Canada better

The whole elbows up and elbows down thing was childish and designed to appeal to people that were fairly low brow people economically to begin with. These are the people that supported Trudeau

[ExFlyer]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yup.  

Like I said....

Everybody sees it.

Petrified? ... Of you??? coinfux, the basement dwelling pedophile??? HA HA HA

Oh? You again LOSER???

Struggling staying on topic again too LOL

as I said before ;

OMG!!!! 

How feeble. So sad you cannot do better

I thought your were better than that ...LOSER LOL LOL LOL

Or as you even say "LOOOOZER!! LOOOOOOZER!!!  Did i win yet? One more.  LOOOOOOOZER!!! "  

[SpankyMcFarland]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Neither. It was a dumb metaphor to begin with. Guess the mass is excited but achieves nothing.

What you do is enter into negotiations with a focus on mutual benefits and areas where you can agree that you can become stronger. You also look for give and take, things at Canada can give up that makes the US situation better and things that America can give up that makes Canada better

The whole elbows up and elbows down thing was childish and designed to appeal to people that were fairly low brow people economically to begin with. These are the people that supported Trudeau

Before Trump there was really no argument that America gets a fantastic deal with us on military, resource and fuel security and that we are a great neighbour for them. But fair is fair here. We didn’t start this ridiculous line of chat about our country where it’s like a business that will get into grave trouble if it doesn't ‘behave itself’. Trump’s threats are utterly out of line and have to be addressed. They cannot be ignored. 

Edited April 22 by SpankyMcFarland

[John Johnston]

The very first thing this present Whitehouse and Trump did was kick all their Allies in the teeth and hug Putin. America has unequivocally proven that America First means America alone and ultimately America Last. 

What are ya gona do... Shrug. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

Whenever Trump’s officials talk about agriculture and the need to scrap supply management here, they should be reminded that a large proportion of their own agricultural workers are undocumented. In other words, they are insisting we take more of products produced illegally by them. How on earth are we supposed to compete on a level playing field with them? 

Quote

Nearly 45 percent of all agricultural workers in the U.S. today, 950,000 of an estimated 2.2 million farmworkers, are “unauthorized” migrants working illegally on American farms and ranches.

Quote

…a 2023 University of Wisconsin survey found that “an estimated 70% of the labor on [the state’s] dairy farms” is performed by “more than 10,000 undocumented migrant workers.”

As such, “Wisconsin farmers are heavily dependent on this unauthorized workforce. Without them, the whole dairy industry would collapse overnight.”

Quote

https://eu.southbendtribune.com/story/business/2024/08/03/trumps-deportation-plan-would-gut-half-ag-labor-force/74461131007/

 

 

Edited April 22 by SpankyMcFarland

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Whenever Trump’s officials talk about agriculture and the need to scrap supply management here, they should be reminded that a large proportion of their own agricultural workers are undocumented. In other words, they are insisting we take more of products produced illegally by them. How on earth are we supposed to compete on a level playing field with them? 

Don't forget that the Trump years are marked by bailouts for the agriculture industry due to trade wars with China.

Do you know if those are factored in ?

In any case, there is no dealing with this administration.  The timing of MCUSA discussions is unfortunate but we have to wait until a more serious admin comes into office.

[LinkSoul60]

Listening yesterday to Dominic LeBlanc overview the status of trade talks with the US and seeing the headline this morning of 'Washington demanding 'entry fee' from Ottawa before trade talks' is making a lot more sense of why no 'deal' has been agreed to...

The obvious reason a 'deal' hasn't been agreed to is that what has been on the table isn't in Canada's best interests. That's been obvious.  I found it interesting though that he sounded positive with the discussions that are happening in the background, but also said they're not going to meet to simply listen to more concessions the US wants us to make while disregarding any concessions on their part.

The news this morning of the US wanting an 'entry fee' for discussions to begin is a big non-starter...  Trump's word isn't worth a nickel anyway and blackmailing a one-time strong ally into paying to negotiate should tell Canadian's everything they need to know of why no 'deal' has been made.

[SpankyMcFarland]

39 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Don't forget that the Trump years are marked by bailouts for the agriculture industry due to trade wars with China.

Do you know if those are factored in ?

In any case, there is no dealing with this administration.  The timing of MCUSA discussions is unfortunate but we have to wait until a more serious admin comes into office.

I have never heard US government support of any sort discussed by the American side. It needs to be talked about by the Canadian side too. I’m agnostic on supply management and would actually welcome more US involvement in our consumer telecom sector but we need to have an honest and open discussion about that and everything else the US wants. For example, we have a right to know exactly what the US does with data it already collects from digital service companies in Canada. Could my opinions here be hoovered up by a hostile US administration? 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Petrified? ... Of you??? 

Obviously.  Your repetitive posting behavior proves that.  You're brutally intimidated and this is how insecure people react to that. 

Every time you do it everyone knows you're petrified 

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Obviously.  Your repetitive posting behavior proves that.  You're brutally intimidated and this is how insecure people react to that. 

Every time you do it everyone knows you're petrified 

 

Aww, looks like you and verahdah are petrified of me. You try and try and try and get nowhere...sort like you're pushing on a pull door LOL

Playing down arrow tit for tat with verrahndaboy is boring but it gave me something to do. Seems all verandaboy has is........well actually he has nothing LOL

 

Oh? You again LOSER???

Struggling with staying credible too LOL

as I said before ;

OMG!!!! 

How feeble. So sad you cannot do better

I thought your were better than that ...LOSER LOL LOL LOL

Or as you even say "LOOOOZER!! LOOOOOOZER!!!  Did i win yet? One more.  LOOOOOOOZER!!! "  

 

Edited April 22 by ExFlyer

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I have never heard US government support of any sort discussed by the American side. It needs to be talked about by the Canadian side too. I’m agnostic on supply management and would actually welcome more US involvement in our consumer telecom sector but we need to have an honest and open discussion about that and everything else the US wants. For example, we have a right to know exactly what the US does with data it already collects from digital service companies in Canada. Could my opinions here be hoovered up by a hostile US administration? 

You are correct, they do not talk about it because it would prove defeat of Trumps policies....but the administration is certainly bailing the economy out.

AI. "the Trump administration significantly subsidized U.S. agriculture, primarily through massive, ad-hoc, direct-to-farmer bailout payments totaling tens of billions of dollars. These payments were designed to offset losses from trade wars (tariffs). " Primary beneficiaries included soybean, corn, cotton, sorghum, wheat, and dairy producers, with soybean producers" "In December 2025, the administration announced another $12 billion in "bridge payments" for farmers to address continued market disruptions and high input costs"

"The Trump administration implemented policies that functioned as subsidies or direct financial support for various U.S. businesses. Key initiatives included broad corporate tax cuts (lowering the rate to 21%), massive farm bailouts ($166 billion) to offset trade war losses, and over $40 billion in new subsidies for the fossil fuel industry"

[John Johnston]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Don't forget that the Trump years are marked by bailouts for the agriculture industry due to trade wars with China.

Do you know if those are factored in ?

In any case, there is no dealing with this administration.  The timing of MCUSA discussions is unfortunate but we have to wait until a more serious admin comes into office.

Not mention these so called Bailouts for agriculture from Trumps tariffs amount to a pittance of what the Farming community had. 

[Goddess]

I think I'm the only one here who watches committee meetings so I'll comment on what will happen with committees now that the Liberals have a majority.

McKinnon just announced, as expected, that they will repopulate committees now to have a majority of Liberal members.

Don't underestimate the importance of committees.  Contrary to what Liberal pom-pom wavers believe, this is where the real work of government takes place.  Not on CBC nightly news.

It was in committees that all of the Liberal scandals from the last 10 years were revealed.  SNC Lavelin, WE Charity, ArriveScam, etc.  It is in committees that the Opposition can demand documentation from the government.  It's in committees that Bills are debated.  Committees are where the sitting government is held to account.

During the years that Liberals had a majority via NDP support, committees were often stalled and when documentation was demanded, the Liberals prorogued Parliament to avoid coughing them up.  They very often de-railed meetings by banding together and presenting motions to switch the topic, such as the time they de-railed the Women's Committee about the 75% increase in women killings and why Bill C-75 was letting domestic abusers who had nearly killed their partners out on the street, to switch the topic to abortion.  One or more of them will suddenly have issues with the translation earpieces every time a Conservative starts to speak, although no one else in the room will be experiencing issues.

In the last year, the Liberals also paid money to consultants to teach them how to NOT answer questions in committee - and it showed.  Ministers suddenly did not know a thing about their own portfolios.

Liberals, with the majority in committee meetings, can accept or deny expert witnesses.  Liberals tend to only call experts whom they have paid to create glowing reports about Liberals, or ones who agree with them. They can out-vote demands to produce documents, deny experts or witnesses they don't like, and vote together to bring an end to any investigative questioning.

It's going to be much harder to hold the Liberals to account through committee meetings.  

McKinnon said, correctly, that it is tradition that committees reflect the seats in the house, so if Libs are the majority, they get the most seats in committee.  My caveat to that is that they did not get a majority by election, so having a majority of seats in committee does not reflect the will of the people.

My last concern is speculative but based on past & current Liberal activities. 

Past - just before Trudeau resigned, several times in committee meetings, the Liberals wanted the Chair to ban Conservatives from sharing clips from the meetings on social media.  The claim was that it put their lives in danger.  Liberals also clip-farm the meetings and post snippets from them, too, but they only wanted Conservatives banned from doing this.

Currently - The Liberals just passed 5 censorship bills.  Censorship has been their main focus for the last year.  I don't believe they did this for shits & giggles.  They intend to use them.  And I speculate that they will be used to keep Canadians in the dark as to what's going on by deeming any negative postings as "hate speech".

Edited April 22 by Goddess

[Goddess]

Blanchett and Polievre are actually agreeing on a lot of stuff lately.

But CBC is only vilifying Poilievre for the views.

 

 

 

[Moonlight Graham]

On 4/14/2026 at 11:34 AM, ExFlyer said:

Maybe its time the conservatives in this group acknowledge that the man that lost you an election with a 27 point lead, lost his seat of 21 years, and had to run in the SAFEST riding in the entire country is the reason your MPs are crossing to the liberals. How many of you voted to let him keep his leadership? I'm pretty sure you weren't one of the 2558 t(of over 650K members) that cast a vote where he didn't even win 100% from his staunchest supporters. (even the NDP allowed all 160K members o vote for a leader)Why do you think Carney allowed him to run again in a byelection so fast? He had the legal authority to wait 6 months but let him run as quickly as possible because he's that bad. Why would the libs want to allow you to get a charismatic leader when you have Poilievre to drag you down? I can't believe we're still arguing about this, stop supporting a loser and get a real leader so we can have a real opposition which will be good for all Canadians

If the CPC floor crossers didn't like PP then why did they support him during the election?  Nothing changed.  Why did they support PO for years prior when PP was leader?

They switched to the Liberals so they could have more power.  It's sad that you think these MPs are ethical and did it for their country or their constituents   Their priority is their own power.  Just like all the Liberal MPs who supported Trudeau over JWR during that fiasco and voted to kick her to the curb for standing up for democracy. 

You sure are naive.

[ExFlyer]

7 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

If the CPC floor crossers didn't like PP then why did they support him during the election?  Nothing changed.  Why did they support PO for years prior when PP was leader?

They switched to the Liberals so they could have more power.  It's sad that you think these MPs are ethical and did it for their country or their constituents   Their priority is their own power.  Just like all the Liberal MPs who supported Trudeau over JWR during that fiasco and voted to kick her to the curb for standing up for democracy. 

You sure are naive.

Well, if you remember the election, or better yet, the lead up to the election, everyone hated Trudeau and that is who PP was (or seemingly) running against. It was not till after the election did PP realize Trudeau was gone. About the same time his 27 point lead went away. Those that crossed and perhaps more, lost faith in PP and the conservative party. That is evident by the most recent polls now, more than a year after the election.

I never said what they did was "ethical". It was legal and done before by members of all parties. They did it for personal reasons which you do not know anything about, what happened behind closed caucus doors, which you also do not know anything about. And most of all, when they realized that PP was not the one Canadians wanted as a PM.  Lastly, as members of the ruling party (of which they had not been for over 11 years) they felt they could get things done and for their constituents. When a party invites only 3000 members out of 650,000+ to vote on a leader...there is something not right. Even the NDP allowed all members to vote for a leader.

As for gaining "power". Exactly what power did any of them get?

What a lot of conservatives are doing is resorting to the past...for what? The past is gone....Canadians want to move forward into the future and all we get from PP is how bad it was yesterday. 

On a personal note, I had been a life long conservative until Harper lost...the party was/is in turmoil. They have not been able to find a leader to stimulate Canadians.

So, no naivety at all but realism for sure. 

Edited May 14 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Well, if you remember the election, or better yet, the lead up to the election, everyone hated Trudeau and that is who PP was (or seemingly) running against. It was not till after the election did PP realize Trudeau was gone. About the same time his 27 point lead went away. Those that crossed and perhaps more, lost faith in PP and the conservative party. That is evident by the most recent polls now, more than a year after the election.

 

So, no naivety at all but realism for sure. 

Bullshit. They never lost faith in Poilievre. They had hoped to become part of the government and when that didn't happen and they were pressured and bought by carney they decided to cross the floor.

The liberals deliberately took a tactic that would ensure the least ethical people became part of their party. Got nothing to do with Poilievre, it is everything to do with the fact that they wanted to be in power and they were willing to sell out to make that happen.

[ExFlyer]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Bullshit. They never lost faith in Poilievre. They had hoped to become part of the government and when that didn't happen and they were pressured and bought by carney they decided to cross the floor.

The liberals deliberately took a tactic that would ensure the least ethical people became part of their party. Got nothing to do with Poilievre, it is everything to do with the fact that they wanted to be in power and they were willing to sell out to make that happen.

Yeah and to make sure he wins the leadership they only invited 3000 out of nearly 679,000 members of the party to vote on his leadership LOL   So, yeah, they lost faith LOL  

Even the NDP allowed all members to vote in their leadership. 

It has everything to do with PP, the LOSER LOL.

OK, what did the conservatives that crossed over get?? Except more for their constituency.

[Legato]

8 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Yeah and to make sure he wins the leadership they only invited 3000 out of nearly 679,000 members of the party to vote on his leadership LOL   So, yeah, they lost faith LOL  

Even the NDP allowed all members to vote in their leadership. 

It has everything to do with PP, the LOSER LOL.

OK, what did the conservatives that crossed over get?? Except more for their constituency.

One has to wonder on the size of of the under the table carrots.

We could ask the specially appointed head of the new Apiaceae department although this is one the Carney's SOA's.

[Goddess]

17 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

they only invited 3000 out of nearly 679,000 members of the party to vote on his leadership LOL  

Yuk it up, ding-dong.

Look who your guy just lost to:

 

 

[ExFlyer]

46 minutes ago, Legato said:

One has to wonder on the size of of the under the table carrots.

We could ask the specially appointed head of the new Apiaceae department although this is one the Carney's SOA's.

Huh???

It sucks for you to be on the losing team for so long but hey, you are what your are ...a LOSER too.  LOL

Being LOSER for so long has clearly made you a very bitter person...

BTW, Carney blew PP away, went form a 26 point lead to losing the election and even his own sat that he held for 22 years.... his own constituents bailed out on the LOSER....  and the liberals have been in power for 12 years and at least 3 more to come...so...get used to being a LOSER for longer

 

Edited May 14 by ExFlyer

[ExFlyer]

43 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Yuk it up, ding-dong.

Look who your guy just lost to:

 

 

OK...YUK YUK YUK...and you are still a LOSER along with your leader PP YUK YUK YUK

Who the phk is Max or Nate???

goodiness, surely you can do better than that??? YUK YUK YUK