Trump is to blame for everything, well at least according to carney....when in fact it is liberal policies that are to blame...

[Army Guy]

Liberal Trigger warning

In typical liberal fashion, liberals have started to point fingers at everyone else besides themselves...pretty easy to drum up hatred for Trump, which has been the Carney message for everything....instead of taking a step back and finding the root of problem which was Justin policies....go figure and instead of reversing them...and turning Canada into the power house it could be...why do that is the question, maybe he Carney still believes they are the best policies....and we thought he was an economist...

Michael Higgins: Carney continues to blame Trump for problems the Liberals created

[eyeball]

From the article.

Blaming America worked to get Carney elected, but the issue of hard-working younger Canadians who can’t get a home, who are poorer, facing more debt and turning to credit to get groceries, is a made-in-Canada problem — and it was made by the Liberals.

And everything under the sun was right as rain in the Before Times? LMAO!

I've been witness to issues of sustainability and the lack thereof  for well over 30 years now. That includes the mismanagement, de-industrialization and economic hollowing out that resulted in people borrowing to pay for necessities.

The economic and environmental forces that caused this had, in turn, been in motion for decades. Along with no end of finger pointing in all directions.

It's like this all over the world - and you haven't seen anything yet.

[Legato]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Liberal Trigger warning

In typical liberal fashion, liberals have started to point fingers at everyone else besides themselves...pretty easy to drum up hatred for Trump, which has been the Carney message for everything....instead of taking a step back and finding the root of problem which was Justin policies....go figure and instead of reversing them...and turning Canada into the power house it could be...why do that is the question, maybe he Carney still believes they are the best policies....and we thought he was an economist...

Michael Higgins: Carney continues to blame Trump for problems the Liberals created

When it come to economics the Carney's singular direction is an entity known as Brookfield.

Canada is just the mode of transport and will be driven hard until the engine seizes through lack of oil.

[Goddess]

Asked AI:

Can Canada’s inflation realistically be blamed on Donald Trump, or are domestic policies the bigger factor? 

Answer:

Domestic policies are the bigger factor. Canada's inflation hit multi-decade highs pre-2025 due to heavy federal spending, housing shortages, immigration-driven demand, and energy costs—issues tracked by the Bank of Canada for years. Trump tariffs (imposed 2025) add modest import cost pressure and are factored into BoC projections, but CPI eased to 1.8% y/y in Feb 2026 (near 2% target) despite them. Domestic fiscal and supply-side factors remain dominant.

 

If domestic policies are the main driver, which specific policies had the biggest impact on inflation in Canada?

Answer:

The biggest domestic policy drivers of Canada's pre-2025 inflation spike were: 

**Record immigration surge

** Federal targets ramped net migration to over 1M annually (IRCC data), spiking housing demand without matching supply—shelter costs (rent/mortgage interest) became the largest CPI component, per Bank of Canada analysis. 

**Large federal deficits/spending

** Post-COVID stimulus (CERB, extended benefits, infrastructure/childcare) overheated demand, as tracked in BoC Monetary Policy Reports. 

**Housing supply restrictions

** Zoning, approvals, and NIMBY policies at federal/provincial/municipal levels slowed builds.  **Energy/carbon policies

**Carbon tax and regulations raised fuel/transport costs.

 

BoC repeatedly flagged these supply/demand imbalances years before tariffs.

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

From the article.

Blaming America worked to get Carney elected, but the issue of hard-working younger Canadians who can’t get a home, who are poorer, facing more debt and turning to credit to get groceries, is a made-in-Canada problem — and it was made by the Liberals.

And everything under the sun was right as rain in the Before Times? LMAO!

I've been witness to issues of sustainability and the lack thereof  for well over 30 years now. That includes the mismanagement, de-industrialization and economic hollowing out that resulted in people borrowing to pay for necessities.

The economic and environmental forces that caused this had, in turn, been in motion for decades. Along with no end of finger pointing in all directions.

It's like this all over the world - and you haven't seen anything yet.

Makes sense it wasn't liberal policies they were the best in the world....it happen all over the world with each country suffering equally, that's not what happened, we are were we are today because of poor liberal governance.... some things may have influenced some of that pain....

[ExFlyer]

15 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Makes sense it wasn't liberal policies they were the best in the world....it happen all over the world with each country suffering equally, that's not what happened, we are were we are today because of poor liberal governance.... some things may have influenced some of that pain....

[Moonbox]

Another example of OP headline not matching content provided.  🥴

[Gaétan]

It’s good that he eventually realized he shouldn’t waste his time talking to a narcissistic, psychopathic murderer. He’s not even mentally fit to stand trial for murder, and people with that kind of condition are incurable

[CdnFox]

On 4/23/2026 at 1:18 PM, eyeball said:

And everything under the sun was right as rain in the Before Times? LMAO!

Yeah, things are pretty good.

On 4/23/2026 at 1:18 PM, eyeball said:

I've been witness to issues of sustainability and the lack thereof  for well over 30 years now. That includes the mismanagement, de-industrialization and economic hollowing out that resulted in people borrowing to pay for necessities.

Bullshit. You vote for the guys doing it. And you defend them here daily

[Legato]

 

[herbie]

When the fact is that PP is 100% to blame for his won failure.

Demonstrated once again by trying to pin the blame on absolutely anything else. 
He blew a nearly 30 pt lead and lost his own seat -  that's obvious to anyone with a measurable IQ - he was completely off message.

Can't even admit the bare truth can you guys?

[Legato]

1 minute ago, herbie said:

When the fact is that PP is 100% to blame for his won failure.

Demonstrated once again by trying to pin the blame on absolutely anything else. 
He blew a nearly 30 pt lead and lost his own seat -  that's obvious to anyone with a measurable IQ - he was completely off message.

Can't even admit the bare truth can you guys?

What is it about Poilievre that frightens you?

[CdnFox]

On 4/25/2026 at 11:25 AM, herbie said:

When the fact is that PP is 100% to blame for his won failure.

Demonstrated once again by trying to pin the blame on absolutely anything else. 
He blew a nearly 30 pt lead and lost his own seat -  that's obvious to anyone with a measurable IQ - he was completely off message.

Can't even admit the bare truth can you guys?

I love that this imaginary lead keeps getting bigger every time you guys lie about it   LOL he never had a 30 point lead over ANYONE.  

He had about a 24 point lead over justin trudeau.  And he never had a lead over carney once carney won the leadership. 

I'm sure next week it'll be "HE BLEW A 36 POINT LEAD OVER CARNEY!!! MAYBE 40!!!!!"   

LOL, hey kid, i've told you before if you have to lie to make you're point, you don't have a very good point  

There's no doubt that leaders are responsible for their campaigns, and the problem for PP is he got lazy in the last 6 months of 2024 and made it all about justin and all about the carbon tax.  Then the libs used some dirty tricks and said 'justin's gone and the carbon tax is gone (sort of)"   And PP had no plan for that and the libs won. 

But he didn't "blow" any leads  

Having said that, PP came within about 1.5 percent of Carney, and did better than any conservative (and almost all liberal) leaders going back to mulroney. 

But yeah, he lost and he has to own that. 

 

[Moonbox]

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Having said that, PP came within about 1.5 percent of Carney, and did better than any conservative (and almost all liberal) leaders going back to mulroney. 

Here you are, still singing his praises and unable to recognize that he's the problem, and he's the reason they lost, and he's the reason MPs keep defecting.  

How is it that you just can't wrap your head around the net-approval ratings?  

It doesn't matter if he tells dumb people like you exactly what they want to hear, if 60% of the voting public despises him.  🤡

[Legato]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Here you are, still singing his praises and unable to recognize that he's the problem, and he's the reason they lost, and he's the reason MPs keep defecting.  

How is it that you just can't wrap your head around the net-approval ratings?  

It doesn't matter if he tells dumb people like you exactly what they want to hear, if 60% of the voting public despises him.  🤡

 

[Goddess]

I like how the Carney Liberals passed a bill so their emails are automatically deleted after 15 days and Ford (who we all know is a Liberal) just passed a bill in the Ontario legislature that exempts themselves, their office staff and parliamentary assistants from FOI requests.....and the pom-pom wavers are still talking about Poilievre's loss in the last election.

 

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Here you are, still singing his praises and unable to recognize that he's the problem, and he's the reason they lost, and he's the reason MPs keep defecting.  

How is it that you just can't wrap your head around the net-approval ratings?  

It doesn't matter if he tells dumb people like you exactly what they want to hear, if 60% of the voting public despises him.  🤡

Me: But yeah, he lost and he has to own that. 

You:  SINGING HIS PRAISES!!!! SINGING HIS PRAISES!!!  REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

LOL do you actually sit there and TRY to find ways to look more stupid with each post?!?! I honestly don't know how you manage it  

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

How is it that you just can't wrap your head around the net-approval ratings?  

Net approval rating has rarely mattered in elections. Harper frequently had a lower approval rating than his opponent. 

And again... he came within 1.5 percenf of carney or thereabout. So approval ratings aren't reflective of how people will vote. If they were it would have been a landslide majority. 

People don't need to LIKE him to ELECT him, and that has always been the case with Canada. 

Sorry your lack of education required me to explain that. 

 

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

It doesn't matter if he tells dumb people like you exactly what they want to hear, if 60% of the voting public despises him. 

Again, and pay attention this time... i'll go slow.....  there's very little connection between approval rating and votes.  Never has been. IF they're similar it's a total coincidence.

almost 60 percent of people did not vote for carney. Yet his approval ratings were higher than that.  Carney was at 48 percent approval yet he didn't get near that percentage of votes.  Hmmm .

I know math is hard for you, but surely even you can see that approval ratings don't translate directly into votes. 

[Moonbox]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Again, and pay attention this time... i'll go slow.....  there's very little connection between approval rating and votes.  Never has been. IF they're similar it's a total coincidence.

Unfortunately for you, you're a giant ass clown and have no idea what you're talking about: 

"Among those who dislike Poilievre, just 4% would vote Conservative."

https://abacusdata.ca/new-abacus-poll-liberal-lead-widens-to-11-as-government-approval-hits-new-high/#:~:text=+26%-,Abacus Data · March 2026 · n=1%2C931 Canadians · MoE,say they would vote Conservative.

https://www.338canada.ca/p/poilievre-faces-growing-doubts-even

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Unfortunately for you, you're a giant ass clown and have no idea what you're talking about: 

Except that i'm right  

 

 

Quote

 

"Among those who dislike Poilievre, just 4% would vote Conservative."

 

Except as i pointed out, that's not what happened.  Nor it it what happened for Carney either where many who said they approve of him didn't vote for him 

PP got 41.5 percent of the vote.  

I'm right, you're looking stupid again  

 

Quote

 

https://abacusdata.ca/new-abacus-poll-liberal-lead-widens-to-11-as-government-approval-hits-new-high/#:~:text=+26%-,Abacus Data · March 2026 · n=1%2C931 Canadians · MoE,say they would vote Conservative.

 

And yet they got about the same number of votes in the eleciton.  HMMMMM,,,,  so in other words popularity doesn't translate to votes!   I wish i'd thought of that sooner.  Oh ... wait.....

So basically what you've proven is that despite the fact that Connie had a much higher approval rating than Poilievre, they got almost the same number of votes.

Which is what I said.

And once again, you up kept your long-standing tradition of taking the time to prove me right make yourself look like a complete ass clown    

LOL you're such a tard  

Favorability is an interesting indicator but in no way does it reflect the votes someone is going to get, or who's going to win. If it does it's more by accident and it's rare.  Harper always had lower approval ratings than his results would indicate. 

LOL  this would be more fun if you let ME beat you up instead of doing it yourself  

 

[Moonbox]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Except as i pointed out, that's not what happened.  Nor it it what happened for Carney either where many who said they approve of him didn't vote for him 

PP got 41.5 percent of the vote.  

I'm right, you're looking stupid again  

It's polling data, you muppet.  It's predictive, not deterministic.  Go look up what that last word means before you respond. Elections never exactly pan out the way the polls predict. Also, the data I cited was from 2026, not the election.  

Regardless, your idea that approval rating has little/no connection to votes is just retarded, full-stop. 

If you go back over the last 25-30 years, the leader with the higher relative net approval wins the election +70% of the time.  That holds for federal, provincial, or even international elections.  When you consider comically large advantages like Carney over little PP, that goes up to ~90%.

You can carry on an bullshit and pound out your angry little responses all you want, but it doesn't change reality.  It doesn't change the history of polling or elections.  

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

It's polling data, you muppet.  It's predictive, not deterministic. 

Which is what I've been saying all along.

Glad you finally figured it out kiddo. That was pretty pathetic.

you: " Y U NO UNDERSTAND PP CANT WIN NOT POPULAR!!!!"

me: "Popularity is not deterministic, he can be unpopular and still win. That happens frequently."

you " UHHH UHHH  THAT"S WRONG BECAUSE POPULARITY ISN"T DETERMINISTIC YOU KNOW!!!!! DERP!"

LOLOL.  well.  ya got me there kid  

Now that you've answered your own question with my answer, go try your math homework. Maybe you're on a roll   LOL

How popular or approved of that Poilievre is is not a tremendously relevant question. It's of interest and it's something that should be monitored but it is not deterministic when it comes to elections. There are other factors that are significantly more importance.

[Moonbox]

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Which is what I've been saying all along.

No, what you said is that the polling data has little/no connection to the voting.  

Your attempt to scurry away from that typically clueless hot-take is cute, but you still look as stupid as you did from the beginning.  🤡👍

[SpankyMcFarland]

If you start a thread like this without condemning Trump wholeheartedly then you can’t be taken seriously. 

[John Johnston]

1 minute ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

If you start a thread like this without condemning Trump wholeheartedly then you can’t be taken seriously. 

Very true. But to be fair, Trumps racist, violent, caustic Bullshit is but a symptom. This is America. This is who they are and that will never change. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, John Johnston said:

Very true. But to be fair, Trumps racist, violent, caustic Bullshit is but a symptom. This is America. This is who they are and that will never change. 

Unfortunately true. Trump is the fungal infection that eventually kills the sick patient. He’s not the underlying cancer.