Foxer comments on Carney’s vision of Canada’s sovereignty is quickly blurring

Carney’s vision of Canada’s sovereignty is quickly blurring (rabble.ca)

submitted 4 months ago by NightOwl@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

68 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 24 points 4 months ago (52 children)

Carney is a man who somehow, and I will never know how, convinced NDP voters the voting for an ex banker capitalist whose job it was to renovict people and hide the wealth of the 1% from taxation in Canada was the absolute best choice for progressives and left-wing voters to rally behind

hideshow 52 child comments

[–] GrackleBirb@lemmy.ca 26 points 4 months ago (15 children)

My support for Carney was to keep PP out. Singh did not give me the confidence that he could do that. I still vote NDP at the provincial level (although my riding has been Conservative forever alas) - the federal NDP hasn’t really inspired much confidence but Marit is killing it at the provincial level in Ontario.

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 months ago (7 children)

What do you base this 'strong economy' bit on? As far as I can tell, Carneys taken most of PPs playbook out from under him.

What policies did PP propose that would've given us a "healthy economy"?

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] BigJohnnyHines@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago (5 children)

PP entire career is just being contrarian to whatever liberal candidate he’s running against. Dudes never delivered anything in his life besides liberal party wins, lol. Stay delusional.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] bluemite@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

Are you aware of how bad Trudeau was for Alberta? He did a lot of damage and Carney is nowhere close to that bad

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I'll give you that, although he's not much better. He's talking about the possibility of building a pipeline, Justin built a pipeline. And his price for doing that is a massive increase in carbon taxes for the oil fields which will make them far less competitive globally. So I don't know about the whole nowhere close business. He may not be as bad but I don't know that he's that far off

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] bluemite@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

Trudeau did build an oil pipeline, but natural gas and oil sands projects were cancelled to focus on greener alternatives. Those would have been big for Alberta's economy.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 months ago

Oh absolutely true, don't get me wrong I wasn't suggesting for real was in any way shape or form good for the Alberta economy or province. I was just pointing out that as bad as he was currently isn't substantially better

parent

load more comments (1 reply)

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] GrackleBirb@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 months ago

Yeah no fuck Tiny PP

parent

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 12 points 4 months ago

We came very close to a PP government. Too close. I don't like Carney much but Poulivre would have been disastrous. I would rank Singh above both, but my riding was heavily Tory.

parent

[–] mister_newbie@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

I, too, really like Marit, but let's be honest: she's never winning in this province -- where Bob Rae is still seen as the bogeyman.

A rotten head of cabbage could probably beat Doug these days, provided it's red.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Gnumile@lemmy.ca 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

This is a perfect example of why things are very unlikely to change. Too many people have too little faith in things actually changing, so it remains conservatives vs liberals

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] mister_newbie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

It's a perfect example on why FPTP sucks hairy ballsacks. I'd vote NDP, happily, if I knew I could transfer that vote to a non-blue candidate.

parent

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 point 4 months ago

Bob Rae not as bad as Harris or Ford but I'll never forgive him for letting public servants keep their job admist a recession .

parent

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 14 points 4 months ago (1 child)

He didn't, Pete and Trump did.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago

Crazy we have to explain this to non-magats.

parent

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 10 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Singh unfortunately didn't help the cause much. But I think it was actually Pollievre who helped Carney with such incredible efficiency. I agree, it makes no sense, but PP's innate reality distortion field was apparently large enough to cause some sort of gravitational lensing around Carney too that made him temporarily look like an anti-Trump.

I also think Carney did particularly well on the military topic, especially compared to previous Liberal positions, which might have genuinely appealed to some NDP voters disillusioned with the NDP's traditionally weak stance on defense, in light of the active military threats against us and our allies.

Personally, I understand where the NDP's defense policy is coming from, and I think it's responsible and probably even the right way to approach it holistically. We don't need to beg Europe to partner with us, even if they're obviously willing to, we have everything we need to develop our own military and industry on our own, but it will take time for those investments to pay off, and I get the desire to shortcut some of that with European assistance. But maybe people thought we wouldn't be able to have socialism and kick Trump and Putin's teeth in at the same time. I don't know.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago

Well it's worth noting that poilievre got almost the same popular vote as carney did. And there's no doubt the Carney had his own trudeomanium moments there in the campaign where people flock to him because they believed in him not because they didn't believe in Poilievre. In fact based on the polling poilievre was gaining ground through most of the election.

None of the polling I saw indicated that defense was a major issue. And it wasn't really brought up a lot during the election, that was more post-election. So while anything is possible I'm not seeing a lot of evidence for that being a major driving force

I don't know that the new NDP is going to be pushing terribly hard for military spending.

parent

[–] TemplaerDude@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Jagmeet went to our strike line and said he’d take Trudeau down if they forced a deal on us. When they forced a deal on us, Jagmeet was silent. That’s why I didn’t vote for the NDP. Hopefully their new leadership actually stands by their word.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

And honestly I respect that. Conservatives have destroyed their parties provincially in federally when they perceived that the party had become corrupt or morally bankrupt. And the NDP has done the same and your statement is an expression of that. The willingness to destroy the political party because of bad behavior is an absolute requirement for good democracy

But the liberal supporters do not have that track record. Even when they punish their party it's mild and temporary and most often they don't. And that creates a problem. How long will others watch that before they decide they should behave the same way then the political parties know they can get away with anything

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] TemplaerDude@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

You know what killed me is I shook the guys hand and looked in his eyes and I knew he didn’t believe what he had just said. I could tell from the look in his eyes that he said what he said because it was what we wanted to hear. And that hurt because I like Jag and I respect the position the guy was in, unfortunately with the benefit of hindsight we can tell that in the end his decisions tanked the party. I couldn’t vote for the party after that. They needed a change. They got it. I hope it works out.

The liberal party has had the support of the “Always Liberal, forever Liberal, no matter what I’m voting liberal” people who are just as confounding as their conservative counterparts, for entirely different reasons.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago

The liberal party has had the support of the “Always Liberal, forever Liberal, no matter what I’m voting liberal” people

I see that type of voter more on the conservative side.

I personally know far more people who switch between liberal and NDP depending on the election than I do people who switch from conservative to anything else.

parent

[–] BassetHound@lemmy.ca 9 points 4 months ago* (20 children)

I gave up on the NDP after years of mismanagement. I voted for the party of Jack and was alright with Mulcair. But under Jagmeet the party has been run into the ground.

That year where Jagmeet and the NDP propped up the obviously dead Trudeau government was the final straw. Willfully choosing to support a wildly unpopular prime minister to avoid the election was gross and made a mockery of their name. If you want to be taken seriously as a party and a leader, you have to be in it to win. There could have been an opportunity to become the opposition again and maybe replace the Liberals in time. Instead they chose to sacrifice their own party. If they don’t even want to be a serious party, why the hell should I vote for them?

parent

hideshow 20 child comments

[–] kbal@fedia.io 4 points 4 months ago*

Why vote NDP? Because even if we concede that all your criticisms of the party are exactly right and unchanged under its new leadership, that still makes them the best of the main parties available to vote for.

parent

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -2 points 4 months ago (18 children)

Well obviously a fair number of NDP voters kind of felt the same. And this is kind of a point that I was bringing up, historically both provincially and federally we have seen conservative supporters utterly destroy their party when their signs of corruption or egregious Behavior. And likewise you can say the same thing about the NDP including the recent destruction of the party.

For some reason you can't say that about liberals. No matter how bad the liberals get they still tend to survive and their voters are reluctant to punish them the same way

parent

hideshow 18 child comments

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago (17 children)

I'd be curious what historical data you're referencing?

parent

hideshow 17 child comments

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 months ago (16 children)

Well there are numerous examples of right wing parties or the NDP completely devastating or wiping out their parties in the face of corruption.

Consider the PC government federally after Brian Mulroney left and Kim Campbell disappointed by saying everything was fine and there's no need to change. They went from being in power to being able to hold caucus meetings at a medium-sized booth at Denny's. And then the party was eventually wiped out completely and replaced.

Consider the NDP in British Columbia when they had their scandal of the tail end of the 20th century and we're reduced to two seats as I recall. Likewise the conservative party which was known as the social credit for absolutely bizarre reasons was wiped out after the Vanderzalm Scandals.

There is a willingness for Canadian voters on the right and the farther left to absolutely devastate if not completely destroy their political party if it is perceived that they have done something unethical. The conservatives most of all but the NDP as well

But there is no willingness on the part of the liberal sister they may knock their party out of power but they will never punish them even for severe corruption the way the conservatives and even the NDP will

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago (5 children)

The party loss after Mulroney was, IMO, primarily due to the during reform party - a division of the conservative party. If you look at voting percentages, the conservatives still claimed 30% of the vote, just divided differently.

The bigger difference I see is that Mulroney had managed to win nonconservative votes, which then left during the 93 election.

That means those liberal voters you claim never bote anything else voted VERY strongly against the liberal party and for the conservatives to give Mulroney his wins.

From my knowledge, the NDP has never been wiped out. They've been reduced down to a few seats, much like any other party, but they're still the NDP. Liberals in Ontario were gutted entirely, not dissimilar to any of your conservative examples above, and lost official party status after nearly 15 years in power. Despite how awful Ford has been, they STILL haven't clawed back to even a shadow of a party. If that isn't an example of them being destroyed in public opinion I don't know what is.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -3 points 4 months ago (4 children)

The reform party was a brand new party. The only reason it existed was because conservative voters were disgusted with the corruption and bad behavior of the PC party.

I mean if we're being 100% honest Mulroney was actually doing a fairly decent job. And no conservative wanted to see chretien get in.

But conservatives determined that the party was toast, so they created a new party and through the old one in the garbage. That's what they're prepared to do when they see corruption

And no it is absolutely ridiculous to think that the liberal voters punish the liberal party by voting from over only. That absolutely did not happen. The liberal party continued on just fine it was not destroyed or wiped out in any way shape or form. People just like Mulroney better than they like John Turner

When you're reduced to below party status you've been wiped out politically. You might recover but let's not pretend otherwise. Conservative voters have wiped their parties out to the point where they are no longer official parties And so have the NDP. The liberals have never done so. So I'm afraid you're 100% incorrect there

The liberals lost and they lost badly in Ontario. I mean they had gone through four elections was a major thing with the liberals and they survived just fine. As it is what they say they lost the election badly but the party was not wiped out. They still have more seats then than the NDP has federally now

The liberal party Had corruption scandal after corruption scandal for over a decade and the liberal voters kept it in power and now they've been returned to a majority. And we're already seeing corruption scandals with Carney but liberal voters just don't care

Liberal voters will tolerate almost any level of corruption, to be honest it's getting to the point where it's practically a prerequisite. And EP voters and conservative voters are far less tolerant with conservatives being the least tolerant.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

The reform party was a brand new party. The only reason it existed was because conservative voters were disgusted with the corruption and bad behavior of the PC party.

That's the first I've heard of the corruption being a cause. The reform party was created because western Canada, particularly Alberta, was pissed that Mulroney was working so closely with Quebec during his attempts at constitution reform, and that he was raising taxes.

But conservatives determined that the party was toast, so they created a new party and through the old one in the garbage. That’s what they’re prepared to do when they see corruption

Just double checked, and the PC party still got 16% of the vote when the reform party appeared, who got 18%. Reform did better because they won more seats because they were primarily western canada, but popular vote, which is the more realistic measure of how well a party is doing, was nearly identical.

When you look at election results through the years, percentages voting for Liberal and Conservative have been pretty much constant at a baseline 30%. Reform split that vote between themselves and PC. The remaining 30% is split among NDP and Bloq, then swing voters.

This doesn't really change much, despite what you're arguing. There are a few exceptions but I'd argue that's less to do with corruption and more to do with the finances and perceived gains by the party in power.

When you’re reduced to below party status you’ve been wiped out politically. You might recover but let’s not pretend otherwise. Conservative voters have wiped their parties out to the point where they are no longer official parties And so have the NDP. The liberals have never done so. So I’m afraid you’re 100% incorrect there

Dude, I literally just pointed out a case where the liberal party WAS reduced below official party status, and remained there, and that case happened in the last decade. By your own argument, this means they were wiped out politically. They have as many seats as the PC party did post-mulroney, when you're saying the conservative voters kicked them out.

Liberal voters will tolerate almost any level of corruption, to be honest it’s getting to the point where it’s practically a prerequisite. And EP voters and conservative voters are far less tolerant with conservatives being the least tolerant.

You had me in the first half - but I'd argue that core 20-30% that libs and cons have are both so entrenched they refuse to vote anyone else are the ones who are willing to overlook corruption. If cons were as willing to kick out for corruption, they'd have kicked Doug Ford out after his greenbelt scandal. Instead he got another majority.

I'd argue that cons are more willing to kick people out for violating the conservatives political alignment than the liberals are. I've seen many arguing that Carney is actually super liberal and these conservative actions he's taking are actually good and in line with the party.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It's the first you've heard of it then glad to help educate you 😜

There's no doubt that the original architects of the party very much felt that the west was being excluded. But that's not why the public flocked to them.

And yeah, the PC party did worse than the reform who had no support outside of western Canada. And reduced them to 4 seats. And that would just keep getting worse for the PC until the reform took them over. You're kind of making my point for me here . Conservative voters turned their back on the PC and it no longer exists. And conservative voters did not wait 15 or 20 years before taking that party out permanently.

As to your claim that a core 20 to 30% that the Liberals and Conservatives have will refuse to vote for anyone else, while that may be true, the difference is that the liberals will still keep voting Liberal, whereas the Conservatives will not vote at all. Even if they know that it means that a party they dislike will get in and sees power they will refuse to vote for the corrupt party or they will break down and vote for someone else.

For example when the PC party was wiped out as you correctly note only a tiny percentage of the party was still willing to vote PC. And that was so scattered as to be meaningless.

On the other hand despite the snc leveling scandals the we scandals the agacon scandals and all of the other scandals which seem to show up about once every two or three months the core liberal supporters kept showing up and voting liberal. The CPC actually won more of the popular vote and two out of the three last elections but the core liberal support kept the liberals empowered despite obvious corruption

There's no comparing them. Conservative and NDP voters will trash their party completely and have done so many times if they detect corruption. Liberal voters do not

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

the difference is that the liberals will still keep voting Liberal, whereas the Conservatives will not vote at all.

No idea where you're pulling this from. All the election data I look at shows a very consistent PC/Reform party of 30% of the popular vote. Liberals typically hit a low of 20-30% as well, through the Mulroney days. Even when both parties were 'destroyed' (2014 Ontario Provincial Liberals hit 19% popular vote, PCs hit 16% in '93 but rebounded to 19% in '97), they retained nearly identical as percentage of popular votes. Please show me elections years with significant drop in conservative or NDP voting numbers due to scandal.

I've shown you an example of the liberal party voters doing exactly what you claim they're not and you're glossing over. I'm happy to continue the conversation, but I need you to start showing more than your own internal biases and opinions. Show me dates, facts, and numbers to back up what you're saying.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 1 point 4 months ago

Simple facts and I did give examples. And the PC and reform party are not the same thing you can't mash them together and pretend it's an equivalency. That's like pretending that if voters vote for the NDP it's proof that they still vote for the liberals, that's just not a real thing

And as I mentioned with your example. They accepted corruption for numerous election Cycles with no penalty and voted them out for different reasons so no, it's not an example.

While it is arguably true that some NDP went to the liberals because of trump it is also true that a large number of NDP have expressed that they did not vote for their party this federal election because they felt that sing was corrupt. There are numerous examples of the conservatives doing that including the death of the PC as well as things like the death of the social credit party in British Columbia

What role voters are just not the same. And it's not like I'm pretending that the right wing is some group of angels or something, I'm giving every bit as much credit to the farther left NDP voters.

But the liberals have shown again and again that they will accept any amount of corruption and still vote for their party without punishing it substantial. They went psycho after cycle with justin, they're continuing to support carney despite the fact that they're all ready scandals, we see it provincially as well when there is a liberal party that they will allow numerous election Cycles with massive corruption and do nothing. They just don't have the same intolerance for corruption as everyone else and that is a real problem

parent

[–] BassetHound@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago (9 children)

I’d chalk this up to the LPC being flexible enough to position itself wherever it needs to be, while the Cons and NDP sit on the poles.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 months ago (8 children)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. So you're saying you think that the liberals know how to apply to their people better? I mean that doesn't really make sense to me. I think most people understand what corruption is and can identify it when they see it, I just don't think that the liberal supporters actually care and that gives the liberal party a lot more freedom to do things that would get the other two parties in trouble

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] BassetHound@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago (7 children)

I’m saying that the LPC can opportunistically change their tune because they occupy the middle space. The Cons and NDP have fairly fixed places on the ideological and political right and left which bind them.

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -2 points 4 months ago (6 children)

But it has nothing to do with that. Policy is one thing but what we're talking about here is corruption. Conservative and NDP voters are less tolerant of their party being corrupt then liberals are. Liberals will accept a high level of corruption in their party

Case in point. Everybody lost their mind and screamed about how unfair it was including the liberals when Bev Oda bought a $14 glass of orange juice. But the liberals are insisting that it's perfectly fine at Carney spent a million dollars on airline food last year because he works hard and deserves to eat well. Just on airline food for himself he spent more money than a family of four would spend on groceries in 50 years while telling Canadians they're going to have to sacrifice.

And that's just fine with the liberals. But an expensive orange juice when it's not a liberal? She had to resign.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] yes_this_time@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (5 children)

I seem to recall more controversy than 14 dollar orange juice. 3 day account, spamming BS.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago (4 children)

So if I say something you don't like I'm 'spamming' ? LOL How very intolerant!

But no, it was the $14 orange juice. It became a massive thing all on its own I was considered a sign that she was living it up at the taxpayers expense. But now those same people who screamed to the High Heavens about that aren't batting an eye at Carney's insane lavish food budget for airline food of all things

And that is pure hypocrisy whether I'm in here three days or 3,000

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] yes_this_time@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

Eh I saw bunch of comments with bullshit in them from someone that looks like they get all their info from the Toronto Sun's Facebook page.

Bev Oda altered documents, look up the 'not' thing its wild, it wasn't just the 16 dollar OJ, limousines, extra hotel rooms etc...

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It was the orange juice. That's what the media focused on and everyone talked about. And her entire expense budget even accounting for inflation is a tiny tiny tiny fraction of what we see the liberals doing

You can play whatever mental gymnastics you like but at the end of the day it's still a massive amount of hypocrisy by people who don't care about the truth and only care about their tribe

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] yes_this_time@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

Nah, There were a string of controversies, expenses, yes, but altering a document (in a rediculous fashion) to remove funding from a foreign aid agency was the largest, speculation was that the request came from Harper because the agency was promoting divesting from Isreal.

Yeah the OJ thing did also resonate with the public, maybe why you are thinking of it and forgetting everything else?

But actually, I don't think she was as bad the party surrounding her.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 1 point 4 months ago

She didn't resign for anything else. She resigned because of the furor over a $14 glass of orange juice.

And once again you're basically trying to skirt the issue. No matter how you slice it or however you want to spin it there was a huge outcry over a $14 glass of orange juice mostly from the left. That same left that is now accepting a million dollars a year in airline food is being perfectly justified. That is just an absolute fact and cannot be disputed

So the issue here comes back to the same thing, hypocrisy. You suggest the party was bad but at the same time there were no major corruption scandals in the entire time that the conservatives were in power. Orange juice is not corruption. Even the Mike Duffy Scandal was an example of harper believing something corrupted happened and forcing somebody to make it right. If we had that kind of correction in politics canada would be a hell of a lot better off 😂

And you're here trying to suggest that somehow the conservatives were worse and that photo was really bad while excusing carney and his million dollar airline food bill and the scandals were already beginning to see from him, And dismissing Justin scandals

That is hypocrisy my friend.

parent

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 3 points 4 months ago

💯

parent

[–] DrivebyHaiku@lemmy.ca 1 point 4 months ago (5 children)

Because literally the Conservative candidate was dramatically worse on progressive policies and there was only the slimmest chance of avoiding that fate. Until we reform voting the whole song and dance of strategic voting will favour the traditional tradeoffs of these two parties. Without vote reform we're more or less doomed to be the frog that boils slow.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

In what way was the candidate dramatically works on Progressive policies? Jimmy would have fired government workers? Do you mean he would have built more Pipelines and pumped more oil? Or is it that you are worried that he wouldn't have attacked freedom of speech quite as aggressively as the liberals have with their online bills?

There was no threat to Progressive policies with Poilievre. Or at least none that are not threatened already. And the simple fact of the matter is that the more the carney runs our economy and debt into the dirt, the more that Progressive people and poor people will suffer when eventually that has to be corrected and we can't borrow any more money. You may be too young to remember how badly people suffered for the first Trudeau's overspending when that had to be corrected, this time it's going to be in order of magnitude worse and that date will come

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] DrivebyHaiku@lemmy.ca 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

Poilievere ran with a cabinet that had constant issues of candidates calling out support for MAGA-like policies and conduct across the board. He threatened jail time for political rivals, had issues with various perspective MPs talking about their personal stances on repealing abortion protections or saying things regarding indigenous affairs that were racist or in denial of a well documented genocide. He made clear his position as anti-trans which many queer people rightly see as being simply the first domino to fall in the repeal of queer and a whole host of women's rights.

His economic policies were very much out loud every thing that Carney is up to now and perhaps you forgot that. Carney was in effect a traditional conservative politician with a liberal coat of paint. He wasn't talking about vote reform or taxation policies on billionaires. The kind of person you run when you want to shore up Conservative style financial values while basically not actively threatening civil rights issues like your opponents do. He was a traditional Conservative wet dream of basically everything a Whig government wants without the culture war bullshit If you think progressives actually liked Carney at the point of voting him is that's bloody insane. The man's a banker who has been strengthening old colonial ties and wheeling and dealing during a sovereignty crisis where the US, our historical trading partner is softly threatening annexation. The only reasons Conservatives are critical is because they think "Conservative" means "fiscally Conservative" and not the branch of political philosophy of the likes of Edmund Burke that thinks channeling money into the hands of the rich and conserving a social hierarchy that keeps certain people at the bottom and punishing deviance from a social norm, removing safety nets because "families" are easier to control than individuals. Meanwhile "Conservative" government spending has never actually been fiscally conservative historically. They just pump money into whatever makes their friends rich because that's kind of the point. It doesn't matter who is in the seat for government if they don't gave the pretty label that seems to say to them "This guy won't waste money" you can what if any scenario where your guy wouldn't be doing the same or worse. At least Carney had the shame to not say that shit out loud and feels like he needs to court the public instead of getting tacit endorsement for that kind of behavior right out the gate on election day the way Poilevre would of had.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

What absolute nonsense. Unless you define maga like Policies as being tax breaks and the like there is no comparison between trump's policies and Poilievres. If anything carney was far more trump like, with his build baby build comments and make Canada strong again stuff.

And no, carney is not putting in place PoilievreS economic policies. He said he would, he ran on them, but now he's running away from them. Remember when he promised to deal with interpreneurial trade? Then tried to walk it back when you realized it might be hard? Remember what he said he was going to get rid of the carbon tax but then doubled up the industrial carbon tax and associated fees? He never got rid of the regist legislation that is preventing companies from building pipelines and doing things in Canada, and now he suggesting that the Canadian taxpayer will pay for it just like they did under Justin Trudeau which is the absolute direct opposite of what the conservatives were going for.

Carney's platform was very much like the conservatives but his actual actions are nothing like the conservatives

And carney is absolutely threatening civil rights. Both the left and the right are deeply concerned about his online gestapo bills. The new police powers for search and seizure are deeply worrying. Etc etc

Conservative spending is the opposite of what you're saying. In harper's time for example spending was extremely targeted and did very well and did not flow into the hands of his buddies. Right now we have a scandal where it appears that Brooksfield bought into a company 15 days before carney agreed to give them billions of dollars in bailouts for their condos. Which is exactly what you were just talking about but it's not the conservatives doing it

Poilievre was clear about what his policy was. Get government spending under control and come up with a plan and March towards a balanced budget. Attract business investment to Canada by creating a favorable environment. Keep investment money in Canada by giving a break to those people who invest in Canadian investments instead of moving their money to America which is what has been happening for the last year and change. Focus on correcting the mistakes and problems of the last 10 years and get crime under control

None of those are bad things. You can say what you like but those are all things that even if you feel there are other priorities out there you can't say that those are bad things. And none of that is happening under Carney

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] DrivebyHaiku@lemmy.ca 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

If your intention is to approach politics as team sport then your post makes sense but what about anything I said makes you think I am defending Carney? Polivere is simply the bigger asshole of the two and his economic policy was vibes based -but they are both shit and the Conservative base is just too hung up on minute differences to see that their shit also stinks. Until we actually reform the voting system we're stuck in this duality of it all going to shit as the Overton window shifts right and rights trickle away.

I'm not interested in playing defend or compare the assholes. You asked why he got voted in, that was all the point I had to make. He got voted in because he played conservative better than the Conservatives. It would have been their election otherwise. If you're thinking I give a shit what any conservative platform whether the label on the front is red or blue you can piss off.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago

Your commentary is clearly intended to be a defensive carney it has nothing to do with team sports. I addressed your points point for point, there's nothing team-oriented about it

And nobody gives a crap who's to dig her asshole. If you want to hire someone to be your friend the last big brothers. But we're talking about here is who has the skills and knowledge experience and vision to be able to leave the country forward. There is absolutely no doubt that it's Poilievre over carney. Something that the only man to employ both of them pointed out quite clearly

Carney pretends that he's going to execute PoilievreS agenda because he knows it's popular and correct. But then he either can't or doesn't or both.

And you are literally playing "Defend or compare the assholes". That is the literal definition of what you're doing.

And no I didn't actually ask anything. I pointed out that your previous statements were entirely wrong and explain why point for point

I know why he got elected. He is an incredible snake oil or peddler and a continent who managed to convince those on the far left that someone with a long history of renovations and hiding the wealth of the 1% is a great idea. And he convinced liberals that he would be better than you know which he absolutely is not turning out to me. We're on the same downward trajectory

parent