patatas comments on Stephen Harper to deliver closing speech at Carney's Investment Summit

Stephen Harper to deliver closing speech at Carney's Investment Summit (nationalpost.com)

submitted 1 month ago by patatas@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca

locked 92 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[+] patatas@sh.itjust.works [S] -13 points 1 month ago* (19 children)

God this place is disheartening. These folks only see sports teams. Carney and Poilievre are not meaningfully different other than the fact that Carney is more effective at doing the exact same stuff Poilievre would do. None of this "chaps PP's ass" because they are fundamentally on the same team. CUE THE DOWNVOTES FROM THE CULT

parent

hideshow 19 child comments

[–] ragepaw@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 month ago (11 children)

Calling everyone who disagrees with you a "cult" is pure bullshit.

You can hate Carney for being an out of touch central banker, but pretending he’s the same as Poilievre is just stupid. One of them actually understands economics and the other panders to conspiracy nuts and wants to burn down basic governance just to get elected.

Throwing your hands up and saying "they're on the same team" doesn't make you smarter than everyone else, it just means you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works [S] -2 points 1 month ago (10 children)

Hey I dunno, perhaps you can explain how Harper's inclusion at this fire sale of public assets makes you "happy"

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] ragepaw@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago (9 children)

I literally started the comment with "Fuck Harper."

Finding it funny that Poilievre gets sidelined by his own former boss isn’t an endorsement of Harper, and it sure as hell isn't cheering on a fire sale. You're just deliberately twisting words because your lazy "everyone I don't like is the exact same team" argument fell apart.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works [S] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)

If your reaction to Harper and Carney chumming it up is to immediately think of Poilievre instead of what this summit means for Canada, then sorry but you have completely lost the fucking plot

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] ragepaw@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (7 children)

You’ve pasted this exact sentence three times now in different parts of the thread. If you’re a bot, your loop is broken. If you’re a human, it’s just pathetic.

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works [S] 0 points 1 month ago (6 children)

you've refused to engage with the substance of any of this. I've copy-pasted that sentence because it's the core problem with this entire godforsaken thread

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] ragepaw@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

Spamming the same copy-pasted line across three subthreads isn't "substance". It just means you ran out of things to say.

Everyone here understands what the summit is and why Harper is there. It’s not some hidden conspiracy. We can see the event for what it is while still laughing at Pierre Poilievre getting utterly clowned by his former boss.

You don't have some special insight into Canadian politics. You’re just mad that people can grasp both the policy and the joke without needing your permission first.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works [S] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Go on then, what is the summit, and why is Harper there, in your view? Because he's not there to "chap Poilivre's ass"

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] ragepaw@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It’s a forum to pitch global funds on Canadian assets. Harper is there because he he runs Alberta’s pension fund and gives institutional investors the cross-partisan cover they crave before dropping billions. Chapping Poilievre’s ass isn't Harper's motive; it’s the hilarious collateral damage. That’s the entire point you’ve been melting down over for twelve hours because your brain only operates in bumper-sticker slogans.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works [S] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

so ... how do you feel about that "forum to pitch global funds on Canadian assets"? Do you think it will be a good thing to sell resources and airports and seaports to investment funds, so that the value will flow out of the country? And is that worth one man's ass being chapped?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] ragepaw@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

"And is that worth one man's ass being chapped?"

You really think finding a joke funny means endorsing the summit? Are you twelve?

I’m on the left. I think courting sovereign wealth funds and pitching infrastructure to foreign capital is textbook Bay Street garbage. But unlike you, I have the emotional bandwidth to understand that systemic economic critique doesn't require walking around with a permanent stick up my ass, scolding anyone who dares to laugh at the CPC eating shit. You act like having a sense of humor forfeits your principles. Life must be utterly exhausting inside that miserable little purity bubble.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works [S] -1 points 1 month ago

the CPC isn't eating shit, they're gonna all have great jobs at the places buying up pieces of this country in a couple years. And you're asking me if I'm twelve

parent

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago (4 children)

You'd be surprised to find out that most people here mostly agree with you. Your just very abrasive so you get bad interactions.

Also this Carney=PP is very privileged of you. If you were a woman, a minority, LGBT especially T you'd have a very different opinion on that last part. Sure they're both economic neoliberals, but only one would repeal abortion rights or ban Muslims or implement anti trans legislation.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] ragepaw@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

Don’t waste your breath trying to reason with him. The guy spent 24 hours crying that everyone in this thread is a "Carney cultist," and the second someone brings up marginalized people, he unironically starts running PR for Pierre Poilievre.

He doesn't actually care about policy or vulnerable people. He’s just so desperate to win an internet argument that he’ll happily whitewash the CPC's social conservatism to keep his tantrum alive.

parent

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works [S] -4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Poilievre, to the best of my knowledge, has not indicated he would re-open the abortion debate, ban Muslims or implement anti-trans legislation.

But the whole problem with this pile-on is that this event has nothing to do with Poilievre, he's just the handy trope that Liberals self-soothe with when they have to face the fact that Carney is a monster.

Carney, who is in power, laughed at Trump "joking" about murdering crews of fishing boats with drones, cheered the start of the US-Israeli strikes on Iran, and refuses to condemn Israel's genocide of Palestinians.

He did not push back against the US ending the 'X' gender marker on Nexus cards, which was called out by many trans folks as a failure to stand up for trans rights.

Regardless, slashing public services will always hit marginalized folks the hardest, so it's a bit rich to imply that the PM who is making the largest cuts in modern history is somehow a friend to minorities and queer folks.

The fact that you're saying people agree with me so I should be less "abrasive", while simultaneously telling me I'm wrong about Carney, is also pretty telling.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

You just have a romantic view of electoral politics. The things both parties agree on (like gutting the public sector and arming Israel for their genocide) you can't vote for at the ballot box. When you say they're both the same we agree on this front. It's not one of the choices offered at the election and we have to act outside of the political system (protests, unions, strikes, arson, whatever...) to get those done.

However that doesn't mean that nothing is at stake during the election. We have to think of everyone in Canadian society and vote for the practical option which will have the best outcome for the most people in solidarity with the most vulnerable. Just because liberals and conservatives are both pieces of shit doesn't mean there aren't differences between them. And just because you take an hour to vote every 4 years doesn't mean you can't pursue whatever leftists, anarchist, revolutionary or other political goals you would like to act on the rest of the time.

You're not compromising your values when you vote you're just acting in good solidarity with the marginalised people for whom there is a difference between parties.

Here is pp on trans rights https://thetyee.ca/News/2025/01/27/Poilievre-Scored-Political-Points-Trans-Rights/

He's also routinely seen with far right, white supremacist, and nationalist organisations such as diagolon and their leaders.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works [S] 1 point 1 month ago

Thank you for the link, I'll take a look. But I don't agree that my view on electoral politics is in any way "romantic" — I'm saying (probably elsewhere in this overall godforsaken discussion) that elections are only a small part of how the people can influence government. Which means I actually believe, in this case — and hear me out — that a Poilievre government would have been better than a Carney government, because the same people saying "LOL I bet Poilievre is annoyed" would be in the streets protesting this event if it were Poilievre hosting it. Poilievre simply would not have the societal permission structure to do any of the heinous shit Carney is doing!

The same goes for almost everything Carney has done, from cuts to the public sector to eviscerating climate goals. People would be up in arms about ALL of it if the person doing it was wearing the blue team's shirt. Instead, half the country is like "welp, better than the other guy so can't complain" instead of DOING something about what the guy IN POWER is doing. This is why I continually describe what's happening as cult-like behaviour.

parent

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

Carney is more effective at doing the exact same stuff Poilievre would do

Poilievre would have signed the new CUSMA deal and sold off sovereignty. He has US citizens in his MPs.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works [S] 1 point 1 month ago

Carney has already made multiple concessions for nothing in return, and poilievre has not indicated that he would have signed whatever it was that was put on the table. Carney's environmental and fiscal policy are indistinguishable from the Build Canada and O&G demands, which Poilievre would have also been aligned with. Please try again

parent