all 94 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 38 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

The nazionalist post is a fascist American owned propaganda outlet. Harper is Chair of the IDU, the worldwide umbrella org of fascists.

IF anything relevant was here, I'll wait for better people to say it. It's not like exclusive investigative journalism of consequence ever comes out of this shithole.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] [S] -14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    When this same fact is reported in a different newspaper, will your opinion of the actual event change? Just trying to understand what the real issue is here

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    I'll look for reputable sources worthy of reading and consideration. Friends don't let friends read the post.

    Edit: a compulsive liar telling the occasional truth doesn't justify giving them the time of day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Reminder that NatPo is an american-owned rag.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] [S] -9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

    So is Mark Carney. Any comment on the substance of the article? Harper is a far right christian nationalist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Harper is more left wing than the US dems lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    This is absolutely not true, although I agree that the Dem establishment are indeed quite right wing. See Harper's IDU for example. Even putting "left wing" in the same sentence as Harper is laughable, frankly

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Harper is completely disinterested in identity politics and is never going to attack LGBT, or push Christianitiy in politics lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 month ago*

    https://idu.org/statement-35th-anniversary-international-democrat-union-by-stephen-harper-idu-chairman/

    Here is Harper explicitly pushing Christianity in politics

    https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/hungary-lgbt-pride-anniversary/

    and here is Harper-backed (and Trump-backed) Viktor Orban's anti-LGBT politics

    Does this change anything in terms of how you feel about Carney inviting Harper to this "summit"?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago (76 children)

    Fuck Harper, but if it chaps PP's ass, I'm happy for it.

  • source
  • hideshow 76 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (39 children)

    Don't forget Harper's think tank helped the gop

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (18 children)

    Oh, I know. And right wing parties world wide.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] [S] -6 points 1 month ago (16 children)

    so then why are you happy that Carney is palling it up with him?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    Did you completely miss the "Fuck Harper" part, or are you just playing dumb?

    Nobody is celebrating them being friends. I'm laughing at the fact that Harper doing this completely undercuts PP and makes him look like a joke. You can dislike Harper and still find it hilarious when he makes PP look like an irrelevant toddler.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 month ago (12 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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    Adults can look at policy implications and still laugh at the petty political fallout. You don't need to put on a monkish vow of misery to understand what a summit means.

    You're the one screaming at downvotes, replying to your own comments, and crying about imaginary cults. Don't lecture me about losing the plot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children)

    lol

    show me where you look at the policy implications. All you've been doing is slinging mud after being called out for trying to deflect away from the fact that Carney is Harper's boy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    Nobody owes you an economic whitepaper just to point out the obvious political reality. Harper stepping onto a stage at Carney’s summit leaves Poilievre standing outside yelling at the clouds.

    You demanded to know why someone who despises Harper is laughing at the optics. I already told you. Demanding a comprehensive policy essay after your lazy strawman fell apart isn’t an argument, it’s just moving the goalposts so you can keep arguing with the voices in your head.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago (8 children)

    Here are the optics: Carney is a hard-right winger and Liberals are twisting themselves into knots to talk about any other aspect of this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (7 children)

    This purity-test brain poisoning must be exhausting to live with. Carney isn't "hard right," he's standard-issue establishment.

    You're doing that classic dumb-ass routine where anyone who doesn't adopt your exact hysterics is immediately labeled a right-wing plant. Normal people can be critical of corporate summits and still enjoy watching the CPC caucus eat dirt. You don't get to hand out report cards to the room just because your binary worldview can't handle both.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Go on then, what do you think about Harper being invited to the sell-off party of Canadian assets? And do you believe that Carney rolling back virtually all Trudeau-era climate policies is the "standard-issue establishment" thing to do? Do you think that Carney's moves to create a surveillance state, cut the public service to the bone, and integrate US and Canadian defence systems are going to expand democracy in this country? What would Carney have to do to lose your support?

    This is the point where you say "I don't have to answer any of your questions" and give away the fact that you have absolutely no desire to talk about issues but instead want to berate someone for daring to call out how obscene this "summit" is

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    You’re doing the internet equivalent of throwing a handful of spaghetti at the wall, declaring checkmate, and running away.

    "What would Carney have to do to lose your support?" What support? I’m a card-carrying NDP member, you colossal dumb-ass. You spent twelve hours assuming that because I laughed at the CPC losing their minds over Harper, I must be a die-hard Liberal stan. Your brain is so thoroughly broken by online tribalism that anyone who doesn't echo your exact melodramatic buzzwords gets filed away as the enemy.

    Nobody owes you answers to your laundry list of conspiratorial panic just because you’re desperate to validate your fragile ego.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    I haven't "run away" anywhere, as you can see. And although I don't believe you, I still maintain that if your first thought about Carney selling this country for parts is that Harper being there will annoy Poilievre, then you might want to re-evaluate your priorities. But go on, shoot the messenger a few more times

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Right back to the exact same talking point you’ve spammed four times now. Your record is skipping.

    "I don't believe you" is classic. Of course you don't, because if I’m not a foaming at the mouth Carney worshipper, your entire meltdown makes zero sense. You have to invent a villain so you can play the brave, persecuted "messenger" instead of just a guy who humiliated himself in his own comment section.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    It's not my talking point, it's yours. You brought up Poilievre. I'm trying to figure out why it is that you are so upset by me calling this out. Why are you so mad about this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I’m not upset. I’m just thoroughly unimpressed.

    You demanded to know why people were laughing at Poilievre, got your answer, threw a tantrum because it didn't match your script, and now you're playing amateur therapist in the replies. If pretending I'm furious helps you cope with how badly you bungled this entire thread, hold onto that blanket tight.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] [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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [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"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [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"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [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

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] [S] -11 points 1 month ago (35 children)

    so ... we have a hard-right PM and that's cool because he wore a red shirt instead of a blue one? Trying to wrap my head around the logic of any of this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [+] [S] -8 points 1 month ago (34 children)

    Liberal geniuses owning the ... libs? Hey Lemmy me thinks we have an astroturf problem

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (33 children)

    Are you replying to yourself here?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (24 children)

    They forgot to change the sockpuppet account.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] [S] -2 points 1 month ago (23 children)

    i was responding to the downvotes lol jfc this liberal cult

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 month ago (22 children)

    like, if i had any sockpuppet accounts (I don't) then don't you think there would be evidence of that. fucking Carney cult brigade

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (21 children)

    Replying to your own comment an hour later to yell about astroturfing, then making two more comments to swear you aren't mad about being called a sockpuppet. Totally normal, unbothered behaviour.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] [S] -2 points 1 month ago (20 children)

    yeah why would it bother me to have a rampaging brigade of Carney stans jumping down my throat for asking why they are defending Stephen fucking Harper. Good job

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 month ago (19 children)

    hey look at me, the person with "sock puppet" accounts that for some reason don't upvote my comments

    regular buncha sherlocks in this thread

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (18 children)

    Nobody is jumping down your throat to defend Harper, they’re mocking you for replying to your own comments to whine about downvotes. You aren't a political martyr fighting a cult, you’re just a guy screaming into a mirror and getting mad at the reflection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    ok so you think this move by Carney is bad, then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (7 children)

    "Check yes or no so I know which label to slap on you."

    What must it be like to view the entire world through a toddler’s sorting block? Carney isn't your savior and he isn't your cartoon fascist villain; he’s an establishment technocrat doing what establishment technocrats do. You aren't getting a neat little confession out of me to salvage your meltdown.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    It was a simple question. And I'm not sure why you feel like calling out Carney would be a "confession". What an odd thing to say

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Oh, now we're clutching pearls? You can dish out "astroturf cult" all day, but the second someone points out you're literally arguing with yourself in the replies, you run for the fainting couch.

    You wanted a "confession" because you need everyone who doesn't echo your exact melodramatic hysterics to be an undercover Liberal shill. It’s an exhausting, childish routine, and nobody is buying it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    Why do you consider it a "confession" to call out Carney? I didn't use the word first, you did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    You’re fixating on a single figure of speech because every substantive point you tried to make blew up in your face.

    You wanted people to submit to your little purity test so you could validate your temper tantrum. It didn't work. Now you're arguing about vocabulary in the ruins of your own thread.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Seems a lot like you did a little freudian slip and are now big mad, actually

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    says the person who said I should be "institutionalized"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    You’re screaming at imaginary cabals, replying to yourself four times an hour, and spamming the thread. If the shoe fits, wear it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

    no one is "screaming" here. If you're reading my comments that way then might I suggest taking a breather?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    "No one is screaming," says the guy who replied to his own comments in ALL CAPS whining about downvotes and crying that the thread is an "astroturf cult brigade."

    Trying to pull the detached, unbothered routine now after spending twelve straight hours melting down in public is hilarious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    I never said I wasn't bothered. But clearly you aren't done with berating me, why is that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Because watching someone spend an entire day starting fires in the comments and then crying that people are noticing the smoke is top-tier comedy.

    You aren't a victim. You picked fights in this thread and got embarrassed. If you’re done getting your feelings hurt, close the tab.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    why, so you can say that I "ran away" again?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] [S] -8 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    I'm responding to the fact that there are a bunch of downvotes on a post asking why it's fine for Carney to chum it up with Stephen effing Harper on the basis that it's not Poilievre

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    (I think the people who like Carney also like Harper)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] [S] -7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    what's weird is they (well, most) pretend not to. It's amazing that people are defending this mostly on the basis that it's the NatPost reporting it — like, what do they think the Post's secret evil game is here?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    The comments rightfully criticizing the National Post are not defending Carney, stop conflating the two. Do not share Postmedia, always downvote.

    There is a single comment in this thread endorsing Carney's action, which deserves pushback, but you're lashing out at everyone else for no reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] [S] -7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    sorry everyone didn't know that's against the rules

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Fucking revolting.

    The most accurate thing I've seen in a while is that Carney isn't Canada's PM, he's our CEO. It's both accurate and unfortunate.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I haven't read enough to have an informed opinion on the specific event itself. But I'm revelling in the fact that it's going to make the Maple Maga "Everything was better under Harper" crowd's heads explode trying to cognitive dissonance their way out of this.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 month ago

    Ironically, it's the Liberals' reaction that is most worrying to me; the fact that Harper's image is somehow being rehabilitated by his own project (Carney) is not cause for celebration, I'm afraid

  • source
  • parent