Who will you be voting for??

[DesRicardo]

PS- The problem on pushing on the scary MAGA-lite in Canada thing too much is that you inadvertently undermine the case that voters see Carney as the best person to fix the Trudeau economic doldrums. We know older voters had a general comfort of staying with the Liberals. I think most of us who follow politics knows this turns upside down the normal political alignment of younger voters favoring liberals.

You know what the funniest part of this is too? Carney is the one that actually has MAGA ties.

His business has done with Trump's son-in-law.

Carney’s ex-company Brookfield has deep financial ties with the Trump family

Canadian investment firm Brookfield, formerly chaired by Liberal leader Mark Carney has close business ties to the Trump family.

www.junonews.com

But now it He's ready to go against Trump, blah blah blah. These guys do business with each other every day and know the same people.

 

[WyattEarp]

You know what the funniest part of this is too? Carney is the one that actually has MAGA ties.

His business has done with Trump's son-in-law.

Carney’s ex-company Brookfield has deep financial ties with the Trump family

Canadian investment firm Brookfield, formerly chaired by Liberal leader Mark Carney has close business ties to the Trump family.

www.junonews.com

But now it He's ready to go against Trump, blah blah blah. These guys do business with each other every day and know the same people.

I don't think that surprises me. I don't find anything conspiratorial in wealthy, successful people doing business and moving in the same circles.

I believe Bloomberg and Trump know each other well. They couldn't be more different politically.

 

[Butler1000]

I don't think that surprises me. I don't find anything conspiratorial in wealthy, successful people doing business and moving in the same circles.

I believe Bloomberg and Trump know each other well. They couldn't be more different politically.

It's a big club and we ain't in it.

 

[Butler1000]

One way or another you're missing the big picture. They're are 8.5x more Americans than Canadians. They're are simply many more of us in the U.S. and around the world.

American fascism is a narrative. About 2% of Canadians living in the U.S. is a factual reality. The factual reality doesn't jive with the narrative.

The reason we are talking about it is because you said this:



PS- The problem on pushing on the scary MAGA-lite in Canada thing too much is that you inadvertently undermine the case that voters see Carney as the best person to fix the Trudeau economic doldrums. We know older voters had a general comfort of staying with the Liberals. I think most of us who follow politics knows this turns upside down the normal political alignment of younger voters favoring liberals.

Check you own US demographic. It's seriously shifted as well.

 

[WyattEarp]

But this does not explain Canadian opinions on American fascism.
..............
And you dont know what that 2% actually think.
The fact that they are living there means nothing.
That's like saying the Jews who lived in fascist Germany were okay with German fascism just because they happened to live there.

That's not a good example at all. Using your example as the comparative basis, I am actually saying Jews were not moving to Germany during the Nazi years. In contrast, Canadians are moving to and staying in a so-called fascist America. Simply put, the drama of such is overblown by American media and political opponents.

The best, but weakest argument might be these almost one million Canadians like warmer weather and will put up with the so-called fascism. When you read that back, it doesn't make Canadians seem very principled if indeed your supposition of fascism was close to being true.

The likely worst argument would be Canadians in the U.S. tolerate the so-called fascism to find opportunities that no longer exist in Canada. That would be admitting some amount of failure with Canadian governance.

There are multiple reasons why one votes for a candidate and often times it is a combination of various reasons.
So Carney was seen as strong, economically knowledgeable, democratic, level-headed, reasonable and inclusive.
Pierre was seen as grating, MAGA-lite, not too knowledgeable economically, divisive, authoritarian and as a glorified sloganeer.

I think Carney has the advantage of being a relatively political enigma. This glowing characterization will fray under real world conditions and decision-making. Carney is certainly more political than Matthew McConaughey, but it reminded me when people said they would vote for McConaughey for Texas Governor. I think McC put out some feelers and realized when he starts taking actual positions he would immediately lose chunks of voters.

The bigger advantage that Carney had was an outside adversary. It is the well-documented phenomenon that failing leadership can benefit from foreign adversaries. Carney didn't conjure up a foreign foe, but he did benefit greatly from such.

 

[Skoob]

I heard that Carney wants the government to become a contractor in building more affordable housing. This smacks of a typical liberal solution. Liberals like anything that puts the government front and center in the economy.

In all likelihood, the reality will be very different than the rhetoric. I would stick to incentives and removing regulatory barriers.

Politicians over recent years have used the term "affordable housing" as a substitute for what it actually is: subsidized housing.

If they call it what it actually is, many more people will come to the realization that it's housing their taxes are paying for so that someone else can live there. It's not an affordable home that someone can work to buy, although that's the narrative they are trying to peddle.

It's indeed a liberal tactic and marketing scheme in trying to convince people that they can afford to buy a home even though they have stacked the economic cards against anyone actually being able to do this.

If you make people believe that you will help them own their own home, they will vote for you. The Liberal party in Canada are masters of marketing...and deception, as proven by how many elections they have won since 2015 yet people keep struggling.

 

[WyattEarp]

Check you own US demographic. It's seriously shifted as well.

I realize that. Younger U.S. voters did shift towards Trump.
It presents some interesting thoughts. I think political scientists are trying to glean through the shift right now.

I myself wonder where this trend goes when the general rule was younger voters tend to be more liberal and become more conservative with age.
I believe some were noting sentimental voting patterns among baby boomers. In other words, many baby boomers are locked into a party preference.

Either way, generational gaps in voting is not a new phenomenon. I can see in U.S. society that policies of both parties have a big tendency to benefit older Americans.

 

[Skoob]

So all your complaints that the Liberals were going to overspend, was actually a conservative idea?
So if conservatives overspend you have no issue but if Liberals do it is the end of the world?
And if it is the conservative platform you should have no problem with it.
Your criticism doesn't make sense.
And yes, ideology is what mattered in this election.
MAGA ideology was defeated and cast out.
The guy with over a 20 point lead 6 weeks earlier lost his riding.
What part of that reality eludes you?
On a positive note, you guys atleast seem to have won the TERB poll. lmfao.

Conservatives would spend to make Canada more independent. How else would that be accomplished?
Conservatives wanted to cancel the carbon tax.
Conservatives wanted to control immigration.
Conservatives wanted to reduce the size and expense of government.


All of the above...adopted by Carney. (until he inevitably backtracks soon)

Trudeau gone.
Singh gone.
Carney promising Conservative policies.
Conservatives with a very strong opposition and record setting support.
Conservatives having more power in parliament without being sabotaged by the NDP.

I would say Poilievre not winning his riding is inconsequential based on all the accomplishments above.

And remember: you voted for Carney because you think he will save you from Trump...and you have yet to provide anything concrete differences between Carney and the other candidates in that context.

i.e. you swallowed Liberal propaganda again.

 

[Butler1000]

I realize that. Younger U.S. voters did shift towards Trump.
It presents some interesting thoughts. I think political scientists are trying to glean through the shift right now.

I myself wonder where this trend goes when the general rule was younger voters tend to be more liberal and become more conservative with age.
I believe some were noting sentimental voting patterns among baby boomers. In other words, many baby boomers are locked into a party preference.

Either way, generational gaps in voting is not a new phenomenon. I can see in U.S. society that policies of both parties have a big tendency to benefit older Americans.

Just the age of the leaderships say a bunch.

 

[Skoob]

I think you forgot that we got rid of Pee Pee as well and the Liberal only need the 7 NDP to pass any programs or legislations

Last I checked he was still the leader of the opposition. Record setting opposition that is.
Just because he lost his riding doesn't mean anything.

Besides, as long as Carney keeps his promises and delivers on all those Conservative policies he adopted, I'm not worried...are you?

Also, I'm curious...tell us how Carney will "stand up to Trump" in a way that would have been any different than any other candidate? Be specific.

 

[WyattEarp]

Politicians over recent years have used the term "affordable housing" as a substitute for what it actually is: subsidized housing.

If they call it what it actually is, many more people will come to the realization that it's housing their taxes are paying for so that someone else can live there. It's not an affordable home that someone can work to buy, although that's the narrative they are trying to peddle.

It's indeed a liberal tactic and marketing scheme in trying to convince people that they can afford to buy a home even though they have stacked the economic cards against anyone actually being able to do this.

If you make people believe that you will help them own their own home, they will vote for you. The Liberal party in Canada are masters of marketing...and deception, as proven by how many elections they have won since 2015 yet people keep struggling.

That's what I was getting at with my post.
I think the big squeeze scoffed at my post. You know the chronic laughing emoji in lieu of a thoughtful response.

I worry that Carney will look at low productivity growth and low business investment and champion direct government investment. Of course, government as a housing contractor is one of those liberal investment methods. You want more housing, technology, income etc. etc. the government will provide it. I guarantee you that productivity will not grow from such govt. investments.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Conservatives would spend to make Canada more independent. How else would that be accomplished?
Conservatives wanted to cancel the carbon tax.
Conservatives wanted to control immigration.
Conservatives wanted to reduce the size and expense of government.


All of the above...adopted by Carney. (until he inevitably backtracks soon)

Trudeau gone.
Singh gone.
Carney promising Conservative policies.
Conservatives with a very strong opposition and record setting support.
Conservatives having more power in parliament without being sabotaged by the NDP.

I would say Poilievre not winning his riding is inconsequential based on all the accomplishments above.

And remember: you voted for Carney because you think he will save you from Trump...and you have yet to provide anything concrete differences between Carney and the other candidates in that context.

i.e. you swallowed Liberal propaganda again.

So that was my question.
So all of that since you say it was adopted by Carney (it wasn't), should make you happy with the Liberal platform, correct?
I mean even though it is a massive cope, because you are prone to mental gymnastics, it should atleast make you happy?
And you think Trudeau ruling for 10 long years, then stepping down, and pretty much turning around a 20+ point trail in polling, to a near majority election victory, along with the leader of the opposition losing his seat, is an accomplishment? lmfaoooo.
Too funny.

 

[Skoob]

Grasp at straws to lessen your tears of your Conservatives blowing a 20 point lead. Your leader losing his seat because he was stupid enough to court the looney anti vax twats in Ottawa. LMAO

Your tears are wonderful, mmmmm mmmm.

You think Poilievre lost his lead due to Carney? Lol!

He lost his lead because people like you believed Carney would "stand up to Trump" but can't explain how he plans to do that in any way that's different than anyone else?

I can't wait for all those Conservative policies to be implemented whether it's the Conservatives or Liberals. Like I said a win-win.

PS what I would be thinking if I were you is what happens in 4 years when/if Trump is no longer POTUS and after 4 years of Carney doing squat against protecting Canada with no one to distract to?

 

[Skoob]

Grasp, reach, stretchhhhhh , you can do it!!!

It's funny...you think you won an election and now you're realizing what you voted for is actually what the Conservatives wanted.

hahahaha!

 

[WyattEarp]

And you think Trudeau ruling for 10 long years, then stepping down, and pretty much turning around a 20+ point trail in polling, to a near majority election victory, along with the leader of the opposition losing his seat, is an accomplishment? lmfaoooo.
Too funny.

I'm confused. I thought you said Canadians were voting against authoritarianism. Now you seemed to be crediting Carney with a major accomplishment.

Did Canadians vote in favor of the Liberal platform or did they actually vote against authoritarianism?

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

I'm confused. I thought you said Canadians were voting against authoritarianism. Now you seemed to be crediting Carney with a major accomplishment.

Did Canadians vote in favor of the Liberal platform or did they actually vote against authoritarianism?

I am asking Skoob why he thinks conservatives accomplished anything this election.
And yes, it is a Liberal accomplishment. How is it not?
And Canadians voted for both. Why does it have to be one or the other?

 

[WyattEarp]

It's funny...you think you won an election and now you're realizing what you voted for is actually what the Conservatives wanted.

hahahaha!

I actually agree with you on this.

But alluding to my post above, when Carney starts making actual decisions he will immediately turn-off chunks of voters. If he governs from the middle, that will likely turn-off progressive voters including former NDP voters. If Carney stubbornly follows progressive Liberal leadership, he will disappoint moderate voters who had more faith in him than Poilievre.

Carney's electoral coalition held up from the obvious stress witnessed in January because of the outside threat presented by the Trump Administration. When he inevitably makes nice with the U.S. the focus will be on the economy and disparate views of governance with his coalition of voters.

 

[versitile1]

 

[Skoob]

So that was my question.
So all of that since you say it was adopted by Carney (it wasn't), should make you happy with the Liberal platform, correct?
I mean even though it is a massive cope, because you are prone to mental gymnastics, it should atleast make you happy?
And you think Trudeau ruling for 10 long years, then stepping down, and pretty much turning around a 20+ point trail in polling, to a near majority election victory, along with the leader of the opposition losing his seat, is an accomplishment? lmfaoooo.
Too funny.

You need to look at the big picture as to how the Canadian parliament works. If you are only able to look at Poilievre's riding then you are wasting your time...and mine.

I've said that if....and that's a big IF, the Liberals implement the Conservative policies they copied, then it's really a win-win. Why would I be against that?

But you know as well as I, that the Liberals don't have a good track record for keeping promises but are good at winning elections. So we will see what happens.

Let's all witness how Carney will "stand up to Trump" hahahahahaha this should be good.

 

[WyattEarp]

I am asking Skoob why he thinks conservatives accomplished anything this election.
And yes, it is a Liberal accomplishment. How is it not?
And Canadians voted for both. Why does it have to be one or the other?

Because if your supposition is Canadians voted against authoritarianism, that's a pretty resounding statement and motivation.

So yeah, votes against scary authoritarianism as you have defined it are not a Liberal accomplishment. You yourself said Canadians were scared. That doesn't sound like a great achievement for the Liberals and their platform whatever Carney decides it will be.

Canadians got scared and voted Liberal.