Canada’s next Prime Minister

[brenthutch 444]

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/18/pierre-poilievre-trudeau-canada-00116084
 

Watch him destroy a lefty journalist while eating an apple.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmbAPfKJMRU

 

[Phil1111 1,149]

He will have to win in Quebec in order to become PM. The liberals have lost the popular vote in the last two elections yet remained in power.

The "Axe the Tax" is very popular but the conservative really don't have a sound environmental plan.

The liberal government has had several corruption scandals during the Trudeau leadership.

[brenthutch 444]

14 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

the conservative really don't have a sound environmental plan.

I hope you are not talking about climate change.  Let’s just take a look at how Trudeau’s climate policy is working out.

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/canada/

“Canada’s overall CAT rating remains unchanged at ‘Highly insufficient’. Canada needs stronger targets and faster policy implementation. To quote the commissioner: ‘we cannot afford a fourth decade of failure on climate action’.”

Unless you count platitudes and slogans as climate action, there is little difference between the two.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

33 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

He will have to win in Quebec in order to become PM. The liberals have lost the popular vote in the last two elections yet remained in power.

The "Axe the Tax" is very popular but the conservative really don't have a sound environmental plan.

The liberal government has had several corruption scandals during the Trudeau leadership.

Current polling has the Liberals continuing to fall. Majority of Canadians want Trudeau to resign now. If elections were to be held today, there is very little doubt Poilievre would be PM.

 

However scheduled elections are 2 years away, which is an eternity in politics.

[Phil1111 1,149]

16 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Current polling has the Liberals continuing to fall. Majority of Canadians want Trudeau to resign now. If elections were to be held today, there is very little doubt Poilievre would be PM.

 

However scheduled elections are 2 years away, which is an eternity in politics.

Agree or even two eternities. Unfortunately given the breakdown/distribution of districts and MPs. The majority hasn't carried the day in the last couple election.

The recent pandering of the PM to his base regarding food costs. Whereby he called into Ottawa the presidents of the largest grocery chains and read them the riot act to reduce food costs. Was nothing but a sham.

[brenthutch 444]

5 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Agree or even two eternities. Unfortunately given the breakdown/distribution of districts and MPs. The majority hasn't carried the day in the last couple election.

The recent pandering of the PM to his base regarding food costs. Whereby he called into Ottawa the presidents of the largest grocery chains and read them the riot act to reduce food costs. Was nothing but a sham.

As we learned from Ronald Reagan, successful politics requires, not only good policies, but a bit of theater as well.

[Phil1111 1,149]

36 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I hope you are not talking about climate change.  Let’s just take a look at how Trudeau’s climate policy is working out.

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/canada/

“Canada’s overall CAT rating remains unchanged at ‘Highly insufficient’. Canada needs stronger targets and faster policy implementation. To quote the commissioner: ‘we cannot afford a fourth decade of failure on climate action’.”

Unless you count platitudes and slogans as climate action, there is little difference between the two.

Because of immigration Canada's population is among the twentieth fastest growing in the world. There were 1.1 million new immigrants in the last year.

The conservative leader that you refer to is going to meet Canada's climate goals through "technology". I agree with his policy to strive for more exports of carbon fuels.

[Phil1111 1,149]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

As we learned from Ronald Reagan, successful politics requires, not only good policies, but a bit of theater as well.

Naturally you would.

[brenthutch 444]

2 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Naturally you would.

49 out of 50 states can’t be wrong 

https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1984

Edited October 19, 2023 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,465]

10 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

The majority hasn't carried the day in the last couple election.

True, but if you combine both left wing parties in Canada, they have a majority together. In other words, left wing votes are much higher than right wing votes.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

As we learned from Ronald Reagan, successful politics requires, not only good policies, but a bit of theater as well.

Considering you are still paying for the debt he accumulated, very expensive theatre. But for people like you entertainment will always trump results.

[brenthutch 444]

32 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Considering you are still paying for the debt he accumulated, very expensive theatre. But for people like you entertainment will always trump results.

Small price to pay considering we won the Cold War. Not to mention, much of that was paid off during the Clinton administration as we reaped the benefit of the “peace dividend”

[billvon 2,991]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Naturally you would.

The ironic thing is that if Reagan ran today as a republican he'd be laughed out of the race by today's republican, who would consider him a gun-grabbing, illegal-immigrant-loving tax-and-spend liberal.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Small price to pay considering we won the Cold War. Not to mention, much of that was paid off during the Clinton administration as we reaped the benefit of the “peace dividend”

Considering the party you belong to is bowing in front of Putin, I don't think you should be saying that so confidently.

[Phil1111 1,149]

11 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Small price to pay considering we won the Cold War. Not to mention, much of that was paid off during the Clinton administration as we reaped the benefit of the “peace dividend”

“Piece dividend” thats funny. Does that mean the US spends about a trillion a year and all the defense contractors get a piece of the action for all their lobbying?