Canadian Politics

[Wideleft]

11 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

Citation needed

I can translate:

"Less rules for the wealthy in order to make it easier to exploit the poor."

[Bigblue204]

1 minute ago, Wideleft said:

I can translate:

"Less rules for the wealthy in order to make it easier to exploit the poor."

That is generally how it.goes....but I'm honestly curious why people think that about PCs. Like where are they getting this info from? Outside of obvious talking points from campaign type speeches....I'd take almost any conservative members platform as proof right now.

[17to85]

9 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

I can translate:

"Less rules for the wealthy in order to make it easier to exploit the poor."

you will be a wage slave and you will like it! 

[HardCoreBlue]

11 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Harper was actually competent at working with the other opposition parties. PP just has no idea how to go about it. 

Not just that, it's also his foaming mouth breathers have to be coddled so it's quite tricky for PP and his crew to do that while trying to bridge anything with other parties. They made their bed.

[Wideleft]

Yay "for limited and less intrusive government"!

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Wideleft

[17to85]

Just now, Wideleft said:

Yay "for limited and less intrusive government"!

 

disgusting, look at all the unnecessary government interference making that poor kid wear cumbersome PPE. 

[Wideleft]

11 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Harper was actually competent at working with the other opposition parties. PP just has no idea how to go about it. 

I'd argue that he was an expert in using wedge issues and omnibus bills in order to try and get the things he wanted.  Fortunately, the Supreme Court shut him down over and over again.

He did not work with the opposition and he wouldn't even meet with Premiers.

[HardCoreBlue]

Knuckle draggers yell smaller government, keep your hands off my business, muh rights, muh freedoms until of course their personal situations need government support, oversight but that’s different of course. Everything else that doesn’t fit their narrow rigid uniformed it’s all a conspiracy narrative is intrusive government!

[blue_gold_84]

Speaking of Steve: https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2023/03/22/former-prime-minister-stephen-harper-says-canada-needs-a-conservative-renaissance/

Quote

OTTAWA — Canada needs a “Conservative renaissance,” former prime minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday, but he cautioned that Pierre Poilievre should wait until an election before telling Canadians how he might run the country.  

Harper delivered a speech that evening to a room of party faithful staged by the Canada Strong and Free Network, formerly called the Manning Centre. 

His public appearance is a rare one for Harper, who exited political life after losing the 2015 election to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberals after nine years in power. 

Poilievre's election as party leader last September appears to have changed that, with Harper throwing his endorsement behind Poilievre, which was the first time he had done so for a Conservative leader. 

Introduced as a "statesman" of the party, Harper mounted a defence of the term "populism," which he said is often portrayed in a negative or imprecise light by what he called the "liberal media."

"Our country is badly in need of a Conservative renaissance at the national level," he told the crowd.

Harper reminded the audience that the modern Conservative party was built from the populism in Western Canada, a sense of nationalism in Quebec and Tories from Ontario. 

He said its owes credit to Preston Manning, founder of the populist Reform Party, a precursor to the Canadian Alliance, which merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form the Conservative Party of Canada.

Harper and Manning then shared the stage Wednesday for what organizers billed as a "fireside chat" about the legacy of the Reform Party. 

During the talk, the former Conservative prime minister quipped about foreign election interference, telling the crowd "I hear it's topical" and referred to the federal NDP as a "branch plant" for entering into a supply-and-confidence agreement with the Liberal government. 

Only its leader Jagmeet Singh could enter into a deal with the Liberals and leave with nothing, Harper told the room. 

As for Poilievre — whom Harper at one point referred to as first meeting as a "very tiny Reformer" — the former prime minister said if he forms the next government, Poilievre would be leading under much tougher circumstances than he ever did. 

In the meantime, Harper said Poilievre's job as Opposition leader is to hold Trudeau's government to account, rather than outline how he would run the country. 

"That's the job."

He said until an election happens, Poilievre and his team should be developing with their alternative vision for the country looks like to be ready. 

The only place he can be relevant is at a conclown circle-jerk.

[Noeller]

as long as I live, I will never understand libertarianism.... it's a serious lifestyle choice in Alberta, but I do not get it. It's like people do not understand how to function as part of a society. 

[Wideleft]

5 minutes ago, Noeller said:

as long as I live, I will never understand libertarianism.... it's a serious lifestyle choice in Alberta, but I do not get it. It's like people do not understand how to function as part of a society. 

While enjoying all the benefits of belonging to one.

[blue_gold_84]

[Noeller]

I love that so very very much....

[Tracker]

11 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Funny how no one here is talking about the Global TV story that (now former) Liberal MP Han Dong supposedly telling a senior official at the Chinese Consulate in Toronto not to release the two Michaels in 2021 as he felt their release would help the Conservatives. Yeah, those damned Conservatives are always scumbags but the Liberals never are. 

MP Han Dong leaving Liberal caucus, denies allegations of working against release of 2 Michaels (msn.com)

 

And Han Dong has been censured and has left the party. PC MP's can meet with German neo-Nazis and......nothing happens.

[Bigblue204]

I'm still waiting for anyone to show me some kind of policy or any proof that PCs want smaller/less intrusive governments...I should add, the only proof I will not except are campaign like speeches...if you're an adult and STILL falling for that, you deserve what you get.

Edited March 23, 2023 by Bigblue204

[17to85]

38 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

I'm still waiting for anyone to show me some kind of policy or any proof that PCs want smaller/less intrusive governments...I should add, the only proof I will not except are campaign like speeches...if you're an adult and STILL falling for that, you deserve what you get.

Oh they want smaller government alright, but only in the case of smaller government in regards to wealthy corporations.  

 

These entities have shown time and time again that they need more regulation not less because they can not be trusted to do the right thing. 

[HardCoreBlue]

1 hour ago, Wideleft said:

While enjoying all the benefits of belonging to one.

Some knuckle draggers, even here on this site, will do everything in their power to pretzel themselves around this.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

2 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

That is generally how it.goes....but I'm honestly curious why people think that about PCs. Like where are they getting this info from? Outside of obvious talking points from campaign type speeches....I'd take almost any conservative members platform as proof right now.

[Tracker]

37 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Oh they want smaller government alright, but only in the case of smaller government in regards to wealthy corporations.  

 

These entities have shown time and time again that they need more regulation not less because they can not be trusted to do the right thing. 

That is why big business funds right-wing parties and governments to weaken or eliminate regulations that might interfere with profits. 

[JCon]

2 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Knuckle draggers yell smaller government, keep your hands off my business, muh rights, muh freedoms until of course their personal situations need government support, oversight but that’s different of course. Everything else that doesn’t fit their narrow rigid uniformed it’s all a conspiracy narrative is intrusive government!

Always happy to hand out billions of dollars to wealthy companies to clean up messes that they are already required to clean up. Rinse repeat. Take money from the people and give it to the uber rich. 

Protected land? Nope! Let's give it to my pals who laundered money through my child's wedding and take kickbacks. 

Law & Order for everyone but not a PCs. Drunk driving and murdering people is okay as long as you're a Con and don't act woke. 

Who cares about answering questions from the media?! The Cons are above answering questions unless they are planted. 

Threaten to kill the PM and overthrow the gov't? Here's some coffee and donuts you poor KKKonvoy! 

Here's an envelope of money that was designated to be spread around but you can have it if you run for us! 

How dare you compare us to nazis when all we do is meet with and hang out with them! 

 

And on.... and on... and on....

[Wideleft]

2 minutes ago, Tracker said:

That is why big business funds right-wing parties and governments to weaken or eliminate regulations that might interfere with profits. 

Too many people think smaller government is so great because they're thinking about guys in suits b.s.'ing all day.  The cuts are actually to the public service which makes government less efficient, less responsive and usually results in the public being less safe.

[bluto]

1 hour ago, Bigblue204 said:

I'm still waiting for anyone to show me some kind of policy or any proof that PCs want smaller/less intrusive governments...I should add, the only proof I will not except are campaign like speeches...if you're an adult and STILL falling for that, you deserve what you get.

You'll never see me try to convince you of that.

Speaking for myself, I'm a voter who hasn't had a party with anything remotely near my values and beliefs for a few decades. Some have talked like they sorta-kinda did... but if given an opportunity to govern they did what every Canadian politician does: increase the size of my government. 

[Tracker]

8 minutes ago, bluto said:

You'll never see me try to convince you of that.

Speaking for myself, I'm a voter who hasn't had a party with anything remotely near my values and beliefs for a few decades. Some have talked like they sorta-kinda did... but if given an opportunity to govern they did what every Canadian politician does: increase the size of my government. 

The size of government is not the problem- its what the government of the day does with that power- to either make the lives of ordinary people better with good schools, healthcare, environmental regulations and infrastructure, or facilitating profit and growth at all costs so as to maximize profits.

[JCon]

2 minutes ago, Tracker said:

The size of government is not the problem- its what the government of the day does with that power- to either make the lives of ordinary people better with good schools, healthcare, environmental regulations and infrastructure, or facilitating profit and growth at all costs so as to maximize profits.

When I see someone say they want smaller gov't, I see someone who wants to pick and choose exactly what affects them and cares nothing beyond that. They want for themselves and screw everyone else. 

[bluto]

2 minutes ago, Tracker said:

The size of government is not the problem- its what the government of the day does with that power- to either make the lives of ordinary people better with good schools, healthcare, environmental regulations and infrastructure, or facilitating profit and growth at all costs so as to maximize profits.

It is the biggest problem. And it only increases in size and expense. Which in turn necessarily limits your freedom through taxation and its sinister twin debtload (taxing your children). I don't see this view as in any way controversial nor as capable of being denied. I further believe that it is the worst and most pervasive form of immorality in my country.