Canadian Federal Election

[trueviking]

^ the problem is it doesn’t really matter what he says. Those people supporting him makes people feel like he is part of their camp. He can deny it all he wants but that’s the crowd he connected himself to when he celebrated truckers and created a populist persona. Shedding that image is more difficult than simply saying I don’t like Trump or Elon or O’Leary. Just acknowledging that he has their support is putting a spotlight on the fact that he is of their ilk. He knowingly cultivated the image people have of him, and it will be a challenge to change that at this point, especially when the liberals pound that message home incessantly during a campaign.

[janbe74]

Originally Posted by missing_middle

Yeah I dunno. I was trying to figure out what just sort of puts me off about Carney and I think it's that he's the perfect politician....if it were like the year 2010.

A perfect example of a _low conviction social climbing trans-national-eco-capital elitist type_ that seem to get attracted to the ambivalence of centrist politics. Like a Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney type or something.

Competent perhaps....but it's also very different times.

Between Justin Trudeau's dramatic identity politics and Pierre Poilievre's angry populism, maybe Canadians want a bland boring centrist in Mark Carney.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by kiwi4353

PP loves to say how 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Canada is, he's welcome to move to the States.

I don’t recall PP saying how 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Canada is… I know he said Canada is broken, which was very similar to Trudeau’s “Ottawa is broken” back in 2015.

My interpretation is that there are things that need to be fixed, such as housing, debt, immigration, opioid crisis (or “challenge” according to Carent), international trade, etc.. and if something needs to be fixed, it must mean that something is broken.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by missing_middle

Yeah I dunno. I was trying to figure out what just sort of puts me off about Carney and I think it's that he's the perfect politician....if it were like the year 2010.

A perfect example of a _low conviction social climbing trans-national-eco-capital elitist type_ that seem to get attracted to the ambivalence of centrist politics. Like a Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney type or something.

Competent perhaps....but it's also very different times.

I actually think he is tailor made for this moment. You couldn’t really script a better candidate, except maybe to speak better French. His biggest issue is that he isn’t a politician. He will get smoked in debates by the professional politician. His commentary isn’t clean and easy to digest. I feel like his lack of political polish could be his undoing. We will see. His resume is impeccable but will that be enough to overcome what people are used to as far as political sound bites go.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by janbe74

Pierre Poilievre has Donald Trump sympathizers in his caucus. A large portion of this base likes Donald Trump.

Doug Ford and Justin Trudeau share the same voters.

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Where are the stats for “a large portion” ? I’d honestly like to know. Are we talking 50%, 30, 20%…

And when you say sympathizers, do you mean this “large portion” actually agrees with what Trump is doing to Canada?

Originally Posted by janbe74

Between Justin Trudeau's dramatic identity politics and Pierre Poilievre's angry populism, maybe Canadians want a bland boring centrist in Mark Carney.

janbe74… were you able to locate the stats for “a large portion” ? I’d honestly like to know. Are we talking 50%, 30, 20%?

Again, when you say sympathizers, do you mean this “large portion” actually agrees with what Trump is doing to Canada?

It’s hard to believe that is true, as PP has already stood up to Trump and laid out his plan to deal with him, his tariffs, and his threats. If they are supporting what Trunp is doing to Canada, no way they would support PP with his action plan.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

I don’t recall PP saying how 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Canada is… I know he said Canada is broken, which was very similar to Trudeau’s “Ottawa is broken” back in 2015.

My interpretation is that there are things that need to be fixed, such as housing, debt, immigration, opioid crisis (or “challenge” according to Carent), international trade, etc.. and if something needs to be fixed, it must mean that something is broken.

You are right but it comes across as Canada is 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵. It’s definitely easy to spin it that way, especially in this moment of hyper patriotism.

Check a Twitter string of someone posting a positive statistic about Canada, it is lined with blue checkmarks screaming fake news because everything 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 here.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by janbe74

Pierre Poilievre has Donald Trump sympathizers in his caucus. A large portion of this base likes Donald Trump.

There may be some Adolph Drumpf apologists in the federal Conservative caucus. There are not that many. I would also not say that a "large portion" of the Conservative "base" are Maple MAGAs. Again, there are some, and they are concentrated in interior BC, AB, SK, rural SW Ontario and western NB. They are not the majority, and probably not more than 20-25% of the base. They are however vocal and make a nuisance of themselves.

I do not think PP is a Drumpf apologist. He does however have an unfortunate tendency to mimic his talking points and slogans, which makes him an easy target for the Liberals, which is a big problem for PP because the next federal election will be fought against Adolph Drumpf. PP will therefore have to distance himself from the Great Satan as much as possible.

[MolsonExport]

^I concur with your assessment.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by trueviking

You are right but it comes across as Canada is 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵. It’s definitely easy to spin it that way, especially in this moment of hyper patriotism.

Check a Twitter string of someone posting a positive statistic about Canada, it is lined with blue checkmarks screaming fake news because everything 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 here.

I feel that if you are someone who doesn't like the Conservatives, then no matter what they say you will spin it / interpret it as "anti-Canadian."

Saying Canada is broken doesn't = I hate Canada. One can be patriotic and understand that their nation has a lot of fixing to be done at the same time.

In fact, the last thing I want to hear from any Canadian politician right now is "Let's keep going with the status quo, everything is fine!"

It's funny, because I just saw a bunch of people on Reddit hating on PP for saying "Canada first" because it was "soooo MAGA!"

So what is it? Does he hate Canada, or is he bad for being a chest thumping "Canada First" patriot?

As for the Federal election, I'm torn. If the Liberals choose Chrystia Freeland, then I will prefer PP and the Conservatives, as she is far too close and the same of what we have had the past 9 years, which is broken, but if they choose Mark Carney... well, then I'm honestly at a 50/50 split. I think PP would be better for domestic issues and correcting some of the more extreme and poor decisions from the current Liberal government, but I think Carney would make a better face of Canada and do better on the international stage / relations, but it will still be the Liberals...

(honestly, the "no more major highway projects" made by the environmental minister last year while the TC through BC is in dire needs of a proper upgrade, along with many other cross regional highway links, is the poster child of idiotic policies that have contributed greatly to our current vulnerability to the US tariffs from the Liberal government. They really need to show some solid proposals to convince me that has changed. Start twinning Yoho!)

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Yeah. How could anyone think Pierre is a mini Trump. Evil Liberals. He wears slogans on clothing. Where did he get that idea? He does campaign style rallies while not in a campaign. He gives demeaning nicknames to his opponents. His policies are three word rhymes. He supported truckers. He disrespects the media. He uses language like “radical woke ideology”. He is a populist who does nothing but rage farm.

He has been executing the Trump playbook for two years and now he’s paying the price.

Did you or did you not read my post? This is not about minor ideological difference, campaign style, or personal likeability but rather gets to the core of who PP & Trump are.

Trump, as I have already said, is a misogynistic, dictatorial, irrational, narcissistic, racist, undemocratic, criminal who does not believe in human rights, the rule of law, nor the democratic process and it's institutions. No one can accuse PP of being ANY of those things and anyone saying he is knows nothing about him and anyone comparing him to Trump, knows nothing about Trump.

The Liberals have always governed and campaigned from the cesspool but even for them, this is a new low. Even the idea of clumping these 2 together as if they are just different sides of the same coin is enough to make me truly nauseous.

[Curmudgeon]

There seems to be a misunderstanding of which metric to use when comparing the size of national economies.

Using nominal GDP does not take into account local prices, wages and currency fluctuations.

Let's take any country to use as an example. We'll use Brazil just for the sake of it. For ease of calculation, we'll say Brazil's nominal GDP is $2 trillion though it is slightly higher. If the Brazilian real is 6 to US$1 and it should devalue to 9 to the dollar, or by 50%, this does not mean that the Brazilian economy has shrunk to $1.3 trillion. Brazil's GDP PPP is $4.7 trillion.

This is why using GDP PPP (purchasing power parity) is much more reflective of the economic output between nations. GDP PPP (per capita) also gives a much better reflection of standards of living than using nominal figures.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

There seems to be a misunderstanding of which metric to use when comparing the size of national economies.

Using nominal GDP does not take into account local prices, wages and currency fluctuations.

Let's take any country to use as an example. We'll use Brazil just for the sake of it. For ease of calculation, we'll say Brazil's nominal GDP is $2 trillion though it is slightly higher. If the Brazilian real is 6 to US$1 and it should devalue to 9 to the dollar, or by 50%, this does not mean that the Brazilian economy has shrunk to $1.3 trillion. Brazil's GDP PPP is $4.7 trillion.

This is why using GDP PPP (purchasing power parity) is much more reflective of the economic output between nations. GDP PPP (per capita) also gives a much better reflection of standards of living than using nominal figures.

It's not so simple. Yes nominal GDP has the downsides you note but so does PPP. So for example if labour costs are very low this usually makes domestic prices lower. So yes a haircut is $100 here but $10 in China so measuring it nominally is misleading. However. If we both make a barrel of oil. Counting it at 3X because haircuts are cheaper as happens under PPP is also misleading. It also doesn't reflect the ability to buy military equipment (though it does allow you to pay for more soldiers)

So looking at both numbers is important in measuring relative economic strength.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Ex NB Premier Shawn Graham might provide an example of what might be available.

Like JT, Shawn got his job because his father was a high profile politician. Before politics, he was employed as a high school gym teacher. Like JT, his reign was a disaster. Shawn himself was glib and vacuous (again like JT).

Once he was kicked out of office, he was unemployed for a while. No corporate directorships were offered. The federal Liberals finally took pity on him and made him a low level trade representative somewhere in China (not Beijing, Shanghai or Hong Kong). He eventually got tired of his banishment and returned to Canada. You occasionally see him on CBC TV here in NB participating on pundits panels. I'm not sure what he is doing otherwise.

I thought that JT would be someone to participate in pundits panels but not for at least a year or two after he steps down. Maybe he will get involved with specific global issues such as peace talks, climate change or human rights.

[Werthers]

Originally Posted by kiwi4353

PP loves to say how 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Canada is, he's welcome to move to the States.

As the leader of the opposition it's his job to point out how bad the current administration is and Trudeau has made his job very easy

Originally Posted by janbe74

People like you are the reason Pierre Poilievre might lose the next election.

BTW Pierre Poilievre is a career politican are qualified for a pension at 31 years old.

Negative campaigning has proven to be highly effective and when Trudeau is the PM it's hard not to be negative. Poilievre's ideas are vastly more sensible and palatable to Canadians than Trudeau's and that's why he'll win. Most PM's are career politicians like Poilievre anyway both here and abroad, Teflon Don of course being an exception

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

janbe74… were you able to locate the stats for “a large portion” ? I’d honestly like to know. Are we talking 50%, 30, 20%?

Again, when you say sympathizers, do you mean this “large portion” actually agrees with what Trump is doing to Canada?

It’s hard to believe that is true, as PP has already stood up to Trump and laid out his plan to deal with him, his tariffs, and his threats. If they are supporting what Trunp is doing to Canada, no way they would support PP with his action plan.

There was a Leger poll done a couple of weeks ago that showed 27% of Conservative voters had a favourable view of Trump. Only the PPC at 33% was higher.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

There was a Leger poll done a couple of weeks ago that showed 27% of Conservative voters had a favourable view of Trump. Only the PPC at 33% was higher.

And that's after Trump threatened to economically destroy Canada so the support for the general policies is much much higher.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I thought that JT would be someone to participate in pundits panels but not for at least a year or two after he steps down. Maybe he will get involved with specific global issues such as peace talks, climate change or human rights.

Maybe he can do some amdram at a community theatre.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by janbe74

Between Justin Trudeau's dramatic identity politics and Pierre Poilievre's angry populism, maybe Canadians want a bland boring centrist in Mark Carney.

Identity politics was never a serious issue for most Canadians. I have never met anyone who personally was affected by identity politics, in terms of employment loss, discrimination, etc. It's mainly right wing propaganda. Unfortunately many fell for it, especially here in Alberta.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

Identity politics was never an issue for most Canadians. It's mainly right wing propaganda. Unfortunately many fell for it, especially here in Alberta.

It wasn't an issue until Trudeau brought US style quotas and reverse discrimination policies to Canada. In fairness corporate Canada was also a big factor importing these ideas into Canada

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

There may be some Adolph Drumpf apologists in the federal Conservative caucus. There are not that many. I would also not say that a "large portion" of the Conservative "base" are Maple MAGAs. Again, there are some, and they are concentrated in interior BC, AB, SK, rural SW Ontario and western NB. They are not the majority, and probably not more than 20-25% of the base. They are however vocal and make a nuisance of themselves.

I do not think PP is a Drumpf apologist. He does however have an unfortunate tendency to mimic his talking points and slogans, which makes him an easy target for the Liberals, which is a big problem for PP because the next federal election will be fought against Adolph Drumpf. PP will therefore have to distance himself from the Great Satan as much as possible.

I agree. But PP really blew it on some important things that are now coming back to bite him. He displayed way too much behaviour and some actions that are too much like Trump. I don't think that PP thought that Trump would be back as president so he took some things from the Trump playbook as others have mentioned. It was all working well for him until Trump was inaugurated then came after Canada.

Another thing was his failure to stand up as strongly for Ukraine as the LPC has. This was before Trump won the election but it is another thing coming back and biting him.

Now that the LPC will likely be led by somebody who knows a lot about economics (unlike JT), PP can't make fun of Carney the same way he did with JT.