Joe Rogan and Pierre Poilievre interview

[ArmyRick]

Is Maple MAGA in the room with us right now? Can you sense its presence?

 

[Jarnhamar]

I wish it were that simple.

At this point it’s a no win label. If Poilievre pushes back on the US he’s accused of playing politics for votes. If he engages with Americans or even acknowledges issues like border security, he’s Maple MAGA. That’s framing where the outcome is predetermined and whatever he does just gets slotted into it.

No other Politican save Ford stood up to Hoekstra. By your admission if Poilievre doesn't jump down his throat then he's clearly Maple MAGA.

 

[Altair]

At this point it’s a no win label. If Poilievre pushes back on the US he’s accused of playing politics for votes.

I am so sick of this. Who said this? Where are they? Anyone here? I didn't say jack when ford stood up to Pete. Not a damn word. I didnt have a bad thing to say about Pierre standing up to the USA in the Joe rogan experience. So who are these mythical people who would accuse Pierre Poilievre of playing politics for votes?

I'll say this right now, if Pete says something stupid and Pierre pushes back and tells him to pound sand, I'm grabbing my red and while maple leaf hat and standing right beside him screaming hell ya

If he engages with Americans or even acknowledges issues like border security, he’s Maple MAGA. That’s framing where the outcome is predetermined and whatever he does just gets slotted into it.

If hes giving weight to false american narratives hes maple maga.

If he want to talk the border, be my guest. If he wants to talk the border saying Canadian failings justify american tariffs, sorry, youre maple maga eh.

No other Politican save Ford stood up to Hoekstra. By your admission if Poilievre doesn't jump down his throat then he's clearly Maple MAGA.

The solution was simple. Dont invite him.

 

[George Wallace]

I wish it were that simple.

When i hear maple maga, its a Canadian who hopes for a strong America with zero regard for what is good for Canada. Or worse yet, actively cheering American because its run by the side of the political aisle they are on while detesting Canada because its run by the other side of the aisle that they dont support.

There are some for example, who look at the tariffs placed on Canada because of "fentanyl and illegal immigration" and said, yeah, america is right, we deserve this. Meanwhile every country on earth is being hit with tariffs, and the reasons of fentanyl and illegal immigration dont hold water, nor could we reduce it to numbers that would ever remove the tariffs. Clearly that has america in the wrong but to maple maga types Canada is still somehow in the wrong.

And you may think I'm joking but Pierre poilievre during the initial tariff period is on record disparaging Canada and calling for the military to be deployed to the border to cut down on illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking, giving legitimacy to the utterly false claims by the USA.

Now Pierre Poilievre has been much improved in this regard, even during the Joe rogan show, but based on his pass comments, he really needed to be consistent in that regard, and inviting Pete Hoekstra to run his mouth while not saying anything in defense of Canada would be a very bad look. Either dont invite him if you dont want to push back on any ridiculousness he might say, or invite him but be fully prepared to push back on what he might say. Failure to do so and the maple maga moniker resurfaces and its their own damn fault.

I still think that the persons using that phrase are very, very confused. There are several terms that the Left like to throw around in that may sound great in sound bites; but in reality are nonsensical.

 

[Altair]

I still think that the persons using that phrase are very, very confused. There are several terms that the Left like to throw around in that may sound great in sound bites; but in reality are nonsensical.

Quisling better?

 

[Jarnhamar]

I am so sick of this. Who said this? Where are they? Anyone here? I didn't say jack when ford stood up to Pete. Not a damn word. I didnt have a bad thing to say about Pierre standing up to the USA in the Joe rogan experience. So who are these mythical people who would accuse Pierre Poilievre of playing politics for votes?

This is how the discourse tends to go in general. You’ll see it across media commentary, partisan spaces, and online discussion. The same pattern applies regardless of party. In Poilievres case, everything is Maple MAGA, including him going on Joe Rogan.

If hes giving weight to false americans narratives hes maple maga

That’s exactly the problem. It turns into a moving definition. Any engagement with US claims can be (and often are) framed as “giving weight,” even when it’s just acknowledging or responding to them. At that point the label stops describing a real position and just becomes a way to discredit whoever you already disagree with. I said it before, it's become a lazy phrase.

If he want to talk the border, be my guest. If he wants to talk the border saying Canadian failings justify american tariffs, sorry, youre maple maga eh.

Has Poilievre said anything close to Canadian failings justify American tariffs?

The solution was simple. Dont invite him.

Probably should get rid of Smith, Harris, Campbell, Norquist, and any other Americam too just to be safe.

 

[George Wallace]

Quisling better?

???? And how do you arrive at that? Please explain.

 

[Altair]

Has Poilievre said anything close to Canadian failings justify American tariffs?

No, but he did say that our border with the Americans is broken, pointing to a non existent drug smuggling and illegal immigration problems and is on recoded saying he wanted to deploy the CAF to the border.

Did he come flat out and say trumps tariffs are justified? No. But he did give weight to the nonsensical idea that we were somehow the problem, an idea, in hindsight, that has aged very poorly.

 

[Altair]

???? And how do you arrive at that? Please explain.

You dont like the term maple maga. You find it nonsensical.

Quisling is a long established term for a similar phenomenon, is that better or worse than maple maga in your estimation?

 

[George Wallace]

You dont like the term maple maga. You find it nonsensical.

Quisling is a long established term for a similar phenomenon, is that better or worse than maple maga in your estimation?

And whom exactly do you call a Quisling? Or are you trying to be nonsensical?

 

[Altair]

And whom exactly do you call a Quisling? Or are you trying to be nonsensical?

If someone sides with the USA or Trump, or the Maga movement over Canada, what should they be called if you dont like the terms maple maga or quisling?

 

[ArmyRick]

Quisling is a long established term for a similar phenomenon, is that better or worse than maple maga in your estimation?

Is it really a long established term?
and for you

Is Maple MAGA in the room with us right now?

 

[Altair]

Is it really a long established term?

Depends on whether you consider WW2 to be a long time ago or not.

 

[Jarnhamar]

No, but he did say that our border with the Americans is broken,

He did.

-asylum backlogs
-fentanyl trafficking
-human trafficking
-gun smuggling
-enforcement capacity

pointing to a non existent drug smuggling and illegal immigration problems

I don't recall if he exaggerated the scale of the problem or not but the smuggling and immigration problem is far from non existent.

and is on recoded saying he wanted to deploy the CAF to the border.

I remember when Trump started his 51st state trash and Canadians were talking about taking up arms against US invaders. I bet if Poilievre said we don't need troops on the border (in any capacity) he would have been called Maple MAGA and accusing of wanting the border open so the US could Waltz in.

Anyhow, context matters here. Poilievre
was talking about surveillance and logistical support to CBSA, not LAV 6s.

That would be an ideal environment for the CAF to train and learn in. And catch smugglers and save lives.

Did he come flat out and say trumps tariffs are justified? No. But he did give weight to the nonsensical idea that we were somehow the problem, an idea, in hindsight, that has aged very poorly.

I thought he said US tariff threats tied to the mentioned issues are unjustified and harmful. I don't see where he has endorsed the premise that Canada “deserves” tariffs or is responsible for them. Do you have an example?

 

[George Wallace]

If someone sides with the USA or Trump, or the Maga movement over Canada, what should they be called if you dont like the terms maple maga or quisling?

It would greatly help if you would identify whom you are calling a Quisling? You have so far demonstrated why I call people using that type of slur as being confused.