Leadership: Opposition Poilievre v. PM Carney [Split from The vibe shift, end of "wokeness"?]

[Fishbone Jones]

I have little faith in that anyone else would be doing any better at this point, and frankly, I think we’d be worse off today taking a knee to 47.

Who said anything about grovelling to trump?
We have enough trouble with the clowns we have, without going outside the country looking for other idiots to compete with our own stooges.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Who said anything about grovelling to trump?

Maybe not you individually, but there’s been one or two posts about asking why Canada has chosen in certain situations to be edgy with the US. Can’t say the “bend the knee” sentiment dial is completely zero. But I stand to be corrected if I misunderstood.

 

[Good2Golf]

Who said anything about grovelling to trump?
We have enough trouble with the clowns we have, without going outside the country looking for other idiots to compete with our own stooges.

In the very same post you insinuated my grandchildren would become destitute paying off debt incurred by Carney, you tied it to your postulated concept that Carney was doing everything on credit and implied that everyone’s paying and/or will pay the price for his ways. I brought 47 into it because very little to none of the current fiasco would have required anything close to your bombast of future generations becoming destitute because of Carney’s ways. My point was and remains, I have no faith at all in Poilievre that we would be any better off than with Carney. It’s a mug’s *game to try *and argue *that someone else would be much better, particularly if they weren’t even able to secure a normalized position to take meaningful action (vice just yapping about what would have been done).

 

[Czech_pivo]

In the very same post you insinuated my grandchildren would become destitute paying off debt incurred by Carney, you tied it to your postulated concept that Carney was doing everything on credit and implied that everyone’s paying and/or will pay the price for his ways. I brought 47 into it because very little to none of the current fiasco would have required anything close to your bombast of future generations becoming destitute because of Carney’s ways. My point was and remains, I have no faith at all in Poilievre that we would be any better off than with Carney. It’s a mug’s to try an argue than someone else would be much better, particularly if they weren’t even able to secure a normalized position to take meaningful action (vice just yapping about what would have been done).

There would be a lot less open doors around the world if PP was in power. I’d venture to guess that his Rolodex is no where near as business centric as Carney’s.

 

[Infanteer]

If we don't front big money up front (like a mortgage) to double down on infrastructure and development, then how do we create the prosperity for future generations to pay off the debt we already?

 

[brihard]

If we don't front big money up front (like a mortgage) to double down on infrastructure and development, then how do we create the prosperity for future generations to pay off the debt we already?

I know the question is asked sarcastically, but in the case of publicly funded major infrastructure it’s nonetheless pretty on point.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

In the very same post you insinuated my grandchildren would become destitute paying off debt incurred by Carney, you tied it to your postulated concept that Carney was doing everything on credit and implied that everyone’s paying and/or will pay the price for his ways. I brought 47 into it because very little to none of the current fiasco would have required anything close to your bombast of future generations becoming destitute because of Carney’s ways. My point was and remains, I have no faith at all in Poilievre that we would be any better off than with Carney. It’s a mug’s to try an argue than someone else would be much better, particularly if they weren’t even able to secure a normalized position to take meaningful action (vice just yapping about what would have been done).

If we don't front big money up front (like a mortgage) to double down on infrastructure and development, then how do we create the prosperity for future generations to pay off the debt we already?

I'm likely letting my disgust for liberal politicians colour my hyperbolic opinions. My fault. No insult intended.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I know the question is asked sarcastically, but in the case of publicly funded major infrastructure it’s nonetheless pretty on point.

I didn’t read it as sarcastic. It makes sense to me. Ergo, my opportunity to suspend.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I will not be holding my breath for that bridge of yours to open.

I realize that since the election you view Carney as having transmogrified into being the Liberal monster that was actually under the bed calling the shots for Trudeau the whole time… Meanwhile, in the real world, the actual policy positions he’s advancing in stuff like trade, economics, defence, diplomatic relations, natural resources, energy, etc are there to be seen and discussed in real terms based on actual observable facts. If we’re heading towards communism under his watch, it’s a form of communism Marx, Engels et al would not have recognized. You’ll excuse me not wanting to join you in the histrionics.

Carney is a Champagne Socialist Capitalist, he will smoothly transition to whatever keeps hin in power or holding the reins in the background. But I do not trust him to move away to far from the Net Zero stuff.

 

[brihard]

I didn’t read it as sarcastic. It makes sense to me. Ergo, my opportunity to suspend.

I may well have read his tone incorrectly.

Carney is a Champagne Socialist Capitalist, he will smoothly transition to whatever keeps hin in power or holding the reins in the background. But I do not trust him to move away to far from the Net Zero stuff.

Anyone claiming that the only guy to have ever led two G7 central banks (after a decade at Goldman Sachs and a board seat at Brookfield) is going to bring us to socialism or communism has truly lost the plot. Tough to get higher tier capitalist credentials than our current PM’s CV.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Anyone claiming that the only guy to have ever led two G7 central banks (after a decade at Goldman Sachs and a board seat at Brookfield) is going to bring us to socialism or communism has truly lost the plot. Tough to get higher tier capitalist credentials than our current PM’s CV.

The Chinese have fine tuned being both Capitalistic and Communist at the same time. Socialism is even more adaptable and controlling the banks means you control the society, so what better place for him to steer the "ship" in the direction that he and his friends want it to go.

 

[brihard]

The Chinese have fine tuned being both Capitalistic and Communist at the same time. Socialism is even more adaptable and controlling the banks means you control the society, so what better place for him to steer the "ship" in the direction that he and his friends want it to go.

Mid level executives and individual board members do not ‘control the banks’, or other major institutions. There’s nothing demonstrable in his history of working in finance that supports this hyperbole.

Regarding China- frankly, to call them ‘communist’ at this point is laughable, notwithstanding the party name. While there’s a lot of central state interference in the economy, private enterprise drives their economy. They just have a different rule set to play by.

 

[ArmyRick]

There would be a lot less open doors around the world if PP was in power.

How so? What is this guess based on? Yes, we know I strongly support Pierre but I am asking, what is this guess based on?

Everywhere Pierre goes in Canada and abroad, he is very friendly and comfortable talking to people. So not at all sure why you think this.

 

[brihard]

How so? What is this guess based on? Yes, we know I strongly support Pierre but I am asking, what is this guess based on?

Everywhere Pierre goes in Canada and abroad, he is very friendly and comfortable talking to people. So not at all sure why you think this.

It’s probably a matter of who would talk to him or his delegates beyond the politically obvious, how much time they would give him, and how much credibility would be lent to his policy proposals. PM Carney has been able to walk into many rooms and gatherings as a proven and trusted quantity based on a very extensive body of previous work. Poilievre would not have that because he basically lacks any real body of previous work.

 

[ArmyRick]

PM Carney has been able to walk into many rooms and gatherings

I would never have disputed this. PM MC is very well known internationally, that comes with his experience.
What says Pierre can't reach out internationally?

how much credibility would be lent to his policy proposals.

In Pierre's case, all we can do is guess. Thats it.

basically lacks any real body of previous work.

PM MC is better known internationally, but as he found out, Pierre has much experience at politics here at home. When the two go head to head in parliament, its Pierre that usually gets the better of him. Even CTV has admitted this.

Lets be honest, its all conjecture. What I suspect is people looking for yet another chance to shit on Pierre based on hypotheticals.

Try going after Pierre for LEGIT concerns. Like bridging with ALL the premiers in Canada (including Dougie, but not kissing Kory Tenyke's ass), taking the time to sell his proposals to the common Canadian better (on energy, he has similar ideas to PM MC but wants to get it done quicker by removing road bumps), doing more to connect with first nations (he has a few that are really behind him), etc.

When people start speculating about stuff that hasn't happened, it comes across as what CBC basically does, petty BS.

 

[brihard]

I would never have disputed this. PM MC is very well known internationally, that comes with his experience.
What says Pierre can't reach out internationally?

In Pierre's case, all we can do is guess. Thats it.

PM MC is better known internationally, but as he found out, Pierre has much experience at politics here at home. When the two go head to head in parliament, its Pierre that usually gets the better of him. Even CTV has admitted this.

Lets be honest, its all conjecture. What I suspect is people looking for yet another chance to shit on Pierre based on hypotheticals.

Try going after Pierre for LEGIT concerns. Like bridging with ALL the premiers in Canada (including Dougie, but not kissing Kory Tenyke's ass), taking the time to sell his proposals to the common Canadian better (on energy, he has similar ideas to PM MC but wants to get it done quicker by removing road bumps), doing more to connect with first nations (he has a few that are really behind him), etc.

When people start speculating about stuff that hasn't happened, it comes across as what CBC basically does, petty BS.

It’s almost all conjecture. The observable data point of the seat counts in Parliament doesn’t support the claim that the leader of the minority opposition ‘usually gets the better of’ the PM.

 

[ArmyRick]

It’s almost all conjecture. The observable data point of the seat counts in Parliament doesn’t support the claim that the leader of the minority opposition ‘usually gets the better of’ the PM.

More conjecture. Unless you can brain scan the floor crossers, only they know truly the REAL reason they crossed. On that note, not one of the floor crossers listed Pierre as the reason they had to leave the CPC, not one. And a few were directly asked.

 

[brihard]

More conjecture. Unless you can brain scan the floor crossers, only they know truly the REAL reason they crossed. On that note, not one of the floor crossers listed Pierre as the reason they had to leave the CPC, not one. And a few were directly asked.

That’s nice, but under his watch as leader of the official opposition, the government turned a minority into a majority. That’s a tangible. If you want to say his leadership of the opposition is not a factor, cool, have at ‘er, I’m not going to sit here and argue with you on that.

In any case, we’ve drifted pretty far off topic so I’ll leave it at that on this subject.

 

[ArmyRick]

the government turned a minority into a majority.

According to 4/5 floor crossers, Mark Carney's outstanding leadership was a big reason they crossed.

That’s a tangible

You want tangibles? I can list PM Carney's campaign promises and see how many he dropped the ball on. Sure, Liberals are great at promises and excuses.

If you want to say his leadership of the opposition is not a factor, cool, have at ‘er

87% approval at his leadership review. Maybe us card carrying conservatives are just really stupid? Or other people have motives to try and torpedo Pierre's position (ohhhh, like running or supporting someone they want?).

 

[Furniture]

What says Pierre can't reach out internationally?

It isn't about being able to ask for meetings, it's about having a network pre-built that opens more doors.

Ever CAF leader worth anything understands the power of a network, and that power is multiplied exponentially as a national leader. PMMC has a far wider and more diverse network than a younger career politician. Pretending otherwise is just being silly.