• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trudeau Popularity - or not. Nanos research

Not open for further replies.
Ok, I'm legitimately curious what you guys even mean by "survive until the next election". Like, what is it you think could happen to Canada or Canadians thanks to liberal actions in the next 1.5 years that would lead to it/them "not surviving"?

Societal collapse? Annexation by the US? Civil war?
So for myself, it isn't to be taken literally. And if we are being analytical about what I say, it probably isn't being used correctly (like my use of the word 'musing' earlier)

Yes we will survive. As individuals (hopefully you're all still here come 2025) and as a legal entity known as a country.

We will still be here as people, and Canada will still exist. It won't just be the northern US border & then sudden deep ocean...

I think what people mean when they say 'Can we survive until 2025?' refers to thoughts of "Will Canada still be the same country in 2025 as the Canada we grew up in? Will it's government policies, laws, values, quality of life, opportunities, etc be recognizable in comparison to the Canada that existed prior to this government?'

For a lot of people, that answer is 'no, not really.' And they have a right to be upset (to put it mildly) that the country they grew up in and love is being forcefully changed right before their eyes, and they have no say in the matter.

So, will we survive? Can the Canada we grew up in stay strong and resist the current trends & personalities so it is still recognizable come the next election?

Or will the Canada of 2025 be so different than the Canada of 2014 (or in the decade prior) that one could be forgiven if they mistakenly confused them as 2 different countries?

I THINK that's what is being meant by it.

Can we physically survive as a country for another 9 months? I'm going to go with a solid yes...

Can we survive as a country that can claim we value the same principals that we did a decade ago? (I think its obvious that we aren't the same Canada as we used to be...)
Healthcare well on its way already…housing degrading rapidly…but let’s spend another half trillion to pretend things are ‘fine’…
While ironically making them more 'not fine' in the process 😅

Sigh we shouldn't need to do this, but we need to have a basic IQ test be taken by prospective MP's prior to them being allowed to run in an election.

If a grape can score better on the test than the person who wants to be an MP, they aren't allowed to be an MP...
While ironically making them more 'not fine' in the process 😅

Sigh we shouldn't need to do this, but we need to have a basic IQ test be taken by prospective MP's prior to them being allowed to run in an election.

If a grape can score better on the test than the person who wants to be an MP, they aren't allowed to be an MP...

“Politics is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen”

- Winston Churchill
Well, if you are "so far down the rabbit hole", then you are probably much more informed about this than I am, so all I can really offer is my "feelings" on the matter. I'll start with globalization in general.

First we had clans, then we had cities, then we had city-states, then we had kingdoms, then we had republics. The scale of government grows and grows, but the scope of each level gets smaller and smaller. It's a very good habit to debate and challenge what level of power/responsibility each level has, but I don't think there really anyone who thinks we should get rid of national/federal level governments and go back to a bunch of independent states/provinces. So why is the idea of one higher level seen as anathema to some? I don't think a higher level of government, such as the European Union should be objected to on principle, but rather it should be objected to based on overreach. In Canada, powers have been distributed between the feds and the provinces based on what makes sense for each level; a higher level of government, say a pan-North American Union, would have only such powers that actually makes sense for such a level to have, and I have no problem with that. Call me imperialistic, but there are a lot of laws/practices that I find barbaric in the world that I would love to see outlawed by having those countries forced to adopt more modern laws by joining a more formal and higher-than-nation-level government. If one day the human race is a star-faring species, do you really think that Earth and other colonies won't have a single planet-spanning government?

Regarding the WEF specifically. It's funny how people try to layer simpler conspiracy theories over more complex conspiracy facts just because those facts are too boring and hard to understand.

There is absolutely a conspiracy of billionaires and old money influencing the worlds cabinets through international organisations and lobby groups like the WEF et al. It's just that it's not some top down movie-script-friendly scenario, but rather just a class effect of these people having similar interests, going to a few prestigeous schools together, and sharing board positions on blue chips. Even they don't think they're in some shadowy conspiracy organisation - it's just self interested rich people teaming up to sculp the world in an image that gives them an extra couple percent off their income tax.

I do not believe that Karl Schwab is some evil cat stroking blind-in-one-eye leader overlooking Kamala Harris and Chrystia Freeland. The members of WEF have a genuine and benevolent belief that the world can be better if we work together on specific goals and enact specific programs; it's not because they want to control the world.

Further, the WEF is not a top-down organization controlled by Karl Schwab (or anyone for that matter). I see no conflict of interest in having cabinet members be a part of it. They simply get together to share ideas that the mutually think are good ideas on how to make the world a better place; no one has any actual power over anyone else within WEF. If members of cabinets who are also members of WEF decide to promote ideas that they heard at WEF, that's fine, because they are simply pushing an idea that they believe in. The only difference between those ideas, and say the ideas of a non-WEF attending MP, is simply that they heard about the idea at a WEF TED Talk, not because Karl Schwab and the WEF strategic console ordered them to adopt it.
Klaus not Karl. Listen to his idiotic ideas. Like every single person on this planet, based on his life experiences, he THINKS he knows what is best for the world (good idea fairy in play) and he happens to be mega wealthy plus the added benefit of political and corporate figureheads listening to him.
@Lumber People Like Klaus Schwab and George Soros do a lot of dirty tricks to influence elected political officials. Even George Soros himself could not accept the Americans voted Trump in '16. That is what your failing to observe. Or choosing to ignore. Its the tyrannical behavior of these ridiculously wealthy individuals.
The problem with anyone who has been stricken with the good idea fairy (Trudeau included) is they need a second or third sobering voice at least to challenge their views and ideas. I highly doubt that happens with the Schwabs and Soros types of the world. I suspect they surround themselves with "yes men" and live their lives in echo chambers. Circumstances allow these individuals to gain wealth throughout their lives (In Soros case he literally turned in his fellow Jews to the Nazis and was pilfering their jewelry and possessions) and with said gaining wealth, they do gain power.
So, economic isolationism.

I’m not sure that will turn out the way you (or I) would want it to turn out.
isolationism no but hitting pause on expenditures while balancing the books most definitely. Taking on swimmers when your own ship is sinking is a really dumb idea and our ship is definitely taking on water. Just think of the high cost programmes that the libs and NDP have initiated. They may be good ideas but there is only one wallet to pay for them all and that is yours. If the GOC had initiated the construction of facilities to expedite the shipping of petrol products, made it worthwhile for off-shore interests to invest in development that had some chance of making money so there was a guarantee of increased revenues then go for it but they have done nothing to enrich the treasury. And no, the budget doesn't balance itself
So why is the idea of one higher level seen as anathema to some?
Cost. There is always overlap in what levels of government do, and there is the additional cost of another level of intergovernmental liaison even if governments were 100% efficient at dividing responsibilities so that the new level exactly took over some set of things discarded by other levels.

Loss of "laboratories of democracy". More one-size-for-all imposed solutions; less flexibility. Strangulation of spontaneous organization and order in which people with the most information (closest to the situation) decide their own priorities and work on them in the ways they deem most effective.
Artistic freedom.

He said all those things, but the context has been removed. (No, I am not a J. Trudeau fan. There is more than enough actual idiocy to actually criticize him on.)

Context is everything. And I would never accuse you as such :)

Trudeau says Russia must win this war.
Ok. When he realized what he said, what did he do?

If he corrected himself, then I give him a pass. I would also give PP, or anyone else for that matter, a pass if he did the same.

If someone doubles down or refuses to ack that they messed up on a remark (god knows I’ve done it enough) then that’s when I mock them. But in this day and age of “gotcha!” Journalism I guess it’s a minority view.
Not open for further replies.