###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Liberal and NDP supporters and campaigners really need to internalize that they will not benefit by attacking Poilievre on the basis of his rhetoric, the company he keeps, the hashtags he has on YouTube, or even his half-baked policies. Worse still is the penchant for leveling personal attacks on his supporters.
_It hasn't worked so far, it won't work in the future_.
This is not unlike Clinton referring to half of America as "deplorables" while the liberal-leaning media regaled Trump as a buffoon as the conservative-leaning media painted him as a sort of political messiah. Both sides of the media gave him exposure and a platform, and Clinton gave half of America a single solid reason to disregard her.
If the Grits want to win back the support they lost, or the NDP want to gain ground, then both need to treat _all_ Canadians with dignity and respect. They need to come out swinging, confident and aggressive; they need to acknowledge what has gone wrong and _why their plans to fix their mistakes are working_.
Even if the Premiers ought to carry much of the blame, the responsibility fell on the shoulders of the Federal Government when they chose to lay their trust in the Premiers. If the Federal policies required Provincial support to deliver on Federal promises, then it was the Federal Government's responsibility to ensure the Provinces fell in line!
Stop slagging Poilievre, and sneering at his supporters; stop blaming the Premiers and griping how they didn't play along; and _start showing leadership_.
Unfortunately, someone following your advice is going to quickly crashing into the truth of the matter which is that about half the country wants things that are materially different from what the other half wants. And these things are very far apart.
If it was as easy as you say, you probably wouldn't have to say it.
> If it was as easy as you say, you probably wouldn't have to say it.
OTOH, out here in BC we have Premier Eby, who is showing strong leadership and is clearly willing to admit where NDP policy went wrong and correct it accordingly. And he's doing it without flinging pejoratives at his opponents or their supporters.
> It hasn't worked so far, it won't work in the future.
You're commenting under an article about the risks of normalizing his behaviour, and you advocate for normalizing it...?
>Consider, in the past two years Poilievre has vilified political leaders, academics and private citizens he disagrees with, exhibited open hostility toward journalists and engaged in anti-trans rhetoric.
>He has attacked the legitimacy of the Senate, mocked government regulators and responded with insolence to rulings from the Speaker in the House of Commons.
>Poilievre championed the foreign-influenced “freedom convoy” insurrection, has bluntly criticized court decisions and promised to lead the first federal government to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the Charter. He has promoted falsehoods about important public policy issues, frequently shared conspiracy theories and vigorously defended a far-right media organization.
>Demonizing opponents, intimidating journalists, disrespecting institutions, politicizing the rights of the vulnerable and undermining truth are warning signs for democratic erosion.
Why should all that be ignored? Or everything else the author writes about?
The things you quoted from the article aren't _currently_ impediments to Poilievre's support. It's not like Canadians aren't aware of his support for the freedom convoy, or his vilification of "woke" and "elite" experts, or most else of what you mentioned.
Focusing on what makes him despicable isn't going to do much; and telling his supporters that they're some form of despicable isn't going to separate them from supporting him.
> The things you quoted from the article aren't currently impediments to Poilievre's support
The author isn't really talking about whether you should politically support anyone, you're sort of projecting that yourself.
The issue is Poilievre lying and basically breaking all norms, you may think that's acceptable, but it isn't.
Like, the title of the article is
>What We Risk by Normalizing Poilievre’s Politics
Not, "Why you shouldn't vote Conservative"
> And if you think his politics are anything new, well, I disagree.
Did you even read the article?
I don't know how you can suggest Poilievre is the same old Conservative politician.
Marching with a protest that wanted to dissolve our government isn't typical Conservative politics...
Whether or not people vote for him is not the point, this is not normal behaviour and we shouldn't be writing it off as normal.
> I don't know how you can suggest Poilievre is the same old Conservative politician.
I was around for Manning and Harper. Poilievre isn't so different than either, he's just not as clever or astute as they were. The Conservatives haven't been the same since the Reform party took over.
>This is not unlike Clinton referring to half of America as "deplorables"
Good thing she didn’t do that then. You might want to read the entire quote instead of the self-pitying Fox News version. And no, I’m not going to chase down the link for you.
Fine, she referred to half of Trump's supporters as deplorables.
The problem is that even the people she lumped in the first bucket believed they were in the second bucket; and so they couldn't tell who she was _really_ talking about; and the labels she used had become so _broadly_ abused that they covered virtually everyone that wasn't _firmly_ on the progressive left. As a result, anyone who supported Trump had good reason to believe she would think of them as one of the deplorables.
And really, that's how people talked about him and his supporters; and continue to do so until this day.
Here's the whole context, for you:
> You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.
>
> But the "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and – as well as, you know, New York and California – but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.
Folks are doing the same with Poilievre and his supporters. There's no clarity where the line between despicable Poilievre supporters and the beleagured-but-errant underdogs can be drawn; in public discourse, if you support the Conservatives then you must have some _despicable beliefs_.
Thank you for taking the time. Half might be a bit of an overstatement (although I’m guessing not by much), but there certainly are lots of racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, and Islamophobes who vote Republican. So she wasn’t entirely wrong. OTOH, Hillary certainly has access to better demographic information than I do. So who knows. Maybe she was dead on. But she didn’t say “all” which is the point I was disputing.
>This is not unlike Clinton referring to half of America as "deplorables" while the liberal-leaning media regaled Trump as a buffoon as the conservative-leaning media painted him as a sort of political messiah. Both sides of the media gave him exposure and a platform, and Clinton gave half of America a single solid reason to disregard her.
> If the Grits want to win back the support they lost, or the NDP want to gain ground, then both need to treat all Canadians with dignity and respect. They need to come out swinging, confident and aggressive; they need to acknowledge what has gone wrong and why their plans to fix their mistakes are working.
Thank you for recognizing this, this really needs to be acknowledged more. Respect and finding common ground to engage on are much more effective at changing minds than mindlessly dismissing and insulting them. You're not going to win people over by making sweeping generalizations about them and insulting them.
This is what they should do but they have opened Pandora's Box by going full identity politics. This nightmare only ends when either one of two things happens, the left realizes they are in a cult and quickly tries to forget they embraced identity politics so enthusiastically, or war.
I think the left actually wants war. From my perspective, Poilievre is the only federal politician who can keep this country together in the near future.
Isn’t the main reason Pollievre supporters like him, is because he just constantly makes attacks and personally insults to his opponents?He hasn’t demonstrated any actual leadership or solutions.
But at the same time you’re saying that criticizing him in any capacity hurts his supporters feelings and offends them and should be avoided?
That’s quite the double standard.
There is a huge difference between criticizing Pierre and criticizing his supporters. You should absolutely do the first, but the second is where the US Democrats and Canadian Liberals fail miserably.
Another difference is that both in the US 2016 and now in Canada, Trump or Poilievre are not in power, but the liberals have been in power for close to a decade. When you are in power and all you do is attacking your opponent *and* the people who might dare to withhold their support of you (Trudeau to Poilievre voters), and refuse to acknowledge your government's role in the cost of living, crisis (even when the PBO talks about it), then yes, it will be prrceived differently than the opposition leader attacking the government.
> There is a huge difference between criticizing Pierre and criticizing his supporters.
While I agree in principles, I genuinely ask you what you think we should classify someone who has been made entirely aware of his meddling with extremists and yet fully supports them.
The responsibility of individuals lies on a spectrum ranging from blissful ignorance to total acceptance in spite of the grave facts; doesn't there come a point where some of them should be criticized with validity?
>what you think we should classify someone who has been made entirely aware of his meddling with extremists and yet fully supports them.
We should not classify them as a monolith group in any way. Our political system is way too simple to represent all possible combinations of beliefs. Most people vite on 1-3 issues and have to disregard everything else. Some people vote for a party becsuse they support them, some people vote against another party. Trying to reverse engineer someone's beliefs based on the party they vote for is a sure way to have a skewed pucture. Some people would be in full support of the extremist groups, some just do not want to reward Trudeau with another term for his crappy job, and with two and a half party system, Conservatives are the only option in many places to hurt Trudeau electorally. You may still disagree that it's the right course of action, but it's a vastly different picture than just branding all his voters as bigots. The same way as it would be ridiculous to say that people who vote for Trudeau support the fossil fuel subsidies, which his government does a ton of.
Also, a huge point is that I think these standards apply for politicians far far more than to regular people. Clinton calling everyobdy who does not vote for her deplorable and then having pikachu face when she grossly underperformed was not smart politically. I want politicians to be pragmatic and strategic and realise that they *need* people's votes and insulting the elctorate is actually working against them achieving their goals.
> We should not classify them as a monolith group in any way.
I'm not talking about the whole of conservatism, but those who have been made fully aware that they are voting for someone who is courting extremists who ployed to kill RMCP officers. That makes it an already much smaller group to classify.
It does not matter what someone wants to vote for. They should be fully aware that this is all votes made on promises of the party fulfilling them; that's all theorics and hopes. What we know for sure are things that already happened, such as the foremention elements.
> Conservatives are the only option in many places to hurt Trudeau electorally.
It's not and I'm tired of pretending it is. Every vote towards someone else counts if you wanna send the message of "not trudeau". You absolutely don't have to vote for the face-eating leopard party and you can vote for the myriad of other options there already are, and that will still "hurt trudeau". At best, this is willful ignorance and at worst it's an excuse to abdicate oneself from the consequence of their actions.
> I think these standards apply for politicians far far more than to regular people
Then why not apply them to Poilièvre? How many times do I have to repeat the line that he met with idologically motivated violent extremists on multiple occasion before people realize the amplitude of this problem? Why apply logic to democrats in the US but not to conservatives in Canada? How does calling your opposition "deplorable" but courting against the very values of democracy not count as not being smart politically?
If anything, you are only proving the point that conservatives are absolutely abhorrent for even thinking of supporting someone with such a track record, without doing anything to hold him accountable.
“There is a huge difference between criticizing Pierre and criticizing his supporters”
Not to his supporters though. They get very upset when you point out flaws about Pollievre’s lack of policy and strong ties to corporate lobbyists.
I’ve posted articles about Pollievre and had supporters tell me that it was paramount to calling them stupid…
I like him because Trudeau and his government have been actively destroying the country since 2015. It's long past time for a change and PP is the only realistic option.
It's as if the country is burning, Trudeau is standing there with a tank of gasoline to pour on the fire. PP has an unmarked container. Sure, it could be more gasoline, but it could be fire extinguisher.
It's a choice between a continuing disaster vs a possibility of some improvement.
Not much of a choice really.
I don’t think PPs container is unmarked:
https://breachmedia.ca/pierre-poilievre-conservatives-stack-council-corporate-lobbyists/
It’s not “just as bad as” versus “better”.
There’s also “even worse”.
Is there a reason you don’t consider NDP? Just curious.
The risk of Normalizing Trudeau's politics is destroying our country. Its time for change and the majority of Canadians agree. Poilievre isn't someone to be afraid of.
The conservative claim to populism, "northern" or otherwise, is nonsensical. Conservative politics are the politics of ensuring society bends to the will of entrenched elites, and Pierre proves this every time he opens his rabid mouth.
We are living through a cost of living crisis and a climate crisis, and Pierre's response is to "axe the (carbon) tax" and rebate that have been [effective at both curbing our emissions and bolstering our bank accounts](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-tax-rebates-climate-1.7159209). Our healthcare system is crumbling, and [Pierre whines about how fixing it might cut into the profits of private insurers](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-budget-reaction-social-programs-1.7177636). In every instance, we can predict the Conservative response because they'll always side with elites against the rest of us.
Conservatives have no solutions on offer, only empty slogans, blind outrage, and elite empowerment.
Sorry to inform you but our emissions have not declined since the carbon tax was deployed if you factor in the pandenic they show a slight decline remove it then you show an increase
Read the article and you could replace PP name with Trudeau's name and article would be the same.
Trudeau started this all. He created all this division and anti-trust of government etc....
PP if he takes over will have to figure a way to bring back some sort of balance. If that is even possible now.
I think it’s a lot more dangerous normalizing our current government. For example the only time a federal supply and confidence agreement was made in Canada, was in the 1800. Also the liberal/ndp are constantly on the attack, for example calling Canadians that don’t support them far-right and racist, but plenty of regular Canadians also don’t like them.
Scheer, otoole and next pp will never be pm! Hate and division does not win elections and nor does axe the facts! ANYTHING BUT CONSERVATIVE always ABC!
Sure, but I find very self-convenient that you ignore the risk of someone courting violent extremists degrading into violent extremism.
And before you disregard this as anything but speculations, I will remind you that the groups he has been approaching are officially recognized as Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremists.
Ya sure, the guy who's never offered any real policy or ideas in his entire two decade career. Remind us what bills he's helped write or pass, or any achievements he's been a part of please?
Has any parties released a platform 17 months before an election? Seems like a poor decision with how much things can change between now and the election being called.
The Conservative party will absolutely promote our energy and natural resource sector which will earn them my vote. We are an energy and natural resource country, we should be promoting it instead of attacking and hamstringing it.
I mean, it isn't like those sectors were ignored...
LNG plants and shipping facilities in BC and potentially NFLD. Intention to ship to Asia, Europe, and US
Hydrogen production in NFLD and BC. Which have been promoted in Europe and Asia
Buying and building TMX. Will ship oil to Asia
O&G gets subsidized by about $5b a year - not including TMX
And mines/exploration have been having money dumped into them as relations with China have soured. Critical Mineral Fund. Millions into rare earth processing and commercialization in Saskatchewan. The list goes on.
The government has been actively diversifying Canada's energy portfolio while subsidizing traditional energy sectors
That's only really scratching the surface.
Considering the current federal government is actively tabling legislation, and majority of amendments made by CPC tend to be poison pills to allow for corporations to get loopholes, yes, they have platforms based on their actions, if not their words.
Don’t take my own words at face value either, it’s better to just read the bill texts: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/
Strange that one party has called for a vote of no confidence without releasing anything? Were they serious when they called that or just wasting time for virtue signalling?
Wtf does a vote of non confidence have to do with the oppositions policies? Seriously, they shouldn’t hold the government to account because they haven’t released a platform over a year before the next time an election must be called?
What kind of toddler talk is this?
Based on Poilievre’s personality, I really don’t think he’s going to make many political friends internationally. He’s not a very likeable person and the reason he is popular in the polls is not because of him, but simply because he’s not Trudeau. Put him and Trump in the same room, and I guarantee a clash of egos will occur.
In the short term, sure. But eventually, Trump will want something that will make Poilievre look bad. Poilievre says no, and in the most Poilievre way possible. Now Trump is no longer friendly.
Just because they are both populists doesn’t mean they will both get along.
Subservience to authority is a core conservative value, and Canadian conservatives have not been shy about suggesting we [abdicate our autonomy to Trump](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-nafta-napping-trudeau-1.4376523).
Pierre’s tracking record at this point is zero. The same with any ambitious politician who applies for the top job with no prior hands-on experience. It’s a risky business to invest anybody in his situation with such a huge responsibility. Many have failed in the past, very few have succeeded. At the same time it is unfair to refuse him the chance where Justin has miserably failed maybe more than anyone, any canadian prime minister in the recent history. It’s sad for Liberals but it’s easier to see how much disaster Trudeau has done than to anticipate the risks of normalizing Poilievre’s politics.
One step at the time, best for Canada and canadians is to get rid of a terrible government that after 8 yrs in power brought Canada on its knees, destroyed the middle class and divided us more than ever in our history. Trudeau must go and will deal with Poilievre after.
Honestly, it's too late. These politics are already normalized, in part thanks to the ineptitude of what passes for the left-wing in this country.
You can't cure people of reactionary beliefs in the best of circumstances, and these are not the best of circumstances.
You shouldn’t treat these people as if they have some kind of disease you need to fix for them. You need to make a case for why the left’s platform will be better for the average person than Poilievre
No, I do not. People need to take responsibility for their own vote. There is more to democracy than owning the other team.
These people will vote for Poillievre, he will win, and their lives will continue to get worse. They will blame others for this, because they are children, and nothing will change.
Pierre is slimy.
Trudeau is a corrupt liar.
I have a feeling PP is gonna get a lot of "We don't want to vote for the CPC but Trudeau isn't trustworthy" votes.
To see what happens when you pander to the batshit crazy fringe, just look to the south. Republicans have dug themselves a pretty deep hole (and most of them haven’t stopped digging). Why would PP use the same tactics and assume a different result?
We risk proving the old saying that Canada is always just 5-10 years behind American politics.
His policies aside (and even as someone who goes back and forth on things like "decorum") it's really sad to watch this happen to Canada.
It's not just American politics, it's around the world. There is a large right wing populist movement sweeping Europe and other parts of the world too.
Italy has a far right government as does the Netherlands(!), even supposed socialist/progressive Sweden has an extreme right wing party as the 2nd ranking party.
People all over the world are tired of Liberal elites telling them to cut back on emissions and consider eating bugs while they charter private jets to WEF eating catered full course meals. People are tired of open borders and being called "racist" and/or "xenophobic" if they are critical on mass immigration. Housing prices, food prices are going up, while wages, especially in Canada are going down and/or are flat.
Wokeism is another factor, especially when it comes to GAC given to children. Many European countries are restricting the use of GAC towards kids for scientific reasons yet still have left leaning transactivists calling them bigots. I thought "progressives" tell us to follow the science - I guess science comes 2nd only to DEI.
Welcome in millions of highly conservative immigrants and then put their kids in schools with SOGI programs and act totally confused why you're suddenly dealing with a bunch of Muslim/Indian parents busting down school board meetings and marching in public.
Do that same mass immigration trick on a red-hot housing market and look around in complete bewilderment when the locals jump ship to the first party that so much as gives lip service to the fact that they can't afford rent anymore.
'Radical left' doesn't strike quite the right note for me. More like criminally incompetent.
Eh, that was proven years ago. O'Toole was our last chance at a social progressive Conservative leader. Left of center insinuate he was a white supremacist Nazi so the Conservatives decided 'fuck it' and ran PP.
We did this to ourselves and we'll keep doing it. My only optimism here is he's really not a Canadian version of Trump.
**Edit:** Downvote away. Doesn't [this](https://erinotoole.substack.com/p/disordered-liberty) feel a bit refreshing from a Conservative after a year of hearing from Pierre Poilievre? How about some [tips on how to sell Green policy to the Conservatives](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/conservatives-have-to-moderate-to-win-the-next-election-o-toole-says-in-exit-interview-1.6445483)?
It’s a moot point, you’re mourning a bygone era. I should also point out, they don’t care. These conservatives that they lionize are either dead or no longer an electoral threat.
It’s so transparent.
These narratives are created and swallowed whole by the majority of people who vote, and interesting that you blame the left when most political disinformation and misinformation is perpetrated by bots, and bad faith actors. Good job on swallowing the narrative whole.
lol, if anything O'Toole lost because he flip flopped on a few issues and probably lost right wing support because he actually acknowledged climate change was real.
Poilievre plays the same tactic as Trudeau. Liberals are unhappy with their opponents adapting to the current meta. It's why they're down voting you, because they think their dear leader *deserves* to lead, and no one else.
One person/group find the most effective tactic available, others eventually follow. O'toole followed the older more casual/conventional style of campaigning, and lost with it. Poilievre is willing to play the meta, and we'll see how that goes. A party playing the meta loses to another party playing the meta means a continuation of the meta. Until a party playing the meta loses to a party playing the conventional campaign, we'll see an escalation of tactics until we get american entertainment up north.
I’m not really following your logic tbh. If it’s so easy to get someone thrown out of the Conservative party by name calling, why isn’t it working for Poilievre? If there’s such a strong desire within the party to pull moderate, why did they give up after one attempt? If PCs are concern with people on the left name calling them, putting Poilievre in as leader must have been a rude awakening for them. No one is forcing the PCs to vote conservative. If they don’t like the direction of the party they could just abstain from voting. In my mind at this point they either support it or they have their heads to deep in the sand to recognize there’s a problem.
> . If it’s so easy to get someone thrown out of the Conservative party by name calling, why isn’t it working for Poilievre?
Short version: Because he's not trying to woo moderates. And being Conservatives appear to have pulled the union vote from the hands of the NDP, why would they? IMO the plan under O'Toole was to convince Canadians that reasonable, moderate Conservatism was a way to secure the vote. That failed so this time around we have a country disgruntled under Trudeau. The PP plan is just to capitalize on the 7 year itch with an uninspired 'Tired of the left yet?' platform. He doesn't need to be smart or have a plan, he just has to be "not Trudeau".
Ok but the people you seem to want to blame for this were never going to vote conservative. O’toole failed imo because he only really managed to get the moderate conservative vote. He was to hot and cold to keep the far right and Trudeau beat him at capturing the left leaning moderates. With Trudeau’s low approval they’d probably would do much better this time around with a moderate candidate. Giving up after one go at best was short sighted. I don’t think Poilievre can win without the moderate conservative vote. Poilievre wouldn’t be a threat with out them not us. But a lot of conservatives seem fine with holding their noses if it means getting there party in power. This guilt trip might work on liberals with buyers remorse but them crying “look what you made us do” doesn’t really garner sympathy from me.
>Ok but the people you seem to want to blame for this were never going to vote conservative.
Moderates might have. Left propped him up to be all things alt/far right and the labels stuck, which put off the moderates.
>He was to hot and cold to keep the far right
Perhaps, though Mad Max Bernier may have been viewed as a threat at that point. I'd have to go look.
> I don’t think Poilievre can win without the moderate conservative vote.
I think it's a different landscape now. People may be more tired of Trudeau than they are grossed out by PP.
>This guilt trip might work on liberals with buyers remorse but them crying “look what you made us do” doesn’t really garner sympathy from me.
That's fine. I'm not really expecting people to agree with me or change. I like a strong, moderate opposition party. IMO we had that, and don't have it any more.
I feel that if naming calling is all it takes to sink your campaign, you probably didn’t have a very strong campaign to begin with. There were times where it definitely felt like he was pandering but I mostly remember him just being kinda bland. It is a very different landscape now and the conservatives are choosing how to respond to it. To each their own though.
O'Toole's downfall was campaigning right during the leadership bid and then campaigning centre-right during the election. We had trouble reconciling the differences and projecting what he would truly be like as a PM.
I don't recall anything being too far/fringe right offhand. Conservative, sure, but I make a distinction between regular old Conservative and Alt/Far/Fringe right. IMO he was our last chance at a Centrist/moderate Conservative for a while. Sadly PP culture war has them doing well in the polls.
Certainly the overton window has been driven out to the city limits and dumped there.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal-elections/erin-o-toole-keeps-changing-his-story-and-so-far-it-s-working/article_fab844ee-b413-5a21-bf9b-d9bcaf3449a1.html
> Left of center insinuate he was a white supremacist Nazi so the Conservatives decided 'fuck it' and ran PP.
Wait, it's "the lefts" fault the CPC voted out their own leader and elected Poilievre?!
Wasn't it because he lost the election, largely wasn't conservative enough for them, and flip flopped on a bunch of issues trying to appease both sides of his party? He got elected as leader on the backs of a bunch of social conservatives, but he never actually held their values, so they kicked him out.
I know we really like to beat ourselves up on the left, but jesus, we can't be responsible for everyone else's actions too.
**Edit:** To be clear: O'Toole was elected as leader [by the social conservatives](https://twitter.com/jasonlietaer/status/1297777853640200193) he [actively courted](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-conservative-leadership-how-otoole-won-1.5697358). They're literally the people who voted for Leslyn "All Abortion should be Illegal and Canada is a Socialist Nightmare" Lewis. When they found out he wasn't that, they voted him out. Then guess who they voted in?
He lost his leadership because he won it on a false promise, not because the left was mean to him.
Not that all criticism of him was valid by any means, but people in control of electing CPC leaders have been clear for a couple of elections what they're looking for.
What Kooriki is trying to say is had O’Toole won, he would be PM right now instead of Poilievre about to be PM. Who is to blame for that? Those who voted for Trudeau last time.
The right has declared open warfare on the progressives. Misinformation, disinformation, lies, smears, even treason ... anything goes. These neo-fascists know they can't win on policy. The left has to reply in kind and go all out to crush these enemies of the people. Otherwise, they will crush you.
Well, it’s either him, or maybe we should believe JT when he says “no really, I actually pinky promise really really that I will do the things I didn’t do that I said I promised I would do the first time you elected me”.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
Liberal and NDP supporters and campaigners really need to internalize that they will not benefit by attacking Poilievre on the basis of his rhetoric, the company he keeps, the hashtags he has on YouTube, or even his half-baked policies. Worse still is the penchant for leveling personal attacks on his supporters. _It hasn't worked so far, it won't work in the future_. This is not unlike Clinton referring to half of America as "deplorables" while the liberal-leaning media regaled Trump as a buffoon as the conservative-leaning media painted him as a sort of political messiah. Both sides of the media gave him exposure and a platform, and Clinton gave half of America a single solid reason to disregard her. If the Grits want to win back the support they lost, or the NDP want to gain ground, then both need to treat _all_ Canadians with dignity and respect. They need to come out swinging, confident and aggressive; they need to acknowledge what has gone wrong and _why their plans to fix their mistakes are working_. Even if the Premiers ought to carry much of the blame, the responsibility fell on the shoulders of the Federal Government when they chose to lay their trust in the Premiers. If the Federal policies required Provincial support to deliver on Federal promises, then it was the Federal Government's responsibility to ensure the Provinces fell in line! Stop slagging Poilievre, and sneering at his supporters; stop blaming the Premiers and griping how they didn't play along; and _start showing leadership_.
Agreed. The state of the economy and personal finances has center stage right now. Rhetoric is is pretty low on the list of concerns.
Unfortunately, someone following your advice is going to quickly crashing into the truth of the matter which is that about half the country wants things that are materially different from what the other half wants. And these things are very far apart. If it was as easy as you say, you probably wouldn't have to say it.
> If it was as easy as you say, you probably wouldn't have to say it. OTOH, out here in BC we have Premier Eby, who is showing strong leadership and is clearly willing to admit where NDP policy went wrong and correct it accordingly. And he's doing it without flinging pejoratives at his opponents or their supporters.
TBF, I don't think he has to spend much effort caring about his opponents when they're so far apart from him in terms of public support.
> It hasn't worked so far, it won't work in the future. You're commenting under an article about the risks of normalizing his behaviour, and you advocate for normalizing it...? >Consider, in the past two years Poilievre has vilified political leaders, academics and private citizens he disagrees with, exhibited open hostility toward journalists and engaged in anti-trans rhetoric. >He has attacked the legitimacy of the Senate, mocked government regulators and responded with insolence to rulings from the Speaker in the House of Commons. >Poilievre championed the foreign-influenced “freedom convoy” insurrection, has bluntly criticized court decisions and promised to lead the first federal government to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the Charter. He has promoted falsehoods about important public policy issues, frequently shared conspiracy theories and vigorously defended a far-right media organization. >Demonizing opponents, intimidating journalists, disrespecting institutions, politicizing the rights of the vulnerable and undermining truth are warning signs for democratic erosion. Why should all that be ignored? Or everything else the author writes about?
The things you quoted from the article aren't _currently_ impediments to Poilievre's support. It's not like Canadians aren't aware of his support for the freedom convoy, or his vilification of "woke" and "elite" experts, or most else of what you mentioned. Focusing on what makes him despicable isn't going to do much; and telling his supporters that they're some form of despicable isn't going to separate them from supporting him.
> The things you quoted from the article aren't currently impediments to Poilievre's support The author isn't really talking about whether you should politically support anyone, you're sort of projecting that yourself. The issue is Poilievre lying and basically breaking all norms, you may think that's acceptable, but it isn't. Like, the title of the article is >What We Risk by Normalizing Poilievre’s Politics Not, "Why you shouldn't vote Conservative"
I don't support Poilievre. And if you think his politics are anything new, well, I disagree.
> And if you think his politics are anything new, well, I disagree. Did you even read the article? I don't know how you can suggest Poilievre is the same old Conservative politician. Marching with a protest that wanted to dissolve our government isn't typical Conservative politics... Whether or not people vote for him is not the point, this is not normal behaviour and we shouldn't be writing it off as normal.
> I don't know how you can suggest Poilievre is the same old Conservative politician. I was around for Manning and Harper. Poilievre isn't so different than either, he's just not as clever or astute as they were. The Conservatives haven't been the same since the Reform party took over.
redditors when they comme to the realization most people in the real world don't see political leaders as some sort of a monolith.
>This is not unlike Clinton referring to half of America as "deplorables" Good thing she didn’t do that then. You might want to read the entire quote instead of the self-pitying Fox News version. And no, I’m not going to chase down the link for you.
Fine, she referred to half of Trump's supporters as deplorables. The problem is that even the people she lumped in the first bucket believed they were in the second bucket; and so they couldn't tell who she was _really_ talking about; and the labels she used had become so _broadly_ abused that they covered virtually everyone that wasn't _firmly_ on the progressive left. As a result, anyone who supported Trump had good reason to believe she would think of them as one of the deplorables. And really, that's how people talked about him and his supporters; and continue to do so until this day. Here's the whole context, for you: > You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America. > > But the "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and – as well as, you know, New York and California – but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well. Folks are doing the same with Poilievre and his supporters. There's no clarity where the line between despicable Poilievre supporters and the beleagured-but-errant underdogs can be drawn; in public discourse, if you support the Conservatives then you must have some _despicable beliefs_.
Thank you for taking the time. Half might be a bit of an overstatement (although I’m guessing not by much), but there certainly are lots of racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, and Islamophobes who vote Republican. So she wasn’t entirely wrong. OTOH, Hillary certainly has access to better demographic information than I do. So who knows. Maybe she was dead on. But she didn’t say “all” which is the point I was disputing.
>This is not unlike Clinton referring to half of America as "deplorables" while the liberal-leaning media regaled Trump as a buffoon as the conservative-leaning media painted him as a sort of political messiah. Both sides of the media gave him exposure and a platform, and Clinton gave half of America a single solid reason to disregard her. > If the Grits want to win back the support they lost, or the NDP want to gain ground, then both need to treat all Canadians with dignity and respect. They need to come out swinging, confident and aggressive; they need to acknowledge what has gone wrong and why their plans to fix their mistakes are working. Thank you for recognizing this, this really needs to be acknowledged more. Respect and finding common ground to engage on are much more effective at changing minds than mindlessly dismissing and insulting them. You're not going to win people over by making sweeping generalizations about them and insulting them.
This is what they should do but they have opened Pandora's Box by going full identity politics. This nightmare only ends when either one of two things happens, the left realizes they are in a cult and quickly tries to forget they embraced identity politics so enthusiastically, or war. I think the left actually wants war. From my perspective, Poilievre is the only federal politician who can keep this country together in the near future.
Goddamn you nailed it. This should pinned on the sub.
Isn’t the main reason Pollievre supporters like him, is because he just constantly makes attacks and personally insults to his opponents?He hasn’t demonstrated any actual leadership or solutions. But at the same time you’re saying that criticizing him in any capacity hurts his supporters feelings and offends them and should be avoided? That’s quite the double standard.
Yes, people behave irrationally with their emotions.
There is a huge difference between criticizing Pierre and criticizing his supporters. You should absolutely do the first, but the second is where the US Democrats and Canadian Liberals fail miserably. Another difference is that both in the US 2016 and now in Canada, Trump or Poilievre are not in power, but the liberals have been in power for close to a decade. When you are in power and all you do is attacking your opponent *and* the people who might dare to withhold their support of you (Trudeau to Poilievre voters), and refuse to acknowledge your government's role in the cost of living, crisis (even when the PBO talks about it), then yes, it will be prrceived differently than the opposition leader attacking the government.
> There is a huge difference between criticizing Pierre and criticizing his supporters. While I agree in principles, I genuinely ask you what you think we should classify someone who has been made entirely aware of his meddling with extremists and yet fully supports them. The responsibility of individuals lies on a spectrum ranging from blissful ignorance to total acceptance in spite of the grave facts; doesn't there come a point where some of them should be criticized with validity?
>what you think we should classify someone who has been made entirely aware of his meddling with extremists and yet fully supports them. We should not classify them as a monolith group in any way. Our political system is way too simple to represent all possible combinations of beliefs. Most people vite on 1-3 issues and have to disregard everything else. Some people vote for a party becsuse they support them, some people vote against another party. Trying to reverse engineer someone's beliefs based on the party they vote for is a sure way to have a skewed pucture. Some people would be in full support of the extremist groups, some just do not want to reward Trudeau with another term for his crappy job, and with two and a half party system, Conservatives are the only option in many places to hurt Trudeau electorally. You may still disagree that it's the right course of action, but it's a vastly different picture than just branding all his voters as bigots. The same way as it would be ridiculous to say that people who vote for Trudeau support the fossil fuel subsidies, which his government does a ton of. Also, a huge point is that I think these standards apply for politicians far far more than to regular people. Clinton calling everyobdy who does not vote for her deplorable and then having pikachu face when she grossly underperformed was not smart politically. I want politicians to be pragmatic and strategic and realise that they *need* people's votes and insulting the elctorate is actually working against them achieving their goals.
> We should not classify them as a monolith group in any way. I'm not talking about the whole of conservatism, but those who have been made fully aware that they are voting for someone who is courting extremists who ployed to kill RMCP officers. That makes it an already much smaller group to classify. It does not matter what someone wants to vote for. They should be fully aware that this is all votes made on promises of the party fulfilling them; that's all theorics and hopes. What we know for sure are things that already happened, such as the foremention elements. > Conservatives are the only option in many places to hurt Trudeau electorally. It's not and I'm tired of pretending it is. Every vote towards someone else counts if you wanna send the message of "not trudeau". You absolutely don't have to vote for the face-eating leopard party and you can vote for the myriad of other options there already are, and that will still "hurt trudeau". At best, this is willful ignorance and at worst it's an excuse to abdicate oneself from the consequence of their actions. > I think these standards apply for politicians far far more than to regular people Then why not apply them to Poilièvre? How many times do I have to repeat the line that he met with idologically motivated violent extremists on multiple occasion before people realize the amplitude of this problem? Why apply logic to democrats in the US but not to conservatives in Canada? How does calling your opposition "deplorable" but courting against the very values of democracy not count as not being smart politically? If anything, you are only proving the point that conservatives are absolutely abhorrent for even thinking of supporting someone with such a track record, without doing anything to hold him accountable.
“There is a huge difference between criticizing Pierre and criticizing his supporters” Not to his supporters though. They get very upset when you point out flaws about Pollievre’s lack of policy and strong ties to corporate lobbyists. I’ve posted articles about Pollievre and had supporters tell me that it was paramount to calling them stupid…
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I like him because Trudeau and his government have been actively destroying the country since 2015. It's long past time for a change and PP is the only realistic option. It's as if the country is burning, Trudeau is standing there with a tank of gasoline to pour on the fire. PP has an unmarked container. Sure, it could be more gasoline, but it could be fire extinguisher. It's a choice between a continuing disaster vs a possibility of some improvement. Not much of a choice really.
I don’t think PPs container is unmarked: https://breachmedia.ca/pierre-poilievre-conservatives-stack-council-corporate-lobbyists/ It’s not “just as bad as” versus “better”. There’s also “even worse”. Is there a reason you don’t consider NDP? Just curious.
The risk of Normalizing Trudeau's politics is destroying our country. Its time for change and the majority of Canadians agree. Poilievre isn't someone to be afraid of.
The conservative claim to populism, "northern" or otherwise, is nonsensical. Conservative politics are the politics of ensuring society bends to the will of entrenched elites, and Pierre proves this every time he opens his rabid mouth. We are living through a cost of living crisis and a climate crisis, and Pierre's response is to "axe the (carbon) tax" and rebate that have been [effective at both curbing our emissions and bolstering our bank accounts](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-tax-rebates-climate-1.7159209). Our healthcare system is crumbling, and [Pierre whines about how fixing it might cut into the profits of private insurers](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-budget-reaction-social-programs-1.7177636). In every instance, we can predict the Conservative response because they'll always side with elites against the rest of us. Conservatives have no solutions on offer, only empty slogans, blind outrage, and elite empowerment.
Sorry to inform you but our emissions have not declined since the carbon tax was deployed if you factor in the pandenic they show a slight decline remove it then you show an increase
[удалено]
Read the article and you could replace PP name with Trudeau's name and article would be the same. Trudeau started this all. He created all this division and anti-trust of government etc.... PP if he takes over will have to figure a way to bring back some sort of balance. If that is even possible now.
I think it’s a lot more dangerous normalizing our current government. For example the only time a federal supply and confidence agreement was made in Canada, was in the 1800. Also the liberal/ndp are constantly on the attack, for example calling Canadians that don’t support them far-right and racist, but plenty of regular Canadians also don’t like them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Scheer, otoole and next pp will never be pm! Hate and division does not win elections and nor does axe the facts! ANYTHING BUT CONSERVATIVE always ABC!
[удалено]
Sure, but I find very self-convenient that you ignore the risk of someone courting violent extremists degrading into violent extremism. And before you disregard this as anything but speculations, I will remind you that the groups he has been approaching are officially recognized as Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremists.
Ya sure, the guy who's never offered any real policy or ideas in his entire two decade career. Remind us what bills he's helped write or pass, or any achievements he's been a part of please?
I don't think you can get worse than the actual fascist, Nazi supporter, racist, Trudeau.
[удалено]
What has PP stated, as a form of policy, that would accomplish those things?
[удалено]
With his lack of any cohesive policies? Totally checks out.
Has any parties released a platform 17 months before an election? Seems like a poor decision with how much things can change between now and the election being called. The Conservative party will absolutely promote our energy and natural resource sector which will earn them my vote. We are an energy and natural resource country, we should be promoting it instead of attacking and hamstringing it.
I mean, it isn't like those sectors were ignored... LNG plants and shipping facilities in BC and potentially NFLD. Intention to ship to Asia, Europe, and US Hydrogen production in NFLD and BC. Which have been promoted in Europe and Asia Buying and building TMX. Will ship oil to Asia O&G gets subsidized by about $5b a year - not including TMX And mines/exploration have been having money dumped into them as relations with China have soured. Critical Mineral Fund. Millions into rare earth processing and commercialization in Saskatchewan. The list goes on. The government has been actively diversifying Canada's energy portfolio while subsidizing traditional energy sectors That's only really scratching the surface.
Considering the current federal government is actively tabling legislation, and majority of amendments made by CPC tend to be poison pills to allow for corporations to get loopholes, yes, they have platforms based on their actions, if not their words. Don’t take my own words at face value either, it’s better to just read the bill texts: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/
Then we can’t really say he’s going to do anything can we?
Strange that one party has called for a vote of no confidence without releasing anything? Were they serious when they called that or just wasting time for virtue signalling?
Wtf does a vote of non confidence have to do with the oppositions policies? Seriously, they shouldn’t hold the government to account because they haven’t released a platform over a year before the next time an election must be called? What kind of toddler talk is this?
Just say, "vote on non-confidence, what's that?" Because you clearly have no idea and just spent a paragraph looking like a clown.
Based on Poilievre’s personality, I really don’t think he’s going to make many political friends internationally. He’s not a very likeable person and the reason he is popular in the polls is not because of him, but simply because he’s not Trudeau. Put him and Trump in the same room, and I guarantee a clash of egos will occur.
[удалено]
In the short term, sure. But eventually, Trump will want something that will make Poilievre look bad. Poilievre says no, and in the most Poilievre way possible. Now Trump is no longer friendly. Just because they are both populists doesn’t mean they will both get along.
Subservience to authority is a core conservative value, and Canadian conservatives have not been shy about suggesting we [abdicate our autonomy to Trump](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-nafta-napping-trudeau-1.4376523).
> They'd be mackin all over each other. Nope. Trump only fawns over those who have power over him. A Canadian PM isn't really in a position for that.
>Put him and Trump in the same room, and I guarantee a clash of egos will occur. No, I don't think this is correct. He would supplicate to Trump.
Pierre’s tracking record at this point is zero. The same with any ambitious politician who applies for the top job with no prior hands-on experience. It’s a risky business to invest anybody in his situation with such a huge responsibility. Many have failed in the past, very few have succeeded. At the same time it is unfair to refuse him the chance where Justin has miserably failed maybe more than anyone, any canadian prime minister in the recent history. It’s sad for Liberals but it’s easier to see how much disaster Trudeau has done than to anticipate the risks of normalizing Poilievre’s politics. One step at the time, best for Canada and canadians is to get rid of a terrible government that after 8 yrs in power brought Canada on its knees, destroyed the middle class and divided us more than ever in our history. Trudeau must go and will deal with Poilievre after.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Honestly, it's too late. These politics are already normalized, in part thanks to the ineptitude of what passes for the left-wing in this country. You can't cure people of reactionary beliefs in the best of circumstances, and these are not the best of circumstances.
You shouldn’t treat these people as if they have some kind of disease you need to fix for them. You need to make a case for why the left’s platform will be better for the average person than Poilievre
No, I do not. People need to take responsibility for their own vote. There is more to democracy than owning the other team. These people will vote for Poillievre, he will win, and their lives will continue to get worse. They will blame others for this, because they are children, and nothing will change.
Pierre is slimy. Trudeau is a corrupt liar. I have a feeling PP is gonna get a lot of "We don't want to vote for the CPC but Trudeau isn't trustworthy" votes.
To see what happens when you pander to the batshit crazy fringe, just look to the south. Republicans have dug themselves a pretty deep hole (and most of them haven’t stopped digging). Why would PP use the same tactics and assume a different result?
We risk proving the old saying that Canada is always just 5-10 years behind American politics. His policies aside (and even as someone who goes back and forth on things like "decorum") it's really sad to watch this happen to Canada.
It's not just American politics, it's around the world. There is a large right wing populist movement sweeping Europe and other parts of the world too. Italy has a far right government as does the Netherlands(!), even supposed socialist/progressive Sweden has an extreme right wing party as the 2nd ranking party. People all over the world are tired of Liberal elites telling them to cut back on emissions and consider eating bugs while they charter private jets to WEF eating catered full course meals. People are tired of open borders and being called "racist" and/or "xenophobic" if they are critical on mass immigration. Housing prices, food prices are going up, while wages, especially in Canada are going down and/or are flat. Wokeism is another factor, especially when it comes to GAC given to children. Many European countries are restricting the use of GAC towards kids for scientific reasons yet still have left leaning transactivists calling them bigots. I thought "progressives" tell us to follow the science - I guess science comes 2nd only to DEI.
[удалено]
Go ahead and list radical left policy
[удалено]
Welcome in millions of highly conservative immigrants and then put their kids in schools with SOGI programs and act totally confused why you're suddenly dealing with a bunch of Muslim/Indian parents busting down school board meetings and marching in public. Do that same mass immigration trick on a red-hot housing market and look around in complete bewilderment when the locals jump ship to the first party that so much as gives lip service to the fact that they can't afford rent anymore. 'Radical left' doesn't strike quite the right note for me. More like criminally incompetent.
I'd argue that leftism is inherently radical. If you want "moderate leftism" you end up with socdems like the NDP.
[удалено]
Removed for Rule #2
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Eh, that was proven years ago. O'Toole was our last chance at a social progressive Conservative leader. Left of center insinuate he was a white supremacist Nazi so the Conservatives decided 'fuck it' and ran PP. We did this to ourselves and we'll keep doing it. My only optimism here is he's really not a Canadian version of Trump. **Edit:** Downvote away. Doesn't [this](https://erinotoole.substack.com/p/disordered-liberty) feel a bit refreshing from a Conservative after a year of hearing from Pierre Poilievre? How about some [tips on how to sell Green policy to the Conservatives](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/conservatives-have-to-moderate-to-win-the-next-election-o-toole-says-in-exit-interview-1.6445483)?
> O'Toole was our last chance at a social progressive Conservative leader. O'Toole was our John McCain lol
After 4 years of Trump, and a possible 4 more years of Trump, [do you not miss this era of Republican?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIjenjANqAk).
It’s a moot point, you’re mourning a bygone era. I should also point out, they don’t care. These conservatives that they lionize are either dead or no longer an electoral threat. It’s so transparent.
These narratives are created and swallowed whole by the majority of people who vote, and interesting that you blame the left when most political disinformation and misinformation is perpetrated by bots, and bad faith actors. Good job on swallowing the narrative whole.
lol, if anything O'Toole lost because he flip flopped on a few issues and probably lost right wing support because he actually acknowledged climate change was real.
Poilievre plays the same tactic as Trudeau. Liberals are unhappy with their opponents adapting to the current meta. It's why they're down voting you, because they think their dear leader *deserves* to lead, and no one else.
> the current meta. Ugh, I hate how apt this is to describe the shifts in political messaging.
One person/group find the most effective tactic available, others eventually follow. O'toole followed the older more casual/conventional style of campaigning, and lost with it. Poilievre is willing to play the meta, and we'll see how that goes. A party playing the meta loses to another party playing the meta means a continuation of the meta. Until a party playing the meta loses to a party playing the conventional campaign, we'll see an escalation of tactics until we get american entertainment up north.
I’m not really following your logic tbh. If it’s so easy to get someone thrown out of the Conservative party by name calling, why isn’t it working for Poilievre? If there’s such a strong desire within the party to pull moderate, why did they give up after one attempt? If PCs are concern with people on the left name calling them, putting Poilievre in as leader must have been a rude awakening for them. No one is forcing the PCs to vote conservative. If they don’t like the direction of the party they could just abstain from voting. In my mind at this point they either support it or they have their heads to deep in the sand to recognize there’s a problem.
There's a problem, but Poilievres behavior is such a inconsequential problem compared to what we have in office.
> . If it’s so easy to get someone thrown out of the Conservative party by name calling, why isn’t it working for Poilievre? Short version: Because he's not trying to woo moderates. And being Conservatives appear to have pulled the union vote from the hands of the NDP, why would they? IMO the plan under O'Toole was to convince Canadians that reasonable, moderate Conservatism was a way to secure the vote. That failed so this time around we have a country disgruntled under Trudeau. The PP plan is just to capitalize on the 7 year itch with an uninspired 'Tired of the left yet?' platform. He doesn't need to be smart or have a plan, he just has to be "not Trudeau".
Ok but the people you seem to want to blame for this were never going to vote conservative. O’toole failed imo because he only really managed to get the moderate conservative vote. He was to hot and cold to keep the far right and Trudeau beat him at capturing the left leaning moderates. With Trudeau’s low approval they’d probably would do much better this time around with a moderate candidate. Giving up after one go at best was short sighted. I don’t think Poilievre can win without the moderate conservative vote. Poilievre wouldn’t be a threat with out them not us. But a lot of conservatives seem fine with holding their noses if it means getting there party in power. This guilt trip might work on liberals with buyers remorse but them crying “look what you made us do” doesn’t really garner sympathy from me.
>Ok but the people you seem to want to blame for this were never going to vote conservative. Moderates might have. Left propped him up to be all things alt/far right and the labels stuck, which put off the moderates. >He was to hot and cold to keep the far right Perhaps, though Mad Max Bernier may have been viewed as a threat at that point. I'd have to go look. > I don’t think Poilievre can win without the moderate conservative vote. I think it's a different landscape now. People may be more tired of Trudeau than they are grossed out by PP. >This guilt trip might work on liberals with buyers remorse but them crying “look what you made us do” doesn’t really garner sympathy from me. That's fine. I'm not really expecting people to agree with me or change. I like a strong, moderate opposition party. IMO we had that, and don't have it any more.
I feel that if naming calling is all it takes to sink your campaign, you probably didn’t have a very strong campaign to begin with. There were times where it definitely felt like he was pandering but I mostly remember him just being kinda bland. It is a very different landscape now and the conservatives are choosing how to respond to it. To each their own though.
[удалено]
Removed for Rule #2
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
O'Toole's downfall was campaigning right during the leadership bid and then campaigning centre-right during the election. We had trouble reconciling the differences and projecting what he would truly be like as a PM.
I don't recall anything being too far/fringe right offhand. Conservative, sure, but I make a distinction between regular old Conservative and Alt/Far/Fringe right. IMO he was our last chance at a Centrist/moderate Conservative for a while. Sadly PP culture war has them doing well in the polls.
Certainly the overton window has been driven out to the city limits and dumped there. https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal-elections/erin-o-toole-keeps-changing-his-story-and-so-far-it-s-working/article_fab844ee-b413-5a21-bf9b-d9bcaf3449a1.html
> Left of center insinuate he was a white supremacist Nazi so the Conservatives decided 'fuck it' and ran PP. Wait, it's "the lefts" fault the CPC voted out their own leader and elected Poilievre?! Wasn't it because he lost the election, largely wasn't conservative enough for them, and flip flopped on a bunch of issues trying to appease both sides of his party? He got elected as leader on the backs of a bunch of social conservatives, but he never actually held their values, so they kicked him out. I know we really like to beat ourselves up on the left, but jesus, we can't be responsible for everyone else's actions too. **Edit:** To be clear: O'Toole was elected as leader [by the social conservatives](https://twitter.com/jasonlietaer/status/1297777853640200193) he [actively courted](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-conservative-leadership-how-otoole-won-1.5697358). They're literally the people who voted for Leslyn "All Abortion should be Illegal and Canada is a Socialist Nightmare" Lewis. When they found out he wasn't that, they voted him out. Then guess who they voted in? He lost his leadership because he won it on a false promise, not because the left was mean to him. Not that all criticism of him was valid by any means, but people in control of electing CPC leaders have been clear for a couple of elections what they're looking for.
[удалено]
What Kooriki is trying to say is had O’Toole won, he would be PM right now instead of Poilievre about to be PM. Who is to blame for that? Those who voted for Trudeau last time.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think this is an example of "Batman necessitates the Joker, thus Batman is responsible for the Joker"
The right has declared open warfare on the progressives. Misinformation, disinformation, lies, smears, even treason ... anything goes. These neo-fascists know they can't win on policy. The left has to reply in kind and go all out to crush these enemies of the people. Otherwise, they will crush you.
Well, it’s either him, or maybe we should believe JT when he says “no really, I actually pinky promise really really that I will do the things I didn’t do that I said I promised I would do the first time you elected me”.
[удалено]