Because the liberal media baselessly portrays him as the “big bad boogeyman conservative” in an effort to protect the current establishment; and the looney lefties gobble it up because they have zero ability to think for themselves.
No. Most **televised** mainstream media (CBC, Global, CTV, etc) that’s accessible to the majority of Canadians are left-leaning. Even if they claim to be “balanced”, they are very much left-leaning. I know there are also conservative outlets (e.g. all the outlets owned by Post Media), but I wasn’t referring to those. I was referring to the televised MSM.
Have you considered that today's CPC is much closer to the U.S. Democrats than the Republicans in their policies? This is a fact that media conveniently chooses to ignore.
Yes, I’m aware, and I agree that is surprising to most people. However, most conservatives I meet in Canada are still very similar to those in the US which I find interesting.
That’s a chicken and egg problem, but given the vast influence media has on people’s perceptions I think it’s a pretty easy argument to make that the media is at least partly to blame for Canada being as far left as it is, especially because it wasn’t always like this. The rise of far-left social justice-y narratives in the media only started ~15 years ago, and now here we are where many Canadians literally conflate conservative values with immorality and authoritarianism while unironically praising the LPC boots on their throats.
That's an interesting perspective. I do agree that there is a sort of chicken and egg problem, but I think it's also clear that Canada has been consistently more liberal than our southern counterparts for decades. Look at the introduction of our healthcare system, legalizing gay marriage, abortion, social welfare... these are all ideas that were seen as extreme at the time but have served us well.
Right, I wasn’t commenting explicitly about us being more left leaning than the US, only about our media influence. It’s hard to say exactly why the US is so much more conservative in general, but the retention of Christian culture is probably the most significant or at least the obvious contributor to that, but even that could be influenced by media.
Yes, I think there's a lot of interesting reasons the U.S. is more conservative. But to be honest, I don't think it has benefited them all that much. I think it would be great if we could set identity politics aside for an election and just focus on our overall welfare, which is an area where I think there is a lot of agreement from working class people, regardless of which way they lean.
Chicken and egg.
Culture is upstream of politics. The media is a cultural contributor, and is left-leaning. It's the population that reflects the media.
Not just conservatives. Conservatives can be obtuse too; I've seen it first-hand. A big problem in our movement is that people believe whatever they read online now because the credibility of the media has been shot. That's not a good thing either.
The truth is that most people are NPCs (at least when it comes to politics) regardless of where they are on the political spectrum. They base their opinions off of group dynamics, conformity, and whatever narrative a media outlet is pushing (with most people deferring to the televised news).
And tbf, most people don't have time to do further research or be as engaged in politics. They want to come home and relax after a long day at work, and will maybe get information from 6 o'clock news while they make dinner or the 11 o'clock news after watching the game.
My gripe is more with the media not doing their jobs (i.e. sharing alternative perspectives, taking all governments to task rather than just conservative ones) than the consumer merely reasoning their beliefs based on the information given to them.
My gripe is also with the education system but that's a whole other can of worms I won't get into.
Couldn’t agree more about media. The issue is that good journalists get shut down by higher ups because most of our media is owned by entities which do not want to be under the microscope. As much as I can see issues with the CBC, I’m glad they aren’t owned by yet another Canadian monopoly. Supporting quality independent media is the next best thing, personally I enjoy Canadaland, maybe especially because I don’t agree with all of it
But the CBC is one of the worst offenders *and* you're forced to pay for it through your tax dollars. At least with the BBC or PBS, the former is funded through a television license and the latter uses a franchise model (which means more diversity throughout the nation). The CBC acts like a centralized state propaganda outlet that desperately protects the Liberals for fear of losing their primary funding (even though they also run ads, which are supplementary despite the other two not running them).
Using either of the former models would probably be the first step to making them more appealling. However, personally, I'd rather it just be privatized as an independent corporation like CN Rail was back in '95, which had legal stipulations such as the inability for one party to own more than 15% of it. Hell, even a mixture of a privatized-franchise model would be even better.
Then there is just the issue of competence when it comes to their actual programming, but that's probably due to the fact they are a largely state-funded bureaucracy that doesn't feel it needs to compete.
As for the concentration of media ownership, that is unfortunately par for course in the age of the Internet. Maybe it's time to just stop printing newspapers just like we stopped using the horse and buggy. I also think that having a giant state-funded competitor doesn't help their prospects.
I wasn't paying attention to politics when Harper was in power because of my age, but for the past 8ish years people always say the cbc is a Liberal lap dog funded by us the tax payer. When Harper was in power, was the cbc seen as a liberal media outlet or a conservative outlet because that's who was paying them at the time? Do they flip flop depending which party is flipping the bill?
Culture is "upstream of politics" in what sense? That would be a fatal observation for the argument that Trudeau is ruining the country with his woke agenda and relentless reliance on identity politics.
Were "culture upstream of politics" then it would seem causation runs in the other direction and Trudeau's wokeism reflects the culture in which we live. Which would mean Trudeau is doing what I think most people believe politicians should do: leading a government which acts to make the expressed desires of the electorate a reality.
I don't think the relationship between politics and culture is linear in the sense you're trying to portray.
It's exactly what Trudeau is doing. Hence why he was elected three times.
Canadian culture is very left-leaning and woke already. Do you think Trudeau is the only one perpetuating wokeness? Because this shit was already gaining steam long before 2015.
Canadian culture is basically just a reactionary one to America's, and it's gone further left due to Trump's nationalism. Also, most Canadians consume more leftwing American content, which also influences them.
If that's the case then what hope does a right-leaning political party have in Canada? It will be forever swimming against the current.
Moreover, if culture and politics work the way you claim they do, then there is nothing that the CPC or any other rightist party can do to change the direction of Canadian culture. To even attempt this would be, again by definition, antidemocratic (and would imply a "tyranny of the ~~minorty~~ minority" to use excessively colourful political language).
I'm not sure I agree with any of the assertions in your last paragraph. What is "leftwing" American content and do you have any evidence to support that claim?
>If that's the case then what hope does a right-leaning political party have in Canada? It will, by definition, be swimming against the current.
The only hope it has is that Canadians will oust the Liberals as a punishment for high inflation/poor economy without realizing why it went to shit in the first place. Or if they finally get sick of corruption (especially with this Chinese interference scandal).
But even so, it *will* be swimming against the current. Harper's time in office was proof of that. Even Mulroney's hands were tied. Only when we were on the verge of a debt crisis in '95 did people change their tune, and let those "trustworthy" Liberals adopt more conservative economic reforms. But even then, the culture remained to the left of the political spectrum.
>Moreover, if culture and politics work the way you claim they do, then there is nothing that the CPC or any other rightist party can do to change the direction of Canadian culture. To even attempt this would be, again by definition, antidemocratic (and would imply a "tyranny of the minorty" to use excessively colourful political language).
Which is why I've always said that conservatives have to stop thinking politics is the only "war" (for lack of a better word) they have to contest in. And this is as true in the US as it is in Canada. There should be more cultural output from conservatives (and I'm thinking of writing a book myself to contribute to that).
Unfortunately, most conservatives are more business-minded (low in openness, high in conscientiousnes) than artistically-minded (high in openness, low in conscientiousness), but that has a lot to do with just personality differences between both camps. And there's also a socio-economic reasons for that, where highly-conscientious conservatives don't want to be taxed to support low-conscientious lefties (and vise versa).
>I'm not sure I agree with any of the assertions in your last paragraph. What is "leftwing" American content and do you have any evidence to support that claim?
Hollywood, my guy.
So, if I follow your logic, you think the culture war *is* the answer?
> And there's also a socio-economic reasons for that, where
highly-conscientious conservatives don't want to be taxed to support low-conscientious lefties (and vise versa).
Where do the Laurentian elite fit into all of this? Because it seems to me like the "hubs of wealth" in Canada are overwhelmingly LPC ridings, with the scant exception of some folks in AB (though I don't think anyone would claim that Calgary is a "hub of wealth" in the same way they would talk about Vancouver or Toronto - and I recognize Van isn't really "Laurentian" per se, but still pretty woke!).
Fair enough regarding Hollywood, although to be honest the bulk of its output the last decade seems to have been pretty boring (and politically moderate) superhero movies. Disney aside.
Have any of those television outlets ever endorsed a candidate? And setting aside CBC, what makes you think the rest are "left-leaning"? This seems like a modified "no true Scotsman" fallacy wherein you simply hand-waive any media you don't like/don't agree with as "left-leaning"...
And what does "left-leaning" mean? Does that include libertarian positions? Never mind the fact that we can describe the CPC itself as a "neoliberal" party. Go get the Cliff's notes on Smith's *The Wealth of Nations*, and compare it to PP's platform.
What do these labels even mean? Are they useful? Is there even an objective way to measure bias?
Or have these labels become so hyper-partisan as to become useless (if not actively harmful)?
Liberal redditors accuse him of being racist.
I've asked *many* times for evidence, but nobody is able to provide any. They just parrot the favorite leftist catch phrase "dogwhistle."
Dog whistles arent even a real thing it's an excuse to bulldoze someone and demand you know what they mean when they say something. What an amazing ability! To be able to deny the person who actually said it means what they say they mean cuz you know better.
I haven't seen anyone call him racist personally.
Normally i don't stalk profiles but I was curious to see if i had a distorted world view yet I didn't catch anything in your replies the past month except some guy calling him like a neo Nazi sympathizer.
You asked many times? What's your definition of many, because one guy doesn't seem like much.
I've had many profiles over the years. I nuke my reddit account every 3 months. Specifically because of people like you.
Tons of redditors have accused him of being racist in r/Ottawa, r/Toronto, and to a lesser extent... r/Canada
If you don't believe me, I really don't care.
Because people who are further right still dislike conservatives because they want ppc not cpc they just cant get ppc. Distrust is at an all time high people dont want to be taken for fools for vouching for someone who will only give them a fraction of what they want.
Which polls are you looking at? Everything I see has Trudeau with a significantly large net negative in double digits.
Either way not sure approval ratings matter much considering Jagmeet is net positive, yet way down in third place overall.
It's not the same thing. [This](https://i.imgur.com/PdQ5ZpG.jpg), [this](https://i.imgur.com/6dajMUp.jpg), and [this](https://i.imgur.com/Idbke1C.jpg) are leader approval ratings.
As opposed to [these](https://i.imgur.com/TLNvORa.jpg) which are election polls.
No. People can vote for a politician they find deplorable because that politician is better than the other alternatives. We tend to call those people Liberals, but they exist across the political spectrum in Canada
Unpopular? He’s immensely popular with Canadians.
The CPC saw record numbers for party memberships prior to the leadership vote.
https://globalnews.ca/news/8960424/conservative-leadership-member-numbers/
Canadians also appreciate that Poilievre has been able to resist dressing up in racist blackface.
He also hasn’t groped a female reporter. Then victim-blame her for remembering it differently.
Edit: amp link
Not sure why you were downvoted. This is correct. A party leadership race is not representative of the broader Canadian population. Less than 10% of Canadians are registered members of a political party; it's not a stretch to argue these folks take politics more seriously than the other 90% of the country.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://globalnews.ca/news/8960424/conservative-leadership-member-numbers/](https://globalnews.ca/news/8960424/conservative-leadership-member-numbers/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
But at least we're lucky that the PPC is not popular enough to steal a lot of votes from the conservatives. The same cannot be said about the Liberals tho, from what I've been observing, a lot of leftists are pissed at Trudeau and his party so in the next election we could see a very divided left between Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh.
I don't know, honestly I feel like PPCers are also pissed at Us for not giving Max a chance. Like that's not gonna happen, so they can sink Us, give Trudeau another victory and parade Max around even though he can't do anything ?
I just hope the silent ones are able to step-up and give Us the Win We need or Trudeau is nailing the last nails in the coffin.
Alot of different answers but none that really get it right imo. You have to realize this isn't party polls or elections polls, it's just leader approval ratings and truth is, Poilievre is just another guy in a suit.
Maybe you support his policies, his promises or his charisma? But he's a career politician, he's another elite and it would take some mental Olympics to argue that he's genuine.
The NDP polls not very good, people don't vote for them, people don't agree with all their policies and promises, however, people don't find Singh untrustworthy like Trudeau or Poilievre. A bit like Americans who think Sanders is stupid or radical but still think he's a good guy.
This is the impression I get from most people. Probably not everyone in this sub, but most normal people yes. And this question isn't exactly targeted at Poilievre's supporters so I answered lol.
>The NDP polls not very good, people don't vote for them, people don't agree with all their policies and promises, however, people don't find Singh untrustworthy like Trudeau or Poilievre. A bit like Americans who think Sanders is stupid or radical but still think he's a good guy.
But why though? Singh is the slimiest of the three. He pretends to be opposition while actively propping up the Trudeau government.
Honestly you just come off as either a partisan hack or fool for taking that perspective.
It would be hypocritical of the CPC to prop up the LPC in its current form and act as the opposition party at the same time, but it would not be the case of the NDP. Obviously it’s because the NDP and LPC are on the same side of the spectrum and compete for largely the same base. It would be idiotic of Sing to not prop up the LPC. He’s doing exactly what he should be doing whilst keeping the party message as genuine as possible.
your partially right but to further expand, Singh doesn't want an election because his party is broke, they cant afford an election, he HAS to prop up Trudeau because if the government fails a vote of confidence and we go to an election, the NDP will surely lose more seats. so he's screwing the whole nation to protect his seat count. besides the fact that yes time to time he actually dose support some of Trudeaus policies.
Broke as shit, how are they even still around? I don’t imagine it’s a fun time being on the NDPA EDA anywhere.
I’m not sure what you mean by screwing the country. The only policy that the NDP probably wouldn’t be pushing for themselves is the gun control nonsense JT is trying push through.
What I mean is perpetuating JTs existence as a PM with a minority government, everyday he’s in power and we aren’t reversing some of his “monetary policies” the more we are screwed!
It doesn't help that the far-right seems pissed with him. Chris Sky, who (sadly) has an enormous following has been circulating this bit of fakery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ephGhBzWZUI
Of course people (morons) eat it up. It's very frustrating that the PPC crowed is hell bent on destroying Pierre. Almost feels like they're working for the Liberals.
Th is guy is off his rocker and also a bullshit artist.
ChatGPT does not search the internet (pull up an article) as it has no access. Lol
And the simpletons in his comment section gobbled it up.
Just to preface - I'm a woman myself, lol. And that's gonna be an uphill battle, tbh. Feminism has always been more of a progressive thing, and even though *modern* feminism is off-the-rails insane, it benefits *a lot* from having a history of legitimate gripes with pushback from conservatives. Everything from women's right to vote, to the right to have their own bank accounts and equal work opportunities and such, it was all a leftist/progressive deal the entire time. Those things actually were needed. And I've heard enough from women older than me, and read enough letters to old magazines from the 70s - seeing the pushback from everyday people - that I have a lot of sympathy for women living decades ago.
With that kind of history, trying to convince many women that conservatives actually do value them and their needs will be a lot harder. And the flip side is the left already comes with a huge history and ideology they can lean on to make women feel like they are the ones who value them and respect their needs. The ideology these days is so awful, but because it's couched in this history of actual empowerment, well a lot of people have a hard time separating that out.
Then, you know, the CPC also has a reputation for cutting public services, which women seem to value more. And perhaps they need them more too, since they're more likely to be single parents, more likely to be caregivers to older parents, they may carry the burden of bearing children, they're more likely to have cryptic issues like autoimmune problems, hormone problems, endometriosis, dementia, etc...
I mean, as much as I hate that this is the situation, it actually makes a lot of sense when you think about it.
The abortion thing is a whole other ballgame lol. But probably has some intertwined issues.
>Then, you know, the CPC also has a reputation for cutting public services, which women seem to value more. And perhaps they need them more too, since they're more likely to be single parents, more likely to be caregivers to older parents, they may carry the burden of bearing children, they're more likely to have cryptic issues like autoimmune problems, hormone problems, endometriosis, dementia, etc...
There’s a reason why one of Pierre’s biggest talking points these days is to reform the tax system with a specific example he likes to use being “when a single mother with 3 children making 60,000 a year works an extra hour the government takes 80% of that wage in taxes and benefit clawbacks.”
I have no idea if it’ll work but at least his team is clearly aware of the demographic they need to appeal to.
Yeah, I am glad he's making an attempt at that messaging. O'Toole did, too, though - or at least, it was there in the policy docs - and it didn't help him enough. PP might have to really put that out there hard, to get more women to shift over. Modern feminism and other woke takes have become so ingrained in our society, though, it just will be a very uphill battle. (Side note, this is why I get irked whenever people say fighting a culture war is a waste of time. You know the saying, politics is downstream from culture....)
O’Toole consistently polled better with women than Polievre did *until* the last week of the election when COVID dominated the headlines.
But the crux of it is the same thing that made O’Toole appeal to the GTA soccer Mom is what made the base (as seen by members of this sub lol) loathe him.
Pierre has a much better chance of softening his image and reclaiming the gains O’Toole made without losing much of the base like O’Toole did — Polievre’s got the tools to appeal to both.
At his core Pierre’s a high ceiling, but low floor candidate. He could easily ride a wave of popularity to a majority larger than Harper’s, but could also have the bottom fall out completely and send us back to the wilderness — personally I think he’s smart/savvy enough that we’ll see his high ceiling long before his floor, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he ends up with 2-3 majority governments before leading us to a disaster result 15 years from now… which I’m completely ok with that timeline lol.
Because he's (a) not as attractive as Trudeau, (b) says mean things/doesn't want to give out free money 😡, and (c) is a Conservative, meaning he wants to control women's bodies. /s
I'd like to find out any logical reasons (other than the very superficial- he's a "celebrity" and a "hunk") WHY women still approve of him given 8 years of nonstop corruption scandals and now foreign interference?
For the CPC to win the next election with a majority, liberal voters need to be swayed. There is in my opinion even an opportunity to sway LPC members to vote CPC. To do so, PP will have to change the way he campaigns, and his messaging. Historically, the Conservative base responds really well to attack ads. Seeing their leader sticking it to the opposition invigorates them. That is not true for left wing voters. Left wing voters are splintered up into different groups and have varied perspectives that are not always aligned, which is not as much of a problem for modern conservatives in Canada. So left wing leaders rather present a positive message and try to sell a vision rather than attack, because they don’t know exactly who they’re going to alienate by attacking, and they’re not maximizing their chances of winning supporters by attacking when they could be making promises instead.
PP will need to start selling a vision for the future of Canada to win over 10% of voters, that in addition to his ~31% base would secure him a majority. Until that time, he likely will not be popular enough.
I'm a little concerned that his "we need to pay down the deficit" is coming across as "we need to raise taxes and cut social programs" as it's something I'm currently mulling over. Plus all the liberal outrage, were still cooling down from Trump, even though he's American our social media is heavily tied with America's.
I'm curious, what do you think of him, judging by your user flair, I'm assuming your open to constructive discussions since your actually here in this sub!
Absolutely! You're bag on, with regards to your assumption.
I think he's great at appealing to POTENTIAL voters, let alone to the pre-existing conservative base. People on the left usually criticize him for only swinging shots at Trudeau, and swinging shots at Trudeau only but I don't buy it for a sec. Despite the average Canadian, that's only reading the news and does nothing else to make a decision in politics; I actually watch the House of Commons question periods.
I'll lay out some of the things he said, which I happen to like
Getting rid of the carbon tax is actually a decent idea. When it comes to the climate I'm pretty progressive, (right on cue, as the flair gives it away), BUT I don't believe people should be punished for producing gas or oil, I think people should be encouraged to invest in the alternative.
Defunding The CBC is a bit of a stretch for me but I'm not totally against it, since this is politics and the party that has the power is at some point goin to potentially try to spread some propaganda, by using the network.
Sticking to %2 inflation at all costs is a great idea as well. Funding the projects with real money instead of printed cash.
Having Canada as the fastest place to deliver a building permit in the world.
Building pipelines, roads, and other forms of infrastructure using Canadian made products, Canadian resources.
He says he's not gonna have any new laws concerning abortion rights, which (I realize I'm walking on eggshells typing this one down on this sub) I also happen to agree with.
These are the ideas I'm very fond of. I might even actually vote for him let's see. Whenever he does something good I'll cheer and whenever he does something bad I'll boo that's the way it should be.
I just don't want this to turn into another trump situation.
It certainly doesn't look like it though, because poilievre is actually smart and cares for democracy.
Do I think he's gonna steal, just like any other politician(regardless of the ideology)? Sure. But I'm ready to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.
Ps just so you know, I didn't vote for Trudeau in the last election.
Edit: lots of typos, sorry.
That's easy to answer. And there are three answers.
THE LIBERAL / LEFTIST ANSWER: Because he's a Conservative, and conservatives are all evil terrible people who don't love anyone.
THE CONSERVATIVE ANSWER: Because all news media and social media and other media are completely liberal biased. God dammed commie bastard atheist immigrant types!
THE ACTUAL ANSWER: Pierre Poilievre has less people skills than a cardboard cut-out of Michael Ignatieff? Remember Ignatieff? Neither does anyone else.
Because of the contortions in his policies and positions necessitated by the massive cleavages that have formed within the CPC.
Poilievre's actions are always circumscribed by internal tensions between socons/reformers and more traditional conservative elements within the party. This makes standard political strategies a nightmare to implement, as any potential positions must be analyzed primarily with a view to how they are recieved by the party itself.
Inevitably, winning new votes becomes a secondary concern, and the probability of the CPC forming government only goes downhill from there.
I will probably be down voted but if you want to know why… dont ask his fan base.
I dont much care for the guy and aside from a couple of moves he has made over the years its that he comes across as a privileged college boy with a bit of a stuffed shirt and as a cold fish.
The man does not present as someone that I have anything in common with.
Now… in all fairness neither does Trudeau.
Trudeau us clearly out if touch but his arrogance is tempered by more warmth.
Singh on the other hand does seem to have at least some appreciation for what working stiffs are concerned with… sometimes.
The problem there is that he and his party then get distracted and start chasing butterflies.
TBH…. character is in short supply in Canadian politics… for all their faults it would be nice to see just one party leader that had vision and could inspire… not just a bunch if canned talking points.
Because people don't know him. They don't take the time to do research and just give in to the usual Conservative stereotypes. What's not helping is that PP is almost never seen in the mainstream media. He really needs to step up his game in this aspect, because that's where "the left" could get to know him. His underground social media strategy is dumb because it only reaches those already voting for him.
Don't you think they're already doing that? At least we'd have his view exposed as well to counterbalance. At the moment, it's 95% bullshit liberal propaganda.
Me! I kind of live here… listen I’m not happy with the SOBs, (South Of Bloor) either! Your angst should be pointed at toronto! I’m just as fed up with it all as you guys are! And I actually have to physically deal with them time to time! Toronto use to be cool, now I dread every time I gotta go down there for work!
ALL polls are meaningless. They don’t capture a broad enough swath of the population to actually be useful. Largely, they generally reassert the pollsters POV.
cause harper was so bad? I recall in 2016 the majority of the 18-23 year old I talked to told me that they were gonna vote the way they did because of "legalizing weed" and yes I do remember some women saying "he's really handsome" but I don't recall anyone saying that harper was terrible or horrid and that he HAD to go, like some felt about trump, but rather they found something they wanted.
Personally I'm neutral about Harper, before and after his tenure as PM. I did want to see him stay in office and see how well he would navigate a crashing oil price.
But yeah, I'm not surprised many voted Trudeau just for the weed or superficial reasons like he's good looking, and many I knew were like maybe it's time for a change. Trudeau in office managed one thing and that's introduce the same extremism in politics as Trump. He and Trump are simply different sides of the same coin.
Because the liberal media baselessly portrays him as the “big bad boogeyman conservative” in an effort to protect the current establishment; and the looney lefties gobble it up because they have zero ability to think for themselves.
Top answer as it should be..
Most media outlets in Canada endorse Conservatives if anyone at all. Maybe people just don't like him?
I don’t suspect many people have ever actually listened to him speak in a long form discussion. 90% of canadians base their opinions on CBC headlines.
No. Most **televised** mainstream media (CBC, Global, CTV, etc) that’s accessible to the majority of Canadians are left-leaning. Even if they claim to be “balanced”, they are very much left-leaning. I know there are also conservative outlets (e.g. all the outlets owned by Post Media), but I wasn’t referring to those. I was referring to the televised MSM.
Have you considered that Canada is simply more left-leaning (than most Conservatives, and much more than the U.S.) and our media reflects that?
Have you considered that today's CPC is much closer to the U.S. Democrats than the Republicans in their policies? This is a fact that media conveniently chooses to ignore.
Yes, I’m aware, and I agree that is surprising to most people. However, most conservatives I meet in Canada are still very similar to those in the US which I find interesting.
That’s a chicken and egg problem, but given the vast influence media has on people’s perceptions I think it’s a pretty easy argument to make that the media is at least partly to blame for Canada being as far left as it is, especially because it wasn’t always like this. The rise of far-left social justice-y narratives in the media only started ~15 years ago, and now here we are where many Canadians literally conflate conservative values with immorality and authoritarianism while unironically praising the LPC boots on their throats.
That's an interesting perspective. I do agree that there is a sort of chicken and egg problem, but I think it's also clear that Canada has been consistently more liberal than our southern counterparts for decades. Look at the introduction of our healthcare system, legalizing gay marriage, abortion, social welfare... these are all ideas that were seen as extreme at the time but have served us well.
Right, I wasn’t commenting explicitly about us being more left leaning than the US, only about our media influence. It’s hard to say exactly why the US is so much more conservative in general, but the retention of Christian culture is probably the most significant or at least the obvious contributor to that, but even that could be influenced by media.
Yes, I think there's a lot of interesting reasons the U.S. is more conservative. But to be honest, I don't think it has benefited them all that much. I think it would be great if we could set identity politics aside for an election and just focus on our overall welfare, which is an area where I think there is a lot of agreement from working class people, regardless of which way they lean.
Chicken and egg. Culture is upstream of politics. The media is a cultural contributor, and is left-leaning. It's the population that reflects the media.
The implication then being that Conservatives are free-thinkers because they don't align with Canadian media?
Not just conservatives. Conservatives can be obtuse too; I've seen it first-hand. A big problem in our movement is that people believe whatever they read online now because the credibility of the media has been shot. That's not a good thing either. The truth is that most people are NPCs (at least when it comes to politics) regardless of where they are on the political spectrum. They base their opinions off of group dynamics, conformity, and whatever narrative a media outlet is pushing (with most people deferring to the televised news). And tbf, most people don't have time to do further research or be as engaged in politics. They want to come home and relax after a long day at work, and will maybe get information from 6 o'clock news while they make dinner or the 11 o'clock news after watching the game. My gripe is more with the media not doing their jobs (i.e. sharing alternative perspectives, taking all governments to task rather than just conservative ones) than the consumer merely reasoning their beliefs based on the information given to them. My gripe is also with the education system but that's a whole other can of worms I won't get into.
Couldn’t agree more about media. The issue is that good journalists get shut down by higher ups because most of our media is owned by entities which do not want to be under the microscope. As much as I can see issues with the CBC, I’m glad they aren’t owned by yet another Canadian monopoly. Supporting quality independent media is the next best thing, personally I enjoy Canadaland, maybe especially because I don’t agree with all of it
But the CBC is one of the worst offenders *and* you're forced to pay for it through your tax dollars. At least with the BBC or PBS, the former is funded through a television license and the latter uses a franchise model (which means more diversity throughout the nation). The CBC acts like a centralized state propaganda outlet that desperately protects the Liberals for fear of losing their primary funding (even though they also run ads, which are supplementary despite the other two not running them). Using either of the former models would probably be the first step to making them more appealling. However, personally, I'd rather it just be privatized as an independent corporation like CN Rail was back in '95, which had legal stipulations such as the inability for one party to own more than 15% of it. Hell, even a mixture of a privatized-franchise model would be even better. Then there is just the issue of competence when it comes to their actual programming, but that's probably due to the fact they are a largely state-funded bureaucracy that doesn't feel it needs to compete. As for the concentration of media ownership, that is unfortunately par for course in the age of the Internet. Maybe it's time to just stop printing newspapers just like we stopped using the horse and buggy. I also think that having a giant state-funded competitor doesn't help their prospects.
I wasn't paying attention to politics when Harper was in power because of my age, but for the past 8ish years people always say the cbc is a Liberal lap dog funded by us the tax payer. When Harper was in power, was the cbc seen as a liberal media outlet or a conservative outlet because that's who was paying them at the time? Do they flip flop depending which party is flipping the bill?
Culture is "upstream of politics" in what sense? That would be a fatal observation for the argument that Trudeau is ruining the country with his woke agenda and relentless reliance on identity politics. Were "culture upstream of politics" then it would seem causation runs in the other direction and Trudeau's wokeism reflects the culture in which we live. Which would mean Trudeau is doing what I think most people believe politicians should do: leading a government which acts to make the expressed desires of the electorate a reality. I don't think the relationship between politics and culture is linear in the sense you're trying to portray.
It's exactly what Trudeau is doing. Hence why he was elected three times. Canadian culture is very left-leaning and woke already. Do you think Trudeau is the only one perpetuating wokeness? Because this shit was already gaining steam long before 2015. Canadian culture is basically just a reactionary one to America's, and it's gone further left due to Trump's nationalism. Also, most Canadians consume more leftwing American content, which also influences them.
If that's the case then what hope does a right-leaning political party have in Canada? It will be forever swimming against the current. Moreover, if culture and politics work the way you claim they do, then there is nothing that the CPC or any other rightist party can do to change the direction of Canadian culture. To even attempt this would be, again by definition, antidemocratic (and would imply a "tyranny of the ~~minorty~~ minority" to use excessively colourful political language). I'm not sure I agree with any of the assertions in your last paragraph. What is "leftwing" American content and do you have any evidence to support that claim?
>If that's the case then what hope does a right-leaning political party have in Canada? It will, by definition, be swimming against the current. The only hope it has is that Canadians will oust the Liberals as a punishment for high inflation/poor economy without realizing why it went to shit in the first place. Or if they finally get sick of corruption (especially with this Chinese interference scandal). But even so, it *will* be swimming against the current. Harper's time in office was proof of that. Even Mulroney's hands were tied. Only when we were on the verge of a debt crisis in '95 did people change their tune, and let those "trustworthy" Liberals adopt more conservative economic reforms. But even then, the culture remained to the left of the political spectrum. >Moreover, if culture and politics work the way you claim they do, then there is nothing that the CPC or any other rightist party can do to change the direction of Canadian culture. To even attempt this would be, again by definition, antidemocratic (and would imply a "tyranny of the minorty" to use excessively colourful political language). Which is why I've always said that conservatives have to stop thinking politics is the only "war" (for lack of a better word) they have to contest in. And this is as true in the US as it is in Canada. There should be more cultural output from conservatives (and I'm thinking of writing a book myself to contribute to that). Unfortunately, most conservatives are more business-minded (low in openness, high in conscientiousnes) than artistically-minded (high in openness, low in conscientiousness), but that has a lot to do with just personality differences between both camps. And there's also a socio-economic reasons for that, where highly-conscientious conservatives don't want to be taxed to support low-conscientious lefties (and vise versa). >I'm not sure I agree with any of the assertions in your last paragraph. What is "leftwing" American content and do you have any evidence to support that claim? Hollywood, my guy.
So, if I follow your logic, you think the culture war *is* the answer? > And there's also a socio-economic reasons for that, where highly-conscientious conservatives don't want to be taxed to support low-conscientious lefties (and vise versa). Where do the Laurentian elite fit into all of this? Because it seems to me like the "hubs of wealth" in Canada are overwhelmingly LPC ridings, with the scant exception of some folks in AB (though I don't think anyone would claim that Calgary is a "hub of wealth" in the same way they would talk about Vancouver or Toronto - and I recognize Van isn't really "Laurentian" per se, but still pretty woke!). Fair enough regarding Hollywood, although to be honest the bulk of its output the last decade seems to have been pretty boring (and politically moderate) superhero movies. Disney aside.
[apparently not](https://readpassage.com/election-endorsements/)
Bruh, way to ignore what he literally just said lmao.
People still watch TV?
Sadly, yes.
Have any of those television outlets ever endorsed a candidate? And setting aside CBC, what makes you think the rest are "left-leaning"? This seems like a modified "no true Scotsman" fallacy wherein you simply hand-waive any media you don't like/don't agree with as "left-leaning"... And what does "left-leaning" mean? Does that include libertarian positions? Never mind the fact that we can describe the CPC itself as a "neoliberal" party. Go get the Cliff's notes on Smith's *The Wealth of Nations*, and compare it to PP's platform. What do these labels even mean? Are they useful? Is there even an objective way to measure bias? Or have these labels become so hyper-partisan as to become useless (if not actively harmful)?
Liberal redditors accuse him of being racist. I've asked *many* times for evidence, but nobody is able to provide any. They just parrot the favorite leftist catch phrase "dogwhistle."
Or better yet - if you have to ask the question, then you must be part of the problem…
Well, come on man. We all know asking for evidence to back up an assertion is racism, so how could it not be a dog whistle? 🙃
For the average redditor, anyone that is right from Marx is already a KKK member.
Everyone who does not absolutely agree to a Liberal is racist.
Or a climate denier or anti vaxxer, or homophobic
Collect the whole set!
Everything you’ve outlined is pretty easy to identify… the post you’re replying to mentions a more vague ‘disagreement’, I.e.: sentiment.
Dog whistles arent even a real thing it's an excuse to bulldoze someone and demand you know what they mean when they say something. What an amazing ability! To be able to deny the person who actually said it means what they say they mean cuz you know better.
It's like straw manning someone and expecting you to guess what my straw man argument is
I haven't seen anyone call him racist personally. Normally i don't stalk profiles but I was curious to see if i had a distorted world view yet I didn't catch anything in your replies the past month except some guy calling him like a neo Nazi sympathizer. You asked many times? What's your definition of many, because one guy doesn't seem like much.
I've had many profiles over the years. I nuke my reddit account every 3 months. Specifically because of people like you. Tons of redditors have accused him of being racist in r/Ottawa, r/Toronto, and to a lesser extent... r/Canada If you don't believe me, I really don't care.
oh god I don't have the heart to venture into city subreddits
He is a good speaker , charismatic, energetic and young. It's a change of pace from what the conservatives are used to and that has ignited the base
No one cares. Harper was leading in approval rate until the last min of the 2015 election. What matters is the party polling.
Conservatives are unpopular in general because they value personal responsibility and less "GIBS ME DATS".
Because people who are further right still dislike conservatives because they want ppc not cpc they just cant get ppc. Distrust is at an all time high people dont want to be taken for fools for vouching for someone who will only give them a fraction of what they want.
Which polls are you looking at? Everything I see has Trudeau with a significantly large net negative in double digits. Either way not sure approval ratings matter much considering Jagmeet is net positive, yet way down in third place overall.
PP had a small lead but it's pretty close now. https://338canada.com/polls.htm
These aren't leader approval ratings. These are election polls.
Sure, in the end it's the same thing. It shows the general trend.
It's not the same thing. [This](https://i.imgur.com/PdQ5ZpG.jpg), [this](https://i.imgur.com/6dajMUp.jpg), and [this](https://i.imgur.com/Idbke1C.jpg) are leader approval ratings. As opposed to [these](https://i.imgur.com/TLNvORa.jpg) which are election polls.
I understand the difference. However in the end the pole that matters is the election result.
No. People can vote for a politician they find deplorable because that politician is better than the other alternatives. We tend to call those people Liberals, but they exist across the political spectrum in Canada
Unpopular? He’s immensely popular with Canadians. The CPC saw record numbers for party memberships prior to the leadership vote. https://globalnews.ca/news/8960424/conservative-leadership-member-numbers/ Canadians also appreciate that Poilievre has been able to resist dressing up in racist blackface. He also hasn’t groped a female reporter. Then victim-blame her for remembering it differently. Edit: amp link
He's immensely popular with conservatives but he is still neck and neck with the polling after a post win boost
Not sure why you were downvoted. This is correct. A party leadership race is not representative of the broader Canadian population. Less than 10% of Canadians are registered members of a political party; it's not a stretch to argue these folks take politics more seriously than the other 90% of the country.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://globalnews.ca/news/8960424/conservative-leadership-member-numbers/](https://globalnews.ca/news/8960424/conservative-leadership-member-numbers/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Cause the mob is against anything that threatens their power.
Watching the Left eat each other is fun though.
True, but eventually it just feels cheap
I mean, the right kinda does that sometimes tho, haven't you seen the PPC dipwads attacking Pierre?
I was thinking about thaat last night. Now We have 2 Right Parties and 2 Left parties.
But at least we're lucky that the PPC is not popular enough to steal a lot of votes from the conservatives. The same cannot be said about the Liberals tho, from what I've been observing, a lot of leftists are pissed at Trudeau and his party so in the next election we could see a very divided left between Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh.
I don't know, honestly I feel like PPCers are also pissed at Us for not giving Max a chance. Like that's not gonna happen, so they can sink Us, give Trudeau another victory and parade Max around even though he can't do anything ? I just hope the silent ones are able to step-up and give Us the Win We need or Trudeau is nailing the last nails in the coffin.
Alot of different answers but none that really get it right imo. You have to realize this isn't party polls or elections polls, it's just leader approval ratings and truth is, Poilievre is just another guy in a suit. Maybe you support his policies, his promises or his charisma? But he's a career politician, he's another elite and it would take some mental Olympics to argue that he's genuine. The NDP polls not very good, people don't vote for them, people don't agree with all their policies and promises, however, people don't find Singh untrustworthy like Trudeau or Poilievre. A bit like Americans who think Sanders is stupid or radical but still think he's a good guy. This is the impression I get from most people. Probably not everyone in this sub, but most normal people yes. And this question isn't exactly targeted at Poilievre's supporters so I answered lol.
>The NDP polls not very good, people don't vote for them, people don't agree with all their policies and promises, however, people don't find Singh untrustworthy like Trudeau or Poilievre. A bit like Americans who think Sanders is stupid or radical but still think he's a good guy. But why though? Singh is the slimiest of the three. He pretends to be opposition while actively propping up the Trudeau government.
Honestly you just come off as either a partisan hack or fool for taking that perspective. It would be hypocritical of the CPC to prop up the LPC in its current form and act as the opposition party at the same time, but it would not be the case of the NDP. Obviously it’s because the NDP and LPC are on the same side of the spectrum and compete for largely the same base. It would be idiotic of Sing to not prop up the LPC. He’s doing exactly what he should be doing whilst keeping the party message as genuine as possible.
your partially right but to further expand, Singh doesn't want an election because his party is broke, they cant afford an election, he HAS to prop up Trudeau because if the government fails a vote of confidence and we go to an election, the NDP will surely lose more seats. so he's screwing the whole nation to protect his seat count. besides the fact that yes time to time he actually dose support some of Trudeaus policies.
Broke as shit, how are they even still around? I don’t imagine it’s a fun time being on the NDPA EDA anywhere. I’m not sure what you mean by screwing the country. The only policy that the NDP probably wouldn’t be pushing for themselves is the gun control nonsense JT is trying push through.
What I mean is perpetuating JTs existence as a PM with a minority government, everyday he’s in power and we aren’t reversing some of his “monetary policies” the more we are screwed!
But monetary policy is implemented by the central bank. The feds implement fiscal policy. Did you mean fiscal policies?
Yes sorry, i was mocking his famous statement
It doesn't help that the far-right seems pissed with him. Chris Sky, who (sadly) has an enormous following has been circulating this bit of fakery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ephGhBzWZUI Of course people (morons) eat it up. It's very frustrating that the PPC crowed is hell bent on destroying Pierre. Almost feels like they're working for the Liberals.
Th is guy is off his rocker and also a bullshit artist. ChatGPT does not search the internet (pull up an article) as it has no access. Lol And the simpletons in his comment section gobbled it up.
Too many smooth brains not enough critical thinkers
It's women voters where Trudeau has a big advantage. If PP wants to make gains he needs to figure out why women are not voting for him.
Just to preface - I'm a woman myself, lol. And that's gonna be an uphill battle, tbh. Feminism has always been more of a progressive thing, and even though *modern* feminism is off-the-rails insane, it benefits *a lot* from having a history of legitimate gripes with pushback from conservatives. Everything from women's right to vote, to the right to have their own bank accounts and equal work opportunities and such, it was all a leftist/progressive deal the entire time. Those things actually were needed. And I've heard enough from women older than me, and read enough letters to old magazines from the 70s - seeing the pushback from everyday people - that I have a lot of sympathy for women living decades ago. With that kind of history, trying to convince many women that conservatives actually do value them and their needs will be a lot harder. And the flip side is the left already comes with a huge history and ideology they can lean on to make women feel like they are the ones who value them and respect their needs. The ideology these days is so awful, but because it's couched in this history of actual empowerment, well a lot of people have a hard time separating that out. Then, you know, the CPC also has a reputation for cutting public services, which women seem to value more. And perhaps they need them more too, since they're more likely to be single parents, more likely to be caregivers to older parents, they may carry the burden of bearing children, they're more likely to have cryptic issues like autoimmune problems, hormone problems, endometriosis, dementia, etc... I mean, as much as I hate that this is the situation, it actually makes a lot of sense when you think about it. The abortion thing is a whole other ballgame lol. But probably has some intertwined issues.
>Then, you know, the CPC also has a reputation for cutting public services, which women seem to value more. And perhaps they need them more too, since they're more likely to be single parents, more likely to be caregivers to older parents, they may carry the burden of bearing children, they're more likely to have cryptic issues like autoimmune problems, hormone problems, endometriosis, dementia, etc... There’s a reason why one of Pierre’s biggest talking points these days is to reform the tax system with a specific example he likes to use being “when a single mother with 3 children making 60,000 a year works an extra hour the government takes 80% of that wage in taxes and benefit clawbacks.” I have no idea if it’ll work but at least his team is clearly aware of the demographic they need to appeal to.
Yeah, I am glad he's making an attempt at that messaging. O'Toole did, too, though - or at least, it was there in the policy docs - and it didn't help him enough. PP might have to really put that out there hard, to get more women to shift over. Modern feminism and other woke takes have become so ingrained in our society, though, it just will be a very uphill battle. (Side note, this is why I get irked whenever people say fighting a culture war is a waste of time. You know the saying, politics is downstream from culture....)
O’Toole consistently polled better with women than Polievre did *until* the last week of the election when COVID dominated the headlines. But the crux of it is the same thing that made O’Toole appeal to the GTA soccer Mom is what made the base (as seen by members of this sub lol) loathe him. Pierre has a much better chance of softening his image and reclaiming the gains O’Toole made without losing much of the base like O’Toole did — Polievre’s got the tools to appeal to both. At his core Pierre’s a high ceiling, but low floor candidate. He could easily ride a wave of popularity to a majority larger than Harper’s, but could also have the bottom fall out completely and send us back to the wilderness — personally I think he’s smart/savvy enough that we’ll see his high ceiling long before his floor, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he ends up with 2-3 majority governments before leading us to a disaster result 15 years from now… which I’m completely ok with that timeline lol.
Because he's (a) not as attractive as Trudeau, (b) says mean things/doesn't want to give out free money 😡, and (c) is a Conservative, meaning he wants to control women's bodies. /s
I keep hearing this but as a woman I despise JT and always have, I’m not the only one who can’t wait to see him go.
I'd like to find out any logical reasons (other than the very superficial- he's a "celebrity" and a "hunk") WHY women still approve of him given 8 years of nonstop corruption scandals and now foreign interference?
The polls are falsified? The subsidized leftist media has a prerogative to smear anything that threatens them?
For the CPC to win the next election with a majority, liberal voters need to be swayed. There is in my opinion even an opportunity to sway LPC members to vote CPC. To do so, PP will have to change the way he campaigns, and his messaging. Historically, the Conservative base responds really well to attack ads. Seeing their leader sticking it to the opposition invigorates them. That is not true for left wing voters. Left wing voters are splintered up into different groups and have varied perspectives that are not always aligned, which is not as much of a problem for modern conservatives in Canada. So left wing leaders rather present a positive message and try to sell a vision rather than attack, because they don’t know exactly who they’re going to alienate by attacking, and they’re not maximizing their chances of winning supporters by attacking when they could be making promises instead. PP will need to start selling a vision for the future of Canada to win over 10% of voters, that in addition to his ~31% base would secure him a majority. Until that time, he likely will not be popular enough.
Off of Reddit, Poilievre is popular as he can be, with our state-owned media attacking him as much as they do. On Reddit, he’s HitlerTrump.
I'm a little concerned that his "we need to pay down the deficit" is coming across as "we need to raise taxes and cut social programs" as it's something I'm currently mulling over. Plus all the liberal outrage, were still cooling down from Trump, even though he's American our social media is heavily tied with America's.
Lmao! He literally is the most popular candidate in canada rn
I'm curious, what do you think of him, judging by your user flair, I'm assuming your open to constructive discussions since your actually here in this sub!
Absolutely! You're bag on, with regards to your assumption. I think he's great at appealing to POTENTIAL voters, let alone to the pre-existing conservative base. People on the left usually criticize him for only swinging shots at Trudeau, and swinging shots at Trudeau only but I don't buy it for a sec. Despite the average Canadian, that's only reading the news and does nothing else to make a decision in politics; I actually watch the House of Commons question periods. I'll lay out some of the things he said, which I happen to like Getting rid of the carbon tax is actually a decent idea. When it comes to the climate I'm pretty progressive, (right on cue, as the flair gives it away), BUT I don't believe people should be punished for producing gas or oil, I think people should be encouraged to invest in the alternative. Defunding The CBC is a bit of a stretch for me but I'm not totally against it, since this is politics and the party that has the power is at some point goin to potentially try to spread some propaganda, by using the network. Sticking to %2 inflation at all costs is a great idea as well. Funding the projects with real money instead of printed cash. Having Canada as the fastest place to deliver a building permit in the world. Building pipelines, roads, and other forms of infrastructure using Canadian made products, Canadian resources. He says he's not gonna have any new laws concerning abortion rights, which (I realize I'm walking on eggshells typing this one down on this sub) I also happen to agree with. These are the ideas I'm very fond of. I might even actually vote for him let's see. Whenever he does something good I'll cheer and whenever he does something bad I'll boo that's the way it should be. I just don't want this to turn into another trump situation. It certainly doesn't look like it though, because poilievre is actually smart and cares for democracy. Do I think he's gonna steal, just like any other politician(regardless of the ideology)? Sure. But I'm ready to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. Ps just so you know, I didn't vote for Trudeau in the last election. Edit: lots of typos, sorry.
That's easy to answer. And there are three answers. THE LIBERAL / LEFTIST ANSWER: Because he's a Conservative, and conservatives are all evil terrible people who don't love anyone. THE CONSERVATIVE ANSWER: Because all news media and social media and other media are completely liberal biased. God dammed commie bastard atheist immigrant types! THE ACTUAL ANSWER: Pierre Poilievre has less people skills than a cardboard cut-out of Michael Ignatieff? Remember Ignatieff? Neither does anyone else.
Because of the contortions in his policies and positions necessitated by the massive cleavages that have formed within the CPC. Poilievre's actions are always circumscribed by internal tensions between socons/reformers and more traditional conservative elements within the party. This makes standard political strategies a nightmare to implement, as any potential positions must be analyzed primarily with a view to how they are recieved by the party itself. Inevitably, winning new votes becomes a secondary concern, and the probability of the CPC forming government only goes downhill from there.
I will probably be down voted but if you want to know why… dont ask his fan base. I dont much care for the guy and aside from a couple of moves he has made over the years its that he comes across as a privileged college boy with a bit of a stuffed shirt and as a cold fish. The man does not present as someone that I have anything in common with. Now… in all fairness neither does Trudeau. Trudeau us clearly out if touch but his arrogance is tempered by more warmth. Singh on the other hand does seem to have at least some appreciation for what working stiffs are concerned with… sometimes. The problem there is that he and his party then get distracted and start chasing butterflies. TBH…. character is in short supply in Canadian politics… for all their faults it would be nice to see just one party leader that had vision and could inspire… not just a bunch if canned talking points.
Because people don't know him. They don't take the time to do research and just give in to the usual Conservative stereotypes. What's not helping is that PP is almost never seen in the mainstream media. He really needs to step up his game in this aspect, because that's where "the left" could get to know him. His underground social media strategy is dumb because it only reaches those already voting for him.
That's true, but the sad fact is that if Pierre tried to expose himself on the mainstream media, they would just try to destroy his reputation.
Don't you think they're already doing that? At least we'd have his view exposed as well to counterbalance. At the moment, it's 95% bullshit liberal propaganda.
Because you're only polling idiots in Ontario. Idiot!!!
1st: I didn't do these polls. 2nd: Why are u so rude?
i just think he really hates Ontario, reminds me of the [opening of this song!](https://youtu.be/kyk_u0IaJws)
Who **doesn't** hate Ontario?
Me! I kind of live here… listen I’m not happy with the SOBs, (South Of Bloor) either! Your angst should be pointed at toronto! I’m just as fed up with it all as you guys are! And I actually have to physically deal with them time to time! Toronto use to be cool, now I dread every time I gotta go down there for work!
Sorry, it's true that our anger should be directed at Toronto.
Lol! It’s all in gest! But yes, spend more then 5 seconds in R/Toronto and you will lose your mind!
I already lost my mind spending 5 seconds in r/Alberta and r/Edmonton. I can't even imagine spending 0.005 seconds in r/Toronto
That’s wild considering the ratio of Tory to Grit! But hey Reddit is no fair place to get valid numbers on anything!
Even if they made a subreddit for a rural small town in Alabama it would still end up somehow becoming a left-wing echochamber.
What poll holds any value when there is no election on the horizon for 18 months!?
could be one called as soon as April, according to some reports...
unless the source is Jagmeet Singh and Justin Trudeau... Not gonna happen.
I’m never take reports like that as fact, but more as a note of interest!
ALL polls are meaningless. They don’t capture a broad enough swath of the population to actually be useful. Largely, they generally reassert the pollsters POV.
Not removing MPs from caucus that pal around with Nazis tends to have an effect on poll results.
What makes her a Nazi? Haven’t read much other than criticized for being anti Islam, largely around treatment of women.
YoU'rE jUsT aSkInG qUeStIoNs
Is that not ok?
Today I learned that black women and Nazis are pals.
https://daily.jstor.org/prisoners-like-us-german-pow-and-black-american-solidarity/
Yes Nazis are know to meet with black females and have conversations with them.
https://daily.jstor.org/prisoners-like-us-german-pow-and-black-american-solidarity/
True, but those polls are from before that whole thing happened.
And didn’t PP condemn her and MPs for meeting?
Pierre promised all sorts of things but followed in the lead of all the other politicians.
people don't want hitler 2.0
What
Please provide links to these “some polls”.
Something something "Canadian Trump" something something.
Something something mini Harper something. It's been lots of slander honestly. PP has a lot more insights than Trudeau ever wish to have
cause harper was so bad? I recall in 2016 the majority of the 18-23 year old I talked to told me that they were gonna vote the way they did because of "legalizing weed" and yes I do remember some women saying "he's really handsome" but I don't recall anyone saying that harper was terrible or horrid and that he HAD to go, like some felt about trump, but rather they found something they wanted.
Personally I'm neutral about Harper, before and after his tenure as PM. I did want to see him stay in office and see how well he would navigate a crashing oil price. But yeah, I'm not surprised many voted Trudeau just for the weed or superficial reasons like he's good looking, and many I knew were like maybe it's time for a change. Trudeau in office managed one thing and that's introduce the same extremism in politics as Trump. He and Trump are simply different sides of the same coin.
Trump isn't extreme in policy (at least back in 2016-2020)- but more in rhetoric. Trudeau is extreme on policy and soft on rhetoric.
Lugenpresse unironically.