Canadian Politics Redux
Comments
-
Your only point constantly seems to be F’ Trudeau. It’s serves no purpose other than to deflect criticism from PP. The one sidedness seems to be mostly coming from you. Card carrying member of the Conservative party?DarthMaeglin said:
I was trying to illustrate how one-sided the analysis you provided is, nothing more, nothing less. As well as how the piece is lacking in proofs (or am I supposed to do my homework again, lol).ekwipt said:
Why do you constantly deflect to Trudeau? He’s done. Old news. Neither I nor Palecek supported Trudeau ever. So why constantly bring him up? Not liking Trudeau & the Liberals has nothing to do with what a scumbag PP is and has always been.DarthMaeglin said:
After looking up substacks and discovering they’re basically blog posts I went back and reread the column. I’ve had columns from legitimate publications blown off here and I’m getting really, really confused as to what the standard is here.ekwipt said:
Palecek has been watching PP since he was a shitstain on Harper’s boxer shorts. He knows what he’s talking about.DarthMaeglin said:
So all I’ve been able to find is people think Poilievre is Trump based on his style, that’s it. As I pointed out above, 2025 Poilievre is sounding an awful lot like 2015 Trudeau.ekwipt said:
He says a lot but proves very little and betrays his bias by using Pierre Trump throughout, as well as his assessment of free market democracy. There’s only one direct quote in the entire piece.
I can buy into his argument that Poilievre employs some aspects of Trump’s style, but Poilievre is FAR from the only one and it’s not confined to the right. Personal insults? Have you heard Trudeau speak?
As I watched Trump speak last night I couldn’t help but flashback to 2015 when he opened with “America is back!”
I could easily say I’ve just been watching Trudeau for years just like Palecek has been watching Poilievre. Many here will choose to blow me off and insult me by calling me obsessed instead.
Edited to clarify the meaning of a sentence.0 -
DarthMaeglin said:
After looking up substacks and discovering they’re basically blog posts I went back and reread the column. I’ve had columns from legitimate publications blown off here and I’m getting really, really confused as to what the standard is here.ekwipt said:
Palecek has been watching PP since he was a shitstain on Harper’s boxer shorts. He knows what he’s talking about.DarthMaeglin said:
So all I’ve been able to find is people think Poilievre is Trump based on his style, that’s it. As I pointed out above, 2025 Poilievre is sounding an awful lot like 2015 Trudeau.ekwipt said:
He says a lot but proves very little and betrays his bias by using Pierre Trump throughout, as well as his assessment of free market democracy. There’s only one direct quote in the entire piece.
I can buy into his argument that Poilievre employs some aspects of Trump’s style, but Poilievre is FAR from the only one and it’s not confined to the right.
I don’t carry any party’s card.
What about my questions and comments about the column you posted? (I believe in the quote I’ve focused my comments by removing maybe a quarter of what I’d written.)"The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 20220 -
What I’ve been criticizing the last 9 years has been the party forming the government and its leader. I would think the reason is obvious, you should be able to watch and see my criticisms of the Liberals drop right off when they form His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.
Many here feel I’ve been harsh on Trudeau and I have been, but that’s primarily because he’s provided the material to be critical of (at least I think I’m allowed to choose what I criticize just as others are allowed to justify his actions). I’m not going to apologize for holding the Prime Minister to a higher standard than other politicians.
A couple times I’ve tried to agree with the government but I don’t expect those instances to be remembered."The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 20220 -
What do you think Palecek’s bias is?DarthMaeglin said:
I was trying to illustrate how one-sided the analysis you provided is, nothing more, nothing less. As well as how the piece is lacking in proofs (or am I supposed to do my homework again, lol).ekwipt said:
Why do you constantly deflect to Trudeau? He’s done. Old news. Neither I nor Palecek supported Trudeau ever. So why constantly bring him up? Not liking Trudeau & the Liberals has nothing to do with what a scumbag PP is and has always been.DarthMaeglin said:
After looking up substacks and discovering they’re basically blog posts I went back and reread the column. I’ve had columns from legitimate publications blown off here and I’m getting really, really confused as to what the standard is here.ekwipt said:
Palecek has been watching PP since he was a shitstain on Harper’s boxer shorts. He knows what he’s talking about.DarthMaeglin said:
So all I’ve been able to find is people think Poilievre is Trump based on his style, that’s it. As I pointed out above, 2025 Poilievre is sounding an awful lot like 2015 Trudeau.ekwipt said:
He says a lot but proves very little and betrays his bias by using Pierre Trump throughout, as well as his assessment of free market democracy. There’s only one direct quote in the entire piece.
I can buy into his argument that Poilievre employs some aspects of Trump’s style, but Poilievre is FAR from the only one and it’s not confined to the right. Personal insults? Have you heard Trudeau speak?
As I watched Trump speak last night I couldn’t help but flashback to 2015 when he opened with “America is back!”
I could easily say I’ve just been watching Trudeau for years just like Palecek has been watching Poilievre. Many here will choose to blow me off and insult me by calling me obsessed instead.
Edited to clarify the meaning of a sentence.0 -
DarthMaeglin said:
After looking up substacks and discovering they’re basically blog posts I went back and reread the column. I’ve had columns from legitimate publications blown off here and I’m getting really, really confused as to what the standard is here.ekwipt said:
Palecek has been watching PP since he was a shitstain on Harper’s boxer shorts. He knows what he’s talking about.DarthMaeglin said:
So all I’ve been able to find is people think Poilievre is Trump based on his style, that’s it. As I pointed out above, 2025 Poilievre is sounding an awful lot like 2015 Trudeau.ekwipt said:
He says a lot but proves very little and betrays his bias by using Pierre Trump throughout, as well as his assessment of free market democracy. There’s only one direct quote in the entire piece.
I can buy into his argument that Poilievre employs some aspects of Trump’s style, but Poilievre is FAR from the only one and it’s not confined to the right. Personal insults? Have you heard Trudeau speak?
As I watched Trump speak last night I couldn’t help but flashback to 2015 when he opened with “America is back!”
I feel like you're translating political tactics into "style". The two are very much not the same.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
He’s not investigating if Poilievre is Trump, he’s asserting it (hence why I’m treating it as a column, not an article). There is no attempt at objectivity and it deals almost exclusively in generalities with little or no proof.ekwipt said:
What do you think Palecek’s bias is?DarthMaeglin said:
I was trying to illustrate how one-sided the analysis you provided is, nothing more, nothing less. As well as how the piece is lacking in proofs (or am I supposed to do my homework again, lol).ekwipt said:
Why do you constantly deflect to Trudeau? He’s done. Old news. Neither I nor Palecek supported Trudeau ever. So why constantly bring him up? Not liking Trudeau & the Liberals has nothing to do with what a scumbag PP is and has always been.DarthMaeglin said:
After looking up substacks and discovering they’re basically blog posts I went back and reread the column. I’ve had columns from legitimate publications blown off here and I’m getting really, really confused as to what the standard is here.ekwipt said:
Palecek has been watching PP since he was a shitstain on Harper’s boxer shorts. He knows what he’s talking about.DarthMaeglin said:
So all I’ve been able to find is people think Poilievre is Trump based on his style, that’s it. As I pointed out above, 2025 Poilievre is sounding an awful lot like 2015 Trudeau.ekwipt said:
He says a lot but proves very little and betrays his bias by using Pierre Trump throughout, as well as his assessment of free market democracy. There’s only one direct quote in the entire piece.
I can buy into his argument that Poilievre employs some aspects of Trump’s style, but Poilievre is FAR from the only one and it’s not confined to the right. Personal insults? Have you heard Trudeau speak?
As I watched Trump speak last night I couldn’t help but flashback to 2015 when he opened with “America is back!”
I could easily say I’ve just been watching Trudeau for years just like Palecek has been watching Poilievre. Many here will choose to blow me off and insult me by calling me obsessed instead.
Edited to clarify the meaning of a sentence.
If he’s been watching Poilievre since he was a shitstain on Harper’s boxers, he should be able to easily point to specifics to back up his claims but doesn’t.
He talks about Poilievre hurling personal insults, to reframe, has he listened to Singh talk about the Conservatives lately?
Again, his presumably witty use of Pierre Trump throughout the opinion piece clearly illustrates his bias to me. Put simply he’s anti-Poilievre and likely anti-conservative as well."The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 20220 -
I simply think the two are actually very closely linked.PJ_Soul said:DarthMaeglin said:
After looking up substacks and discovering they’re basically blog posts I went back and reread the column. I’ve had columns from legitimate publications blown off here and I’m getting really, really confused as to what the standard is here.ekwipt said:
Palecek has been watching PP since he was a shitstain on Harper’s boxer shorts. He knows what he’s talking about.DarthMaeglin said:
So all I’ve been able to find is people think Poilievre is Trump based on his style, that’s it. As I pointed out above, 2025 Poilievre is sounding an awful lot like 2015 Trudeau.ekwipt said:
He says a lot but proves very little and betrays his bias by using Pierre Trump throughout, as well as his assessment of free market democracy. There’s only one direct quote in the entire piece.
I can buy into his argument that Poilievre employs some aspects of Trump’s style, but Poilievre is FAR from the only one and it’s not confined to the right. Personal insults? Have you heard Trudeau speak?
As I watched Trump speak last night I couldn’t help but flashback to 2015 when he opened with “America is back!”
I feel like you're translating political tactics into "style". The two are very much not the same."The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 20220 -
DarthMaeglin said:
I simply think the two are actually very closely linked.PJ_Soul said:DarthMaeglin said:
After looking up substacks and discovering they’re basically blog posts I went back and reread the column. I’ve had columns from legitimate publications blown off here and I’m getting really, really confused as to what the standard is here.ekwipt said:
Palecek has been watching PP since he was a shitstain on Harper’s boxer shorts. He knows what he’s talking about.DarthMaeglin said:
So all I’ve been able to find is people think Poilievre is Trump based on his style, that’s it. As I pointed out above, 2025 Poilievre is sounding an awful lot like 2015 Trudeau.ekwipt said:
He says a lot but proves very little and betrays his bias by using Pierre Trump throughout, as well as his assessment of free market democracy. There’s only one direct quote in the entire piece.
I can buy into his argument that Poilievre employs some aspects of Trump’s style, but Poilievre is FAR from the only one and it’s not confined to the right. Personal insults? Have you heard Trudeau speak?
As I watched Trump speak last night I couldn’t help but flashback to 2015 when he opened with “America is back!”
I feel like you're translating political tactics into "style". The two are very much not the same.
If you think that, then I don't understand why you're minimizing it so much. Trump's political tactics make up a huge part of why he's so awful.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Respond to his post with your questions. I’m sure he’ll be happy to answer them and provide more insight. I’d also recommend looking at the way PP has voted and which votes he has abstained from in his career.DarthMaeglin said:
He’s not investigating if Poilievre is Trump, he’s asserting it (hence why I’m treating it as a column, not an article). There is no attempt at objectivity and it deals almost exclusively in generalities with little or no proof.ekwipt said:
What do you think Palecek’s bias is?DarthMaeglin said:
I was trying to illustrate how one-sided the analysis you provided is, nothing more, nothing less. As well as how the piece is lacking in proofs (or am I supposed to do my homework again, lol).ekwipt said:
Why do you constantly deflect to Trudeau? He’s done. Old news. Neither I nor Palecek supported Trudeau ever. So why constantly bring him up? Not liking Trudeau & the Liberals has nothing to do with what a scumbag PP is and has always been.DarthMaeglin said:
After looking up substacks and discovering they’re basically blog posts I went back and reread the column. I’ve had columns from legitimate publications blown off here and I’m getting really, really confused as to what the standard is here.ekwipt said:
Palecek has been watching PP since he was a shitstain on Harper’s boxer shorts. He knows what he’s talking about.DarthMaeglin said:
So all I’ve been able to find is people think Poilievre is Trump based on his style, that’s it. As I pointed out above, 2025 Poilievre is sounding an awful lot like 2015 Trudeau.ekwipt said:
He says a lot but proves very little and betrays his bias by using Pierre Trump throughout, as well as his assessment of free market democracy. There’s only one direct quote in the entire piece.
I can buy into his argument that Poilievre employs some aspects of Trump’s style, but Poilievre is FAR from the only one and it’s not confined to the right. Personal insults? Have you heard Trudeau speak?
As I watched Trump speak last night I couldn’t help but flashback to 2015 when he opened with “America is back!”
I could easily say I’ve just been watching Trudeau for years just like Palecek has been watching Poilievre. Many here will choose to blow me off and insult me by calling me obsessed instead.
Edited to clarify the meaning of a sentence.
If he’s been watching Poilievre since he was a shitstain on Harper’s boxers, he should be able to easily point to specifics to back up his claims but doesn’t.
He talks about Poilievre hurling personal insults, to reframe, has he listened to Singh talk about the Conservatives lately?
Again, his presumably witty use of Pierre Trump throughout the opinion piece clearly illustrates his bias to me. Put simply he’s anti-Poilievre and likely anti-conservative as well.0 -
I think maybe I haven’t been fully clear in the point I have been trying to make in regards to similarities to our own politicians.PJ_Soul said:DarthMaeglin said:
I simply think the two are actually very closely linked.PJ_Soul said:DarthMaeglin said:
After looking up substacks and discovering they’re basically blog posts I went back and reread the column. I’ve had columns from legitimate publications blown off here and I’m getting really, really confused as to what the standard is here.ekwipt said:
Palecek has been watching PP since he was a shitstain on Harper’s boxer shorts. He knows what he’s talking about.DarthMaeglin said:
So all I’ve been able to find is people think Poilievre is Trump based on his style, that’s it. As I pointed out above, 2025 Poilievre is sounding an awful lot like 2015 Trudeau.ekwipt said:
He says a lot but proves very little and betrays his bias by using Pierre Trump throughout, as well as his assessment of free market democracy. There’s only one direct quote in the entire piece.
I can buy into his argument that Poilievre employs some aspects of Trump’s style, but Poilievre is FAR from the only one and it’s not confined to the right. Personal insults? Have you heard Trudeau speak?
As I watched Trump speak last night I couldn’t help but flashback to 2015 when he opened with “America is back!”
I feel like you're translating political tactics into "style". The two are very much not the same.
If you think that, then I don't understand why you're minimizing it so much. Trump's political tactics make up a huge part of why he's so awful.
What I have been saying is that Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau share many similarities in their personalities, who they are as people. My comparison is above I believe.
I don’t deny that Poilievre has adopted some points from the Trump playbook. But pointing out that many of those same points were taken on by Trudeau on his road to the PMO shouldn’t be blown off as deflection. To clarify, all politicians play those games. We’re about to watch the Conservatives talk about how broken Canada is, and four years later I’m quite confident stating that the Liberals will be back to making the same claim."The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 20220 -
First thing that’s made sense to me. We live in a 2 party system and they both suck. They’ve been taking turns ruining the country 10 yrs at a time forever.DarthMaeglin said:
I think maybe I haven’t been fully clear in the point I have been trying to make in regards to similarities to our own politicians.PJ_Soul said:DarthMaeglin said:
I simply think the two are actually very closely linked.PJ_Soul said:DarthMaeglin said:
After looking up substacks and discovering they’re basically blog posts I went back and reread the column. I’ve had columns from legitimate publications blown off here and I’m getting really, really confused as to what the standard is here.ekwipt said:
Palecek has been watching PP since he was a shitstain on Harper’s boxer shorts. He knows what he’s talking about.DarthMaeglin said:
So all I’ve been able to find is people think Poilievre is Trump based on his style, that’s it. As I pointed out above, 2025 Poilievre is sounding an awful lot like 2015 Trudeau.ekwipt said:
He says a lot but proves very little and betrays his bias by using Pierre Trump throughout, as well as his assessment of free market democracy. There’s only one direct quote in the entire piece.
I can buy into his argument that Poilievre employs some aspects of Trump’s style, but Poilievre is FAR from the only one and it’s not confined to the right. Personal insults? Have you heard Trudeau speak?
As I watched Trump speak last night I couldn’t help but flashback to 2015 when he opened with “America is back!”
I feel like you're translating political tactics into "style". The two are very much not the same.
If you think that, then I don't understand why you're minimizing it so much. Trump's political tactics make up a huge part of why he's so awful.
What I have been saying is that Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau share many similarities in their personalities, who they are as people. My comparison is above I believe.
I don’t deny that Poilievre has adopted some points from the Trump playbook. But pointing out that many of those same points were taken on by Trudeau on his road to the PMO shouldn’t be blown off as deflection. To clarify, all politicians play those games. We’re about to watch the Conservatives talk about how broken Canada is, and four years later I’m quite confident stating that the Liberals will be back to making the same claim.0 -
that's because all he has is style in terms of the last few years.DarthMaeglin said:
So all I’ve been able to find is people think Poilievre is Trump based on his style, that’s it. As I pointed out above, 2025 Poilievre is sounding an awful lot like 2015 Trudeau.ekwipt said:
2025 Pierre is nothing like 2015 Trudeau.
In that each politician is bullshitting to get support and votes is generally where the comparison stops.
Pierre's letter to Trudeau in late October I think says a LOT about Pierre and unfortunately that rhetoric is right in line with Mr. Trump.
Toronto 2000
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013
Toronto I&II 2016
10C: 220xxx0 -
ekwipt said:
First thing that’s made sense to me. We live in a 2 party system and they both suck. They’ve been taking turns ruining the country 10 yrs at a time forever.DarthMaeglin said:
I think maybe I haven’t been fully clear in the point I have been trying to make in regards to similarities to our own politicians.PJ_Soul said:DarthMaeglin said:
I simply think the two are actually very closely linked.PJ_Soul said:DarthMaeglin said:
After looking up substacks and discovering they’re basically blog posts I went back and reread the column. I’ve had columns from legitimate publications blown off here and I’m getting really, really confused as to what the standard is here.ekwipt said:
Palecek has been watching PP since he was a shitstain on Harper’s boxer shorts. He knows what he’s talking about.DarthMaeglin said:
So all I’ve been able to find is people think Poilievre is Trump based on his style, that’s it. As I pointed out above, 2025 Poilievre is sounding an awful lot like 2015 Trudeau.ekwipt said:
He says a lot but proves very little and betrays his bias by using Pierre Trump throughout, as well as his assessment of free market democracy. There’s only one direct quote in the entire piece.
I can buy into his argument that Poilievre employs some aspects of Trump’s style, but Poilievre is FAR from the only one and it’s not confined to the right. Personal insults? Have you heard Trudeau speak?
As I watched Trump speak last night I couldn’t help but flashback to 2015 when he opened with “America is back!”
I feel like you're translating political tactics into "style". The two are very much not the same.
If you think that, then I don't understand why you're minimizing it so much. Trump's political tactics make up a huge part of why he's so awful.
What I have been saying is that Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau share many similarities in their personalities, who they are as people. My comparison is above I believe.
I don’t deny that Poilievre has adopted some points from the Trump playbook. But pointing out that many of those same points were taken on by Trudeau on his road to the PMO shouldn’t be blown off as deflection. To clarify, all politicians play those games. We’re about to watch the Conservatives talk about how broken Canada is, and four years later I’m quite confident stating that the Liberals will be back to making the same claim.
Yeah, well I vote NDP, so.... Maybe Canada should try that instead of just doing the same thing over and over.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Former federal NDP voter and current provincial NDP voter. The current federal NDP is a shadow of it's former self.PJ_Soul said:ekwipt said:
First thing that’s made sense to me. We live in a 2 party system and they both suck. They’ve been taking turns ruining the country 10 yrs at a time forever.DarthMaeglin said:
I think maybe I haven’t been fully clear in the point I have been trying to make in regards to similarities to our own politicians.PJ_Soul said:DarthMaeglin said:
I simply think the two are actually very closely linked.PJ_Soul said:DarthMaeglin said:
After looking up substacks and discovering they’re basically blog posts I went back and reread the column. I’ve had columns from legitimate publications blown off here and I’m getting really, really confused as to what the standard is here.ekwipt said:
Palecek has been watching PP since he was a shitstain on Harper’s boxer shorts. He knows what he’s talking about.DarthMaeglin said:
So all I’ve been able to find is people think Poilievre is Trump based on his style, that’s it. As I pointed out above, 2025 Poilievre is sounding an awful lot like 2015 Trudeau.ekwipt said:
He says a lot but proves very little and betrays his bias by using Pierre Trump throughout, as well as his assessment of free market democracy. There’s only one direct quote in the entire piece.
I can buy into his argument that Poilievre employs some aspects of Trump’s style, but Poilievre is FAR from the only one and it’s not confined to the right. Personal insults? Have you heard Trudeau speak?
As I watched Trump speak last night I couldn’t help but flashback to 2015 when he opened with “America is back!”
I feel like you're translating political tactics into "style". The two are very much not the same.
If you think that, then I don't understand why you're minimizing it so much. Trump's political tactics make up a huge part of why he's so awful.
What I have been saying is that Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau share many similarities in their personalities, who they are as people. My comparison is above I believe.
I don’t deny that Poilievre has adopted some points from the Trump playbook. But pointing out that many of those same points were taken on by Trudeau on his road to the PMO shouldn’t be blown off as deflection. To clarify, all politicians play those games. We’re about to watch the Conservatives talk about how broken Canada is, and four years later I’m quite confident stating that the Liberals will be back to making the same claim.
Yeah, well I vote NDP, so.... Maybe Canada should try that instead of just doing the same thing over and over.
Ditch the current leader and get their act together and I will support them again.
When the Libs moved left I moved to them.
And by no means do I consider this country ruined like the poster above you. Can we do better, of course. But one only needs to look south to see what an actual dumpster fire is.0 -
100%. Broken? Not even close.Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0
-
This where I have to laugh. Do I actually consider this country ruined beyond repair? No, never said so.
Has this country failed to thrive under Trudeau’s government? Yes, I do feel that way and believe that some of the effects of their policies will be felt for several generations, but this nation is strong and will rebound.
"The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 20220 -
No one said you said that. PP says that. Constantly.Did anyone notice he recently sat down with the esteemed (lol) jordan peterson to talk about the woke mind virus? Not at ALL trump like.Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0
-
Whole heartedly agree.PJ_Soul said:ekwipt said:
First thing that’s made sense to me. We live in a 2 party system and they both suck. They’ve been taking turns ruining the country 10 yrs at a time forever.DarthMaeglin said:
I think maybe I haven’t been fully clear in the point I have been trying to make in regards to similarities to our own politicians.PJ_Soul said:DarthMaeglin said:
I simply think the two are actually very closely linked.PJ_Soul said:DarthMaeglin said:
After looking up substacks and discovering they’re basically blog posts I went back and reread the column. I’ve had columns from legitimate publications blown off here and I’m getting really, really confused as to what the standard is here.ekwipt said:
Palecek has been watching PP since he was a shitstain on Harper’s boxer shorts. He knows what he’s talking about.DarthMaeglin said:
So all I’ve been able to find is people think Poilievre is Trump based on his style, that’s it. As I pointed out above, 2025 Poilievre is sounding an awful lot like 2015 Trudeau.ekwipt said:
He says a lot but proves very little and betrays his bias by using Pierre Trump throughout, as well as his assessment of free market democracy. There’s only one direct quote in the entire piece.
I can buy into his argument that Poilievre employs some aspects of Trump’s style, but Poilievre is FAR from the only one and it’s not confined to the right. Personal insults? Have you heard Trudeau speak?
As I watched Trump speak last night I couldn’t help but flashback to 2015 when he opened with “America is back!”
I feel like you're translating political tactics into "style". The two are very much not the same.
If you think that, then I don't understand why you're minimizing it so much. Trump's political tactics make up a huge part of why he's so awful.
What I have been saying is that Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau share many similarities in their personalities, who they are as people. My comparison is above I believe.
I don’t deny that Poilievre has adopted some points from the Trump playbook. But pointing out that many of those same points were taken on by Trudeau on his road to the PMO shouldn’t be blown off as deflection. To clarify, all politicians play those games. We’re about to watch the Conservatives talk about how broken Canada is, and four years later I’m quite confident stating that the Liberals will be back to making the same claim.
Yeah, well I vote NDP, so.... Maybe Canada should try that instead of just doing the same thing over and over.0 -
Never said it was ruined, but that the Libs & Cons just take turns working towards ruin. So long as they both continue to serve corporate interests over regular working people my opinion of both parties will not change.dignin said:
Former federal NDP voter and current provincial NDP voter. The current federal NDP is a shadow of it's former self.PJ_Soul said:ekwipt said:
First thing that’s made sense to me. We live in a 2 party system and they both suck. They’ve been taking turns ruining the country 10 yrs at a time forever.DarthMaeglin said:
I think maybe I haven’t been fully clear in the point I have been trying to make in regards to similarities to our own politicians.PJ_Soul said:DarthMaeglin said:
I simply think the two are actually very closely linked.PJ_Soul said:DarthMaeglin said:
After looking up substacks and discovering they’re basically blog posts I went back and reread the column. I’ve had columns from legitimate publications blown off here and I’m getting really, really confused as to what the standard is here.ekwipt said:
Palecek has been watching PP since he was a shitstain on Harper’s boxer shorts. He knows what he’s talking about.DarthMaeglin said:
So all I’ve been able to find is people think Poilievre is Trump based on his style, that’s it. As I pointed out above, 2025 Poilievre is sounding an awful lot like 2015 Trudeau.ekwipt said:
He says a lot but proves very little and betrays his bias by using Pierre Trump throughout, as well as his assessment of free market democracy. There’s only one direct quote in the entire piece.
I can buy into his argument that Poilievre employs some aspects of Trump’s style, but Poilievre is FAR from the only one and it’s not confined to the right. Personal insults? Have you heard Trudeau speak?
As I watched Trump speak last night I couldn’t help but flashback to 2015 when he opened with “America is back!”
I feel like you're translating political tactics into "style". The two are very much not the same.
If you think that, then I don't understand why you're minimizing it so much. Trump's political tactics make up a huge part of why he's so awful.
What I have been saying is that Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau share many similarities in their personalities, who they are as people. My comparison is above I believe.
I don’t deny that Poilievre has adopted some points from the Trump playbook. But pointing out that many of those same points were taken on by Trudeau on his road to the PMO shouldn’t be blown off as deflection. To clarify, all politicians play those games. We’re about to watch the Conservatives talk about how broken Canada is, and four years later I’m quite confident stating that the Liberals will be back to making the same claim.
Yeah, well I vote NDP, so.... Maybe Canada should try that instead of just doing the same thing over and over.
Ditch the current leader and get their act together and I will support them again.
When the Libs moved left I moved to them.
And by no means do I consider this country ruined like the poster above you. Can we do better, of course. But one only needs to look south to see what an actual dumpster fire is.
As for the fed NDP, it’s mind boggling to me they didn’t support Peter Julian’s attempt at party leadership. He’s been an all star his whole career. Quite possibly the hardest working man in Canadian politics. Tirelessly fights for the people of his riding and working class people Canada wide.0 -
There was a comment along the lines of the poster above thinks Canada’s broken, which could only be referring to me.HughFreakingDillon said:No one said you said that. PP says that. Constantly.Did anyone notice he recently sat down with the esteemed (lol) jordan peterson to talk about the woke mind virus? Not at ALL trump like.
That aside I’m just passing through to make a mea culpa.
In my last post I disputed that I think Canada’s broken, however while I personally wouldn’t use the word “broken” (hurting or suffering would be my options) at the end of the day, if someone asked me if I agreed with the Conservative jingo of “Canada is broken” as written I would have to actually say yes.
"The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 20220
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help