If I’m Pierre Poilievre, I stop running against the mobilization. Attacking a wartime footing the public demanded is a losing argument. I start positioning as the owner of the peace: the person with a plan for what comes after, for the pay stub and the mortgage renewal. Attlee, not the anti-Churchill.

So is this article supposed to be fantasy, science fiction, or comedy?

PP tried to not be negative... for about a week. He cannot go longer than that without saying something negative. He's a debate club kid, whatever the topic is he is compelled to debate the other side. He is incapable of doing anything else.

[–] radiofreebc@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago

It kind of is.

[–] JTode@lemmy.world 10 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

To be fair, it is wartime.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, he keeps siding with the US and against the Canadian working class.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

His stances are confusing. He seems to be opposed and pissing Trump off at times but kissing his ass the next. Carney is a hard right banker and still has the sign up that he says we must acknowledge was always a lie.

His support for the Iran war could be that he genuinely believes it, as Iran is opposed to western hegemony and thus is a threat to western banks (that he has devoted his life to), but just so much other shit like the privacy and civil rights erosion bills that also work hand in hand with US corporations and authorities make me wonder if his opposition to annexation is sincere or he is just hoping it is a purely Trump thing and when the old orange bastard finally dies his successors will want business as usual (all bowing to the false sign idol he condemned at Davos) and they can continue dismantling everything for the top 0.1%, with a bone tossed to the remaining middle class that will no longer be more than 10% and keep the rest a permanent underclass.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

The world isn't as simple as good guys vs. bad guys. It's all shades of grey, and your ally on one issue might be your adversary on another issue.

His support for the Iran war could be that he genuinely believes it, as Iran is opposed to western hegemony and thus is a threat to western banks

He's said why from the very beginning. Iran having nuclear weapons would be bad for everyone. He's suggested people read the IAEA reports on Iran. Have you? There's no need to speculate on what his intentions are, you just need to do some reading.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

His support for the Iran war could be that he genuinely believes it

I suspect there's a bit more nuance involved.

Most people would agree that the Iranian regieme is/was bad for both their own citizens and for the region.

But at the same time, what the Israelis and Americans did by starting a war with Iran is also a bad thing for the citizens of Iran and the region (and the rest of the world). Even if it did disrupt that immoral Iranian regime.

[–] Polyphilic@lemmy.ca 57 points 1 day ago (25 children)

The USA literally declared economic warfare on Canada, and made multiple threats to Canadian sovereignty.

How is that anything but a war-level action?

Canada is acting out of survival. Like an abused wife, we are doing everything we can to get out the door, while keeping a smile on to placate to this egomaniac in the Whitehouse.

load more comments (25 replies)

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

It is wartime, anyone not aware of this is dangerous.

[–] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

People declaring "it is wartime" are ignoring he is using this to destroy the planet faster and throw indigenous rights in the trash.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 6 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

And he is also trying to force legislation through that are utterly destroying civil rights and privacy rights in Canada and increasing data sharing on Canadians with US firms like palantir and others. If his intention was to make it harder for the US to invade and quash resistance then he is doing a terrible job of it.

[–] Sleeping_Elephant@lemmy.ca 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Exactly this. I understand that sometimes freedoms need to be traded off for security. However the freedoms we are giving up are making our security worse and not better. Canada is still a consequence free society thats being manipulated by mass propaganda. We are only making those abilities stronger.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 hours ago

Trading freedom for security never worked. I understand that Ben Franklin was speaking from a purely 18th century perspective, but he was right on the money when he said his famous 'those who trade freedom for security deserve neither and are not likely to get it'.

Also historically many laws passed during war time were repealed after the war was done. Ww1 and WW2 produced many temporary laws that restricted people in Canada, the US, and the UK, but they were repealed after the war.

Anti terrorist legislation passed after 9/11(and some countries passed stuff similar but before 9/11) did diddly squat to prevent terrorism or keep people safe, but it did prevent or make harder mass social movements like those of the 1950s to 70s.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago

It is wartime.

This is scratch kick and bite time.

[–] BinzyBoi@piefed.ca 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If he was governing like it's wartime, where's the explosion of social and affordable housing?

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

That was all post war policies to address the shortages from people migrating to urban centers.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago

Not a fan of him but imo his best quality is being reasonable on an international stage.

Still think Trudeau was better

[–] JustDorky@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I’m getting increasingly uncomfortable with François-Philippe Champagne’s record... There may not be proof of personal corruption, but there are enough conflict-of-interest and oversight concerns that people should be paying closer attention: the Alto situation involving his partner, federal funding received by his father’s company while a conflict screen was supposedly in place, and the massive SDTC governance failure under his department.

Now the government is eliminating the Underused Housing Tax and the luxury tax on private aircraft and expensive vessels.

Who benefits from that? Foreign owners of underused Canadian homes, wealthy buyers of private planes and yachts, and the industries selling those assets. Ordinary Canadians receive little or no direct benefit, while the government gives up hundreds of millions in revenue.

[–] Sleeping_Elephant@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 hours ago

Joly is pretty bad too. When Amazon workers successfully unionized in Quebec, it’s her brothers company that’s stepped in and been the scabs.

load more comments