Great article. My question, or thoughts, regards our media. Assuming PP does make changes will our media immediately pounce and villify those changes simply because they can? Unfortunately media do drive opinions. Most of us don't dig deep, a remark I likely resemble.
I have to say that honest and thoughtful criticism is to be hoped for, solicited even but knee jerk because you are a Conservative criticism is foolish. Remember, good, honest, thoughtful criticism is important but, sadly, I don't expect that sort of quality from our media.
You write, in part, "... will our media immediately pounce and vilify those changes simply because they can?" Not really.
Instead, I offer the following (please pardon the arrogance of this word), "correction" to your query: "... will our media immediately pounce and vilify those changes simply because they are one trick ponies who are genetically coded to oppose any Conservative idea?" To which the obvious answer is: Obviously, yes.
However, you are the good media. I rely on Substack for my in-depth news needs as there isn't much of that from newspapers. Just try saying anything against immigration (not allowed on CBC) or heaven forbid any FN's stuff. You get the slap on the wrist and banned from commenting. Yes, that has happened to me for just bizarre things. You have to couch your words so carefully...and I am certainly not the only one. I consider myself centre right and pretty liberal in outlook. I care deeply about our country and I really take offence to being told that my opinion can be judged by faceless idiots (the mods).
Jen, I love your work. But the fine quality of it distinguishes you & Matt from anything I would consider MSM. You're not so much media as thoughtful, or truthful or truth seeking, or simply reasonably intelligent. It's a huge difference. Carry on!
JG, The Line is indeed part of the media but please understand that, more correctly, you are "The Medium," i.e. a singular whereas "The Media" is very much a plural. "The Media" are left-handed, right-handed, black, white, green, blah, blah, blah.
The point is that ever so much of "The Media" have drank (drunk? yes, I think so) the Kool-Aid. Not all of "The Media" have drunk the Kool-Aid; in fact, some have drunk the "counter Kool-Aid" [awful metaphor, no?]. The point is, that far too many of "The Media" - but absolutely not all - have forgotten or refused to commit journalism [verb deliberately chosen]. It is my sincere hope that many of those "sinners" do see the light and reform.
I am okay if the media call out the government. We've been missing a lot of that calling out since 2015. I will also call on the media for their their hypocrisy for not having called out some of the same stuff for the last 10 years. Watch them pounce on ethics violations in the future. PP better not have a lot of them, though!
Totally agree. Given the unconditional support they've shown the liberals will the conservatives get the exact opposite regardless of policies and actions?
It's probably going to be directly related to how the subsidies go. And perhaps Poilievre can get Facebook back on board. I feel Google is lost, regardless. They've been pretty useless as a reliable search engine of late.
I fear there’s no desire among the populace to take the pain that has to come, and zero chance any politician will campaign on what needs to be done.
The greatest example of that was Ralph Klein in 1992; Alberta voters knew exactly what he planned and he followed through.
Imagine the CPC telling us now that massive cuts to public service and government spending would be enacted immediately upon taking office. Ain’t happening, EVER.
When Mike Harris arrived in Ontario (many years ago) he had a plan, delivered in advance of his election, and he followed that plan, making a number of significant changes soon after he was in power. It would be nice if Pierre would also provide a detailed plan in advance, but in today's world it would just provide ammunition for all the haters.
It's a lot easier to pull that off when you're third place and have nothing to lose. Trudeau certainly had more definitive plans in 2015 (though he failed to deliver on most of them.) With the lead, you're playing prevent defense.
Great example. I know some government employees that still complain about him long after his passing. Promise to fix things which will result in some pain and the population backs you. What a concept that was. I honestly can’t see it working today but I would love to be wrong.
I don’t think you have to worry about being wrong. 😑
Look at what’s happening in Canadian healthcare. It is literally collapsing and the only solution many people will consider is more of the same.(I assume they are all healthy.)
It's more management and staffing IMO. Staffing is a much broader issue - med schools can only train so many doctors, and the Canadian system isn't attractive for physicians to stay in Canada once trained. Management? Well management bloat seems important to the management, but doesn't often improve the effectiveness of the organization. AHS management truly needed trimming. I'm not sure it got all the trimming it needed - much better to have that money going to front line staff.
It’s run like a closed shop. The College of Physicians and Surgeons decided the quota of admissions every year at one time. I’m not sure if that is still the case but what a sweet deal that is if you’re already accredited. Limit your competition then bitch about being overworked. Nice.
They also train a lot of foreign students and brilliant as they are, they go back to their own country. This is an issue that could be fixed by only allowing Canadian born citizens into medical school. It would also be a good idea to cut down on the school costs.
There is no question we are due for a dose of reality. But you can't get elected telling people they have to give things up. That won't change the reality of the pain our kids will feel.
David, these are some of the things I am more than willing to give up. A man can become a woman. A woman can become a man. A man can have a baby. The deficit will look after itself. Mass immigration is good for Canada. Higher Capital Gains tax will not chase away risk takers. Ms. Freeland's voice when she utters the words "Mr. Speaker".
I don't give a crap how people choose to live their lives it doesn't affect me at all. If a man wants to live as a woman with the boundaries of the law, I don't care. Men can't have babies. Give it a few more years, and medical technology will make it possible. If he's a good and caring parent, good on him. It's a blip on the percentage of the population. If the GOP hadn't made them a target for political purposes, no one would be talking about it. Why does it matter? And it's not costing you a cent.
Trudeau screwed up big time on immigration. We need the bodies, but he needed 5 years lead time to coordinate with provinces and municipalities for where they're going to live.
No PM since Chretien has balanced a budget. You can't get I stand by the belief that you can't get elected telling people they have to give things up. It's also because there are no leaders in Canada; no vision for the future, and no will to get things done. I'd love to hear a PM say outright that the NIMBY's can pound sand, and we're doing this. It will never happen; especially with Quebec.
I don't have an issue with people with more money paying more taxes...the way it used to be before deficit spending became the rage. Instead, the rich bought the government and look how fast their tax rates dropped.
I can't help you with Christia. We all know a few where you'd rather stab yourself with a lawn dart than listen.
There's opportunities for Poilievre to score some wins simply because a lot of current problems have been due to Liberal ineptness, incompetence, and unwillingness to change course. Throttling back immigration targets can be done almost immediately. Michelle Rempel-Garner has outlined how to fix the Online Harms Act. The federal bureaucracy has actually shown it knows how to do things *if* somebody makes decisions and directs them to do it (for example, during Anita Anand's short tenure at DND.)
What Poilievre needs to avoid is getting drawn into online cul-de-sacs like relitigating COVID vaccines, the Trucker Convoy, or extensive hearings where they're grilling the president of the CBC. That'll send a tingle up the leg of the very online Conservative base, but will annoy and alienate almost everybody else. What we've seen in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives over the past couple of years is a warning of what happens when the very online faction sucks all of the political oxygen: there were some very serious and worthwhile committee investigations into the threat posed by China led by serious people like Congressman Mike Gallagher. However, all of that work got sidelined by the clowns running an impeachment investigation against Joe Biden and their never-ending stream of dubious claims supported by discredited witnesses.
I disagree with the litigation of the COVID vaccines, etc. These policies were destructive and criminal, shutting down many businesses, hurting millions of people, with possible long-term nefarious consequences of these policies long into the future.
It would behoove us to send the message to future politicians: be careful in the harm you might do. That may deter more than one from authoritarian tendencies. And it would help a little with healing the collective PTSD we're still all suffering from.
The problem with discussing anything related to COVID vaccine mandates it's that it'll quickly turn into the usual crankfest of conspiracy theories with all sorts of unsupported allegations about vaccine safety and effectiveness. It never stays focused on legitimate civil liberties issues.
There is more to PP than just "Ax the Tax". This lad is a policy wonk. He has an excellent grasp on Canadian history and Canadian political history. Poilievre is going to be ok through the early stages of his government. Poilievre’s greatest strength will be his cabinet. It will be one of the best in the last 30 years.
Oh, come on...Pierre will be different...let's just be optimistic for once. He's not even in government yet, but you are already casting him in a negative light.
I believed Trudeau in 2015. Fool me once.....From everything I have heard from him, Pierre is Canada's chief distributor of crapola. He is devoid of both substance and ideas. He will certainly be PM. How about we discuss it over beer and wings in 5 years. I'll get the first round. And you have no idea how much I hope I'm wrong.
Michelle Rempel Garner, Scott Aitchison, Michael Barrett, Larry Brock, Michael Chong, Michael Cooper, Raquel Dancho, Gérard Deltell, Melissa Lantsman, Mike Lake, Rachel Thomas, to name a few. Also, if they get as many seats as the polls indicate, surely there will be a lot more to chose from.
I think the only reasonable parallel that can be drawn between Starmer and PP is that they both come on the heels of a deeply hated government, but the comparison stops there.
Starmer, policy-wise, has been a Trudeau on steroids with increased spending and deeply worrisome authoritarian bent (crackdown on online speech, gaslighting of disaffected citizens, etc).
It remains to be seen what PP will do with his power, but none of what he advocates even remotely stinks of the stench of Two-tier Kier, who's politically much closer to Trudeau.
Let’s hope Canadians give a Poilievre government time and room to right the sinking ship and also that Poilievre is the genuine article, not just another politician who says all the right things to get elected but does all the wrong things so as to remain in power.
The writer has hit on what I believe is the real problem going forward; the Liberals are on a concerted scorched earth program to make the the next administration's job as insurmountable as possible, allowing them the chance to say " we told you so" when things don't suddenly get better. PP will have few magic bullets at his disposal but one hope is that, as the writer says, he is a much better politician than Starmer. I wish him God speed.
One difference is the liberals have already started to fix the biggest immigration problems in a purely reactive move, but without capitalizing on the support they would get from an actual policy pivot in line with the growing public perception that population growth is not good for living standards. Liberals have started to cut back on temporary workers while still insisting that in theory it's the right thing to do to appease employers' desire for cheap labour, as long as the economic conditions dictate, for example.
If the conservatives inherit an immigration system already on the way to cutting back but also change the rhetoric about the long-term plan, that's an easy win. The main policy danger at this point is whether the people who no longer have visas actually leave, but it's quite a different dynamic that in the UK where the anger has been in no small part about boat arrivals that can't easily be controlled with policy levers.
I have no delusions about PP's government. It will be different. It will be the same. There are no actual plans to address anything.....just slogans. I hope to be wrong. I have no reason to think I am.
I was trying to think of the last Prime Minister who came in on a change agenda, and really was able to effectively implement substantive changes? Not a premier.
I didn't think Harper, Trudeau the younger or Mulroney. Maybe Chretien although he campaigned on repealing the GST which he didn't do, but he certainly did a fiscal overhaul.
I think if you are the CPC you have to think about when and if you start to tamp down expectations of change. Although ironically I think Labour tried to do that in Britain, and it's not worked so far.
The reason I think we need to consider only prime ministers is because they have a lot less direct control on health care, education and housing...
I agree that he is better than the rest but the problem is that that comparison is inadequate. Then, of course, he has to have a solid cabinet and all of them have to avoid trying to score cheap political points as a replacement for hard and thoughtful policy changes for the country.
There are some pretty smart conservative MPs. I’m sure he’ll pick a cabinet based on qualifications, not because they are members of his wedding party.
If voters spend any time watching Question Period or any of the Committee Hearings, it becomes apparent how much talent the Conservatives have to form a superb cabinet. .
How in the world can you say he’s better when his sole policy pronouncement is “axe the tax” and everything else coming out of his mouth is repulsive Trumpian drivel? The man’s never had a responsible job in his life, so there’s no track record available for purposes of comparison. We may hope for improvement, but there’s no rational basis to expect it.
I'll believe it when Pierre Poilievre pushes back against supply management and Old Age Security for rich boomers. Heck, or even just a proper gutting of the CBC. Otherwise it's all for show for the peasants
Oct 2 2024. This upcoming election is Pierre’s,to lose. He decided to go public Pro Life while being pro choice. Bad move,this is not Metric and Imperial scale discussions. Women will turn on him
Great article. My question, or thoughts, regards our media. Assuming PP does make changes will our media immediately pounce and villify those changes simply because they can? Unfortunately media do drive opinions. Most of us don't dig deep, a remark I likely resemble.
I have to say that honest and thoughtful criticism is to be hoped for, solicited even but knee jerk because you are a Conservative criticism is foolish. Remember, good, honest, thoughtful criticism is important but, sadly, I don't expect that sort of quality from our media.
You write, in part, "... will our media immediately pounce and vilify those changes simply because they can?" Not really.
Instead, I offer the following (please pardon the arrogance of this word), "correction" to your query: "... will our media immediately pounce and vilify those changes simply because they are one trick ponies who are genetically coded to oppose any Conservative idea?" To which the obvious answer is: Obviously, yes.
Hi Guys,
Just a reminder that we at The Line are also "The Media." Cheers, thanks. JG
However, you are the good media. I rely on Substack for my in-depth news needs as there isn't much of that from newspapers. Just try saying anything against immigration (not allowed on CBC) or heaven forbid any FN's stuff. You get the slap on the wrist and banned from commenting. Yes, that has happened to me for just bizarre things. You have to couch your words so carefully...and I am certainly not the only one. I consider myself centre right and pretty liberal in outlook. I care deeply about our country and I really take offence to being told that my opinion can be judged by faceless idiots (the mods).
Yes Jen but you are "our" media. Our tribe! Lol
Yeah, but you’re the unsubsidized media. If you weren’t unsubsidized, I don’t think I’d be here commenting :-)
Jen, I love your work. But the fine quality of it distinguishes you & Matt from anything I would consider MSM. You're not so much media as thoughtful, or truthful or truth seeking, or simply reasonably intelligent. It's a huge difference. Carry on!
JG, The Line is indeed part of the media but please understand that, more correctly, you are "The Medium," i.e. a singular whereas "The Media" is very much a plural. "The Media" are left-handed, right-handed, black, white, green, blah, blah, blah.
The point is that ever so much of "The Media" have drank (drunk? yes, I think so) the Kool-Aid. Not all of "The Media" have drunk the Kool-Aid; in fact, some have drunk the "counter Kool-Aid" [awful metaphor, no?]. The point is, that far too many of "The Media" - but absolutely not all - have forgotten or refused to commit journalism [verb deliberately chosen]. It is my sincere hope that many of those "sinners" do see the light and reform.
I am okay if the media call out the government. We've been missing a lot of that calling out since 2015. I will also call on the media for their their hypocrisy for not having called out some of the same stuff for the last 10 years. Watch them pounce on ethics violations in the future. PP better not have a lot of them, though!
Totally agree. Given the unconditional support they've shown the liberals will the conservatives get the exact opposite regardless of policies and actions?
It's probably going to be directly related to how the subsidies go. And perhaps Poilievre can get Facebook back on board. I feel Google is lost, regardless. They've been pretty useless as a reliable search engine of late.
I fear there’s no desire among the populace to take the pain that has to come, and zero chance any politician will campaign on what needs to be done.
The greatest example of that was Ralph Klein in 1992; Alberta voters knew exactly what he planned and he followed through.
Imagine the CPC telling us now that massive cuts to public service and government spending would be enacted immediately upon taking office. Ain’t happening, EVER.
But it needs to.
When Mike Harris arrived in Ontario (many years ago) he had a plan, delivered in advance of his election, and he followed that plan, making a number of significant changes soon after he was in power. It would be nice if Pierre would also provide a detailed plan in advance, but in today's world it would just provide ammunition for all the haters.
His first term was fabulous. His second term cut muscle and critical organs.
We'll always have Walkerton and Ippperwash.
Second term.
It's a lot easier to pull that off when you're third place and have nothing to lose. Trudeau certainly had more definitive plans in 2015 (though he failed to deliver on most of them.) With the lead, you're playing prevent defense.
Great example. I know some government employees that still complain about him long after his passing. Promise to fix things which will result in some pain and the population backs you. What a concept that was. I honestly can’t see it working today but I would love to be wrong.
I don’t think you have to worry about being wrong. 😑
Look at what’s happening in Canadian healthcare. It is literally collapsing and the only solution many people will consider is more of the same.(I assume they are all healthy.)
Our healthcare is collapsing because it isn't being fiscally or with staffing. Training is decades behind. And it's not collapsing by accident.
It's more management and staffing IMO. Staffing is a much broader issue - med schools can only train so many doctors, and the Canadian system isn't attractive for physicians to stay in Canada once trained. Management? Well management bloat seems important to the management, but doesn't often improve the effectiveness of the organization. AHS management truly needed trimming. I'm not sure it got all the trimming it needed - much better to have that money going to front line staff.
It’s run like a closed shop. The College of Physicians and Surgeons decided the quota of admissions every year at one time. I’m not sure if that is still the case but what a sweet deal that is if you’re already accredited. Limit your competition then bitch about being overworked. Nice.
They also train a lot of foreign students and brilliant as they are, they go back to their own country. This is an issue that could be fixed by only allowing Canadian born citizens into medical school. It would also be a good idea to cut down on the school costs.
There is no question we are due for a dose of reality. But you can't get elected telling people they have to give things up. That won't change the reality of the pain our kids will feel.
David, these are some of the things I am more than willing to give up. A man can become a woman. A woman can become a man. A man can have a baby. The deficit will look after itself. Mass immigration is good for Canada. Higher Capital Gains tax will not chase away risk takers. Ms. Freeland's voice when she utters the words "Mr. Speaker".
I don't give a crap how people choose to live their lives it doesn't affect me at all. If a man wants to live as a woman with the boundaries of the law, I don't care. Men can't have babies. Give it a few more years, and medical technology will make it possible. If he's a good and caring parent, good on him. It's a blip on the percentage of the population. If the GOP hadn't made them a target for political purposes, no one would be talking about it. Why does it matter? And it's not costing you a cent.
Trudeau screwed up big time on immigration. We need the bodies, but he needed 5 years lead time to coordinate with provinces and municipalities for where they're going to live.
No PM since Chretien has balanced a budget. You can't get I stand by the belief that you can't get elected telling people they have to give things up. It's also because there are no leaders in Canada; no vision for the future, and no will to get things done. I'd love to hear a PM say outright that the NIMBY's can pound sand, and we're doing this. It will never happen; especially with Quebec.
I don't have an issue with people with more money paying more taxes...the way it used to be before deficit spending became the rage. Instead, the rich bought the government and look how fast their tax rates dropped.
I can't help you with Christia. We all know a few where you'd rather stab yourself with a lawn dart than listen.
There's opportunities for Poilievre to score some wins simply because a lot of current problems have been due to Liberal ineptness, incompetence, and unwillingness to change course. Throttling back immigration targets can be done almost immediately. Michelle Rempel-Garner has outlined how to fix the Online Harms Act. The federal bureaucracy has actually shown it knows how to do things *if* somebody makes decisions and directs them to do it (for example, during Anita Anand's short tenure at DND.)
What Poilievre needs to avoid is getting drawn into online cul-de-sacs like relitigating COVID vaccines, the Trucker Convoy, or extensive hearings where they're grilling the president of the CBC. That'll send a tingle up the leg of the very online Conservative base, but will annoy and alienate almost everybody else. What we've seen in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives over the past couple of years is a warning of what happens when the very online faction sucks all of the political oxygen: there were some very serious and worthwhile committee investigations into the threat posed by China led by serious people like Congressman Mike Gallagher. However, all of that work got sidelined by the clowns running an impeachment investigation against Joe Biden and their never-ending stream of dubious claims supported by discredited witnesses.
I disagree with the litigation of the COVID vaccines, etc. These policies were destructive and criminal, shutting down many businesses, hurting millions of people, with possible long-term nefarious consequences of these policies long into the future.
It would behoove us to send the message to future politicians: be careful in the harm you might do. That may deter more than one from authoritarian tendencies. And it would help a little with healing the collective PTSD we're still all suffering from.
The problem with discussing anything related to COVID vaccine mandates it's that it'll quickly turn into the usual crankfest of conspiracy theories with all sorts of unsupported allegations about vaccine safety and effectiveness. It never stays focused on legitimate civil liberties issues.
Perhaps, but that challenge shouldn't be a deterrent from seeking justice.
There is more to PP than just "Ax the Tax". This lad is a policy wonk. He has an excellent grasp on Canadian history and Canadian political history. Poilievre is going to be ok through the early stages of his government. Poilievre’s greatest strength will be his cabinet. It will be one of the best in the last 30 years.
I'd love to share that optimism. I don't. From Pierre and his colleagues, it's spin and slogans. Those aren't the same as plans.
Oh, come on...Pierre will be different...let's just be optimistic for once. He's not even in government yet, but you are already casting him in a negative light.
I believed Trudeau in 2015. Fool me once.....From everything I have heard from him, Pierre is Canada's chief distributor of crapola. He is devoid of both substance and ideas. He will certainly be PM. How about we discuss it over beer and wings in 5 years. I'll get the first round. And you have no idea how much I hope I'm wrong.
I'm curious as to who you think would be good for PP's cabinet. I haven't seen more than the typical trained seals.
Michelle Rempel Garner, Scott Aitchison, Michael Barrett, Larry Brock, Michael Chong, Michael Cooper, Raquel Dancho, Gérard Deltell, Melissa Lantsman, Mike Lake, Rachel Thomas, to name a few. Also, if they get as many seats as the polls indicate, surely there will be a lot more to chose from.
Who is good in the current cabinet? I don’t think we can possibly do worse.
JR you obviously have had your eyes constantly trained on the Government benches and not the Opposition benches.
I think the only reasonable parallel that can be drawn between Starmer and PP is that they both come on the heels of a deeply hated government, but the comparison stops there.
Starmer, policy-wise, has been a Trudeau on steroids with increased spending and deeply worrisome authoritarian bent (crackdown on online speech, gaslighting of disaffected citizens, etc).
It remains to be seen what PP will do with his power, but none of what he advocates even remotely stinks of the stench of Two-tier Kier, who's politically much closer to Trudeau.
Let’s hope Canadians give a Poilievre government time and room to right the sinking ship and also that Poilievre is the genuine article, not just another politician who says all the right things to get elected but does all the wrong things so as to remain in power.
Yes, let's hope that he will be different from how he is and has always been.
The writer has hit on what I believe is the real problem going forward; the Liberals are on a concerted scorched earth program to make the the next administration's job as insurmountable as possible, allowing them the chance to say " we told you so" when things don't suddenly get better. PP will have few magic bullets at his disposal but one hope is that, as the writer says, he is a much better politician than Starmer. I wish him God speed.
One difference is the liberals have already started to fix the biggest immigration problems in a purely reactive move, but without capitalizing on the support they would get from an actual policy pivot in line with the growing public perception that population growth is not good for living standards. Liberals have started to cut back on temporary workers while still insisting that in theory it's the right thing to do to appease employers' desire for cheap labour, as long as the economic conditions dictate, for example.
If the conservatives inherit an immigration system already on the way to cutting back but also change the rhetoric about the long-term plan, that's an easy win. The main policy danger at this point is whether the people who no longer have visas actually leave, but it's quite a different dynamic that in the UK where the anger has been in no small part about boat arrivals that can't easily be controlled with policy levers.
I have no delusions about PP's government. It will be different. It will be the same. There are no actual plans to address anything.....just slogans. I hope to be wrong. I have no reason to think I am.
I was trying to think of the last Prime Minister who came in on a change agenda, and really was able to effectively implement substantive changes? Not a premier.
I didn't think Harper, Trudeau the younger or Mulroney. Maybe Chretien although he campaigned on repealing the GST which he didn't do, but he certainly did a fiscal overhaul.
I think if you are the CPC you have to think about when and if you start to tamp down expectations of change. Although ironically I think Labour tried to do that in Britain, and it's not worked so far.
The reason I think we need to consider only prime ministers is because they have a lot less direct control on health care, education and housing...
This boils down to "If (when) Poilievre wins he needs to govern effectively." I haven't seen much evidence yet that he can, and I don't think he will.
As for what my answer to Canadian politics is I don't have one. But I really don't think Poilievre is it.
He's better than all the other options combined, alas. And we know that because we are currently governed by all the other options combined.
I agree that he is better than the rest but the problem is that that comparison is inadequate. Then, of course, he has to have a solid cabinet and all of them have to avoid trying to score cheap political points as a replacement for hard and thoughtful policy changes for the country.
There are some pretty smart conservative MPs. I’m sure he’ll pick a cabinet based on qualifications, not because they are members of his wedding party.
If voters spend any time watching Question Period or any of the Committee Hearings, it becomes apparent how much talent the Conservatives have to form a superb cabinet. .
How in the world can you say he’s better when his sole policy pronouncement is “axe the tax” and everything else coming out of his mouth is repulsive Trumpian drivel? The man’s never had a responsible job in his life, so there’s no track record available for purposes of comparison. We may hope for improvement, but there’s no rational basis to expect it.
I'll believe it when Pierre Poilievre pushes back against supply management and Old Age Security for rich boomers. Heck, or even just a proper gutting of the CBC. Otherwise it's all for show for the peasants
Oct 2 2024. This upcoming election is Pierre’s,to lose. He decided to go public Pro Life while being pro choice. Bad move,this is not Metric and Imperial scale discussions. Women will turn on him