I'm disappointed in the CPC platform too. It's clearly crafted to avoid accusations that a CPC win would mean "austerity" (something we may sorely need and is coming eventually whether we like it or not!). But let's get serious, Canadians couldn't handle the CPC platform I would like to see.
I would do a "Reset Act" and wipe out basically all new spending and most legislation since 2019. Bye bye dental, pharma, daycare, all the consultants, all the media subsidies, Ctrl+F everyone and every department with "diversity", "equity", or "anti-racism" in their name and immediately fire them (oh no, "Trumpy!").
I'd go after every cent misappropriated during the pandemic, including the company that made off with $2 Billion for faulty Covid tests, and use the Notwithstanding Clause if necessary to retroactively impose prison sentences on any government official who stole funds or engaged in self-dealing.
While we are on the topic my crime bill would include building many new prisons, and I would strong-arm the provinces into properly funding the Courts. It's an issue surprisingly seldom discussed but we don't really have a functioning legal system and that is why we let accused offenders out on bail - we can't process them in less than a year. It goes without saying that I would embrace all the tough on crime and tough on addicts measures currently proposed as just a starting point.
The gun buyback program would be wiped out and my temptation would be that everyone who touched it would be let go from government because they failed a basic character test. If you're willing to persecute law abiding people you're an asshole. I'd go back to 2015 gun laws but with no ban lists or mag limits, which would have zero impact on public safety and huge impact on progressives running around like their hair is on fire.
I'd also get rid of basically everyone in the current military procurement system as clearly they have failed. We'd get the military up to date using off-the-shelf equipment from other countries and those orders could be in within a few months. We can probably (hopefully) manage to do our own maintenance but trying to set up e.g. fighter jet production here from scratch is madness. I wouldn't cancel the F-35 but would also buy a cheaper fighter (Gripen/Rafale, etc.) to supplement it.
Doing everything possible to unlock resources is a no-brainer and we need a major re-think and expansion of federal authority in that area. Provinces and tribes shouldn't get a veto over critical infrastructure anymore and that is the major lesson this Trump/tariff "crisis" should have taught us, but I don't think it will be.
My entire housing plan would consist of slashing immigration by 75%. You can do that for free and it would result in government building the exact number of houses as either the current LPC or CPC plan which is functionally zero.
Again, the above is a perfect platform for the Conservatives if they want to get below 30% of the vote share, but boy would those remaining voters be engaged.
When I read Mr. Singh's comment to the Star Editors, particularly this:
The NDP leader stood by his decision not to plunge the country into an early election last fall while support for Justin Trudeau’s Liberals plummeted, telling the Star’s editorial board he “couldn’t stomach” the idea of causing Pierre Poilievre’s seizure of power, and that he made the choice to put Canada's interests ahead of the NDP
I almost had an aneurism. So his contention is that by propping up a wildly unpopular government, he was 'protecting Canada's interests'....from what, an electorate that would decide in a democratic general election who they wanted to govern on their behalf? And to characterize that inconvenient democratic practice as Mr. Poilievre seizing power is truly gobsmacking hubris, from someone who single handedly chose for Canadians what was good for them
Thanks ever so much Jagmeet, enjoy your pension. You may have single handedly doomed Canada to economic oblivion and international irrelevance if the This Time Will Be Different Liberals get another majority with their Potemkin Leader.
In the fall of last year, the Poilievre Conservatives had a huge lead but they were on track for what could be called a "false majority" resulting from our electoral system. The NDP is officially committed to replacing the electoral system, so by its own pretenses the NDP was indeed respecting democracy by stopping the occurrence of the would-be Conservative false majority.
Not that I buy Singh's claim that he put national interests ahead of the NDP - he simply did not anticipate the slump in NDP support that was going to follow in the months ahead with the Liberals still in power, and he miscalculated accordingly.
Very amusing typo: "The whole three-wold-slogan thing....." The paragraph discussed the absence of meat and potatoes in the Conservative platform. "Wold" - Old English for 'barren, uncultivated land or moor'. Perfect! :-)
That Trump 2.0 has been such an outsized issue in this election has been a gift for the Liberals as the polls all started to turn upon his rants hitting the media. That either leader actually believes that they can sweet talk or more comically reason with Trump better than their opponent is fantasy. People at this point believe that Carney is that mythical beast due to his CV so he leads these polls. Again fantasy. Trump answers primarily to his own self serving inner voice and peripherally to a select few once a fire alarm has been pulled as happened with the markets heading toward a cliff. As a voting public we are obviously far too easy to deceive.
w.r.t. Carney not reporting Trump's private comments, maybe a bit of "damned if you do and damned if you don't" here. If Carney *did* report what Trump said privately, that could also be seen as self-serving, in that Carney would be seen as "playing up the threat" for electoral gain. I think also at that point there was a strategy (for better or worse) of turning down the temperature, since Trump hates being contradicted or challenged in public.
Trump 2.0 is inherently a hard problem for Canada and there are no easy choices for how to deal with it.... maybe in February one could still argue that everything was the fault of feckless Liberals and all that was needed was "securing the border", but I hope it is obvious to all now that that's not true. Trump is a sadistic bully and Canada's very existence is an affront to him. I consider that an existential problem (as in a "my life over the next four years might be way, way, way worse than I ever imagined it could be" problem) and I voted with that in mind.
Carney decided that bringing the bullshit annexation narrative back into the conversation was so advantageous that he didn't mind putting himself in a situation where he was admitting to one of two lies no matter how you interpret what he said.
Let me be clear. Anyone who thinks that there is any risk whatsoever of Canada being taken over by the US under Trump, as a state, territory, protectorate, or whatever, has failed a fundamental test of intelligence and analytical ability. Such individuals should immediately stop driving, operating heavy equipment, climbing ladders, or making major financial decisions, and should appoint a guardian to take care of their daily affairs.
I wouldn't even worry as much as you apparently do in your second paragraph. It appears a secret deal between Trump and Carney may be already in the works (what "Caretaker Convention"?) and relations will more or less normalize in a few months once The Donald and his minions have made a few billion more dollars each insider trading.
I’m glad you’re so confident. Apparently Trump is now using the FBI to arrest federal judges, so things are, uh, moving fast down there now.
(In case you can’t tell: I’m saying you shouldn't be that confident in what you’re saying. Democratic countries have turned into tyrannies in the past. Your failure of imagination on what threat the US might pose to us does not mean everyone else needs to be that complacent.)
Also, even if it doesn’t happen in the next 3.5 years under Trump, the fact that this is now on the table means future Trumpian administrations (Vance 2028?) could continue the threats. It’s a fundamental breakpoint in the relationship.
Trump is a complete piece of shit and doing stuff like that will continue to tank his public support within the US. The sooner that happens the better. But arresting one judge and one former judge is a hell of a distance from whatever form people imagine annexing another country will take.
1. I grant that either Carney was not being truthful a month ago or not being truthful now. I'm inclined to cut him a break because I think managing this relationship with Trump is a hard file.
2. Regarding my apparent inability to operate heavy machinery, if you're going to be an jerk, you'd better provide a better supporting argument than that. (any supporting argument at all would be an excellent start)
I'd be more sympathetic about the first point if he hadn't presented the call one way to emphasize his competence and now presented it another way to drum up scary Trump vibes ahead of election day. Seems a tad opportunistic both coming and going, right?
#2 wasn't directed at you individually and it sounded like you were worried about tariff effects on the economy rather than on outright annexation, which is at least a more reasonable concern. I worry that Trump will inadventently trigger a domino effect global recession with his reckless tactics that he can't undo with a backtracking Tweet, so economic concerns aren't unfounded.
I have no issue with people voting however they want on real issues. Maybe some people think criminals are the real victims, that debt-funded social programs are awesome, that the CBC produces thrilling content and their commentary isn't biased at all, that 1 million immigrants a year is a perfectly reasonable number. I disagree but at least these are real issues someone has thought about. The annexation narrative is a campaign of fearmongering bullshit though, and anyone who changed their vote on that basis has been manipulated by disingenuous bad actors.
I think if your inclined to give him a break, you probably inclined to give Trudeau a break over his vacation to a donor'w island, his SNC Lavalin interventions, the WE charity debacle etc.
After all its just a little Liberal lie for the good of the nation.
What Trump said about fentanyl does have a small grain of truth. When he first started on about the northern border, everyone jumped on the fact that they’ve only confiscated around 40 kg, nothing compared with Mexico. While that’s true, 40 kg is enough to kill every person in both the cities of Los Angeles and New York, well almost. It’s 20,000,000 doses.
Let’s also not ignore the reporting of Sam Cooper and the establishment of super labs in Canada under the control of Chinese and Mexican gangs who manufacture the shit.
Since October of last year, three superlabs were shut down in Western Canada and enough fentanyl confiscated (precursor chemicals and processed) for a couple of hundred million doses, to be exported from our shores. You should read some of the reporting of Sam Cooper on this topic, especially about how the Biden administration warned Trudeau about the growing threat and it was ignored. There is a good chance that this knowledge was passed on the Trump who, in his usual messaging, managed to get some of the facts mixed up.
Would it have made a difference instead of focusing on retaliation, we will never know. BTW, what was the name of the fentanyl czar again?
One final question. When the super labs were taken down, the RCMP said that the bulk of the fentanyl was destined for export, but not the US which is an odd thing to say. But just curious, how much of it coming from Mexico might possibly have been made here?
Though it’s obviously lame that Poilievre is not laying out detailed fiscal plans and legislative goals in his platform, is it possible that Poilievre is not pushing details of his platform because the Liberal party’s new found religion with Carney at the helm is to flip toward some longer held Conservative platform elements and parrot what the Conservatives have said? E.g. Poilievre “keeping the powder dry”. Or is that just bullshit?
You hold troops in reserve for the final push. You keep your powder dry to use it when needed. The final push is now, and they need everything they’ve got. It’s possible that this is everything they have (or are aware of).
There are events determining a lot of this race, but another set of factors relate to Poilievre and Byrne’s approach. To use euphemism, they burnt bridges early and often. And maybe burning the boats to prevent withdrawal was a bad idea after all.
It's also true that everything changes once they are actually in power and their platforms are meaningless. They do give some clarity on their priorities tho, I think. And that "fiscal anchors" are a thing of the past?
Jagmeet Singh and his close advisors have a severe shortage of political acumen and situational awareness.
As the Liberals plummeted in the polls that predicted a historic shellacking, Singh refused to trigger an election and be seen as the one who enabled a Conservative majority. He lost the plot, because the long game for NDP benefit was a rare opportunity to consolidate the political left under the NDP banner and leave the Liberal Party swinging in the wind. The consolidation template is evident from Ontario to British Columbia and has produced NDP governments in every western province.
The NDP will need to do some soul searching in the year ahead. The political runway for gender and race politics is diminishing and the working class and poor have moved on. (As will Jagmeet Singh.)
I remember reading years ago that Jagmeet Singh’s ascension to NDP politics in Queens Park and then quickly jumping to Ottawa was a deceptive move, in that he was actually a Liberal. Not necessarily a Liberal plant but was more motivated by Liberal politics than NDP. His guidance of his party over these last years makes one wonder.
Which causes one to wonder why the NDP sent Mulcair packing, thinking that Singh was an upgrade?
Policies statements have come to mean little. Witness how the "First Past The Post" worked out.
Far Left & Far Right are BOTH the problem.
If Carney becomes PM, I hope he has the gumption to run the PMO's office, not vice versa.
At least the Liberals are presenting a thin veneer of party unity. On the other hand the PCs are ready to go at each other's throats. If Polievre looses it will be a bloodbath.
If Carny wins, he will be very much OK with PMO running everything, as now, at least in appearances.. Provides a convenient shield for him. The only change Carney represents is a change for much worse.
Of course "Bullshit Bulletin" is irreverent and "bull shitty". My post referred to the overall tone of most of The Line of late--perhaps since January. Other posts (below) expand on this a bit.
Respectfully, it needs to be pointed out The Line, and it's tone(s), is a much needed and healthy antidote and counterbalance to what the MSM and CBC has become.
I agree. They are among the best-balanced commentators available in Canada. But, since the Liberal leadership race and the upcoming election, their tone has become darker and more negative than my previous experience as a paid subscriber and donor.
My post is a comment on this significant swing in the frequency of this change. Simply put: It's less fun to read.
Yes, I have also noticed the change. Many see this election as the most consequential in a couple of generations. Many also see this election as if not directly existential to Canada, then pretty close to. That is by and large quieted down. My guess is that the current tone of The Line reflects the gravity of this election and the unease which many voters feel.
Like you, that's also a reason for my continued subscription. But as I said to Notorious Skeptic above, it isn't the irreverent tone that's getting me down, it's the apparent continuous irreverent tone.
Voted in early election but I only voted so I can complain about the promises made and eventually forgotten and "SNC LAVAN " returns with a vengeance. I have no confidence in anyone running and your complete honesty in their platforms has just about made me regret I even voted. I love The Line, please keep up the good work.
Your point about alleged encouragement of prisoners to vote Liberal by prison staff being shown as BS rings quite true. I recall a front page story - featuring a Liberal logo on a prisoner’s shaved head - in Macleans Magazine at least 10 years ago. (Perhaps an archivist could point to the specific issue). The conclusion of the report was that prisoners overwhelmingly voted Liberal. So an alleged attempt by prison staff to influence prisoners to vote Liberal seems a waste of effort. The prisoners hardly need encouragement. The only reason I can see for a warden to encourage his wards to do something they would do anyways is to improve his or her performance review. But they wouldn’t stoop that low, would they?🙄🙄🙄
I understand your argument in the last paragraph, and I also understand that the word has more than one meaning, but I would suggest 'render' may not be the best verb choice in this context...
Apparently even more stuff is coming out about this cursed phone call, how Carney warned Trump that he would have to run against him in the campaign and presumably not to take it personally.
Great friends, these two oligarch bullshit artists. Peas in a pod. Of fucking course they made a deal. I wouldn't be surprised if spooky tariffs are threatened on Monday morning. Then we know the fix was in all along.
I'm disappointed in the CPC platform too. It's clearly crafted to avoid accusations that a CPC win would mean "austerity" (something we may sorely need and is coming eventually whether we like it or not!). But let's get serious, Canadians couldn't handle the CPC platform I would like to see.
I would do a "Reset Act" and wipe out basically all new spending and most legislation since 2019. Bye bye dental, pharma, daycare, all the consultants, all the media subsidies, Ctrl+F everyone and every department with "diversity", "equity", or "anti-racism" in their name and immediately fire them (oh no, "Trumpy!").
I'd go after every cent misappropriated during the pandemic, including the company that made off with $2 Billion for faulty Covid tests, and use the Notwithstanding Clause if necessary to retroactively impose prison sentences on any government official who stole funds or engaged in self-dealing.
While we are on the topic my crime bill would include building many new prisons, and I would strong-arm the provinces into properly funding the Courts. It's an issue surprisingly seldom discussed but we don't really have a functioning legal system and that is why we let accused offenders out on bail - we can't process them in less than a year. It goes without saying that I would embrace all the tough on crime and tough on addicts measures currently proposed as just a starting point.
The gun buyback program would be wiped out and my temptation would be that everyone who touched it would be let go from government because they failed a basic character test. If you're willing to persecute law abiding people you're an asshole. I'd go back to 2015 gun laws but with no ban lists or mag limits, which would have zero impact on public safety and huge impact on progressives running around like their hair is on fire.
I'd also get rid of basically everyone in the current military procurement system as clearly they have failed. We'd get the military up to date using off-the-shelf equipment from other countries and those orders could be in within a few months. We can probably (hopefully) manage to do our own maintenance but trying to set up e.g. fighter jet production here from scratch is madness. I wouldn't cancel the F-35 but would also buy a cheaper fighter (Gripen/Rafale, etc.) to supplement it.
Doing everything possible to unlock resources is a no-brainer and we need a major re-think and expansion of federal authority in that area. Provinces and tribes shouldn't get a veto over critical infrastructure anymore and that is the major lesson this Trump/tariff "crisis" should have taught us, but I don't think it will be.
My entire housing plan would consist of slashing immigration by 75%. You can do that for free and it would result in government building the exact number of houses as either the current LPC or CPC plan which is functionally zero.
Again, the above is a perfect platform for the Conservatives if they want to get below 30% of the vote share, but boy would those remaining voters be engaged.
You got my vote
..for what it's worth 😎
When I read Mr. Singh's comment to the Star Editors, particularly this:
The NDP leader stood by his decision not to plunge the country into an early election last fall while support for Justin Trudeau’s Liberals plummeted, telling the Star’s editorial board he “couldn’t stomach” the idea of causing Pierre Poilievre’s seizure of power, and that he made the choice to put Canada's interests ahead of the NDP
I almost had an aneurism. So his contention is that by propping up a wildly unpopular government, he was 'protecting Canada's interests'....from what, an electorate that would decide in a democratic general election who they wanted to govern on their behalf? And to characterize that inconvenient democratic practice as Mr. Poilievre seizing power is truly gobsmacking hubris, from someone who single handedly chose for Canadians what was good for them
Thanks ever so much Jagmeet, enjoy your pension. You may have single handedly doomed Canada to economic oblivion and international irrelevance if the This Time Will Be Different Liberals get another majority with their Potemkin Leader.
Jesus wept.
In the fall of last year, the Poilievre Conservatives had a huge lead but they were on track for what could be called a "false majority" resulting from our electoral system. The NDP is officially committed to replacing the electoral system, so by its own pretenses the NDP was indeed respecting democracy by stopping the occurrence of the would-be Conservative false majority.
Not that I buy Singh's claim that he put national interests ahead of the NDP - he simply did not anticipate the slump in NDP support that was going to follow in the months ahead with the Liberals still in power, and he miscalculated accordingly.
Very amusing typo: "The whole three-wold-slogan thing....." The paragraph discussed the absence of meat and potatoes in the Conservative platform. "Wold" - Old English for 'barren, uncultivated land or moor'. Perfect! :-)
We're keeping it. JG
That Trump 2.0 has been such an outsized issue in this election has been a gift for the Liberals as the polls all started to turn upon his rants hitting the media. That either leader actually believes that they can sweet talk or more comically reason with Trump better than their opponent is fantasy. People at this point believe that Carney is that mythical beast due to his CV so he leads these polls. Again fantasy. Trump answers primarily to his own self serving inner voice and peripherally to a select few once a fire alarm has been pulled as happened with the markets heading toward a cliff. As a voting public we are obviously far too easy to deceive.
w.r.t. Carney not reporting Trump's private comments, maybe a bit of "damned if you do and damned if you don't" here. If Carney *did* report what Trump said privately, that could also be seen as self-serving, in that Carney would be seen as "playing up the threat" for electoral gain. I think also at that point there was a strategy (for better or worse) of turning down the temperature, since Trump hates being contradicted or challenged in public.
Trump 2.0 is inherently a hard problem for Canada and there are no easy choices for how to deal with it.... maybe in February one could still argue that everything was the fault of feckless Liberals and all that was needed was "securing the border", but I hope it is obvious to all now that that's not true. Trump is a sadistic bully and Canada's very existence is an affront to him. I consider that an existential problem (as in a "my life over the next four years might be way, way, way worse than I ever imagined it could be" problem) and I voted with that in mind.
Carney decided that bringing the bullshit annexation narrative back into the conversation was so advantageous that he didn't mind putting himself in a situation where he was admitting to one of two lies no matter how you interpret what he said.
Let me be clear. Anyone who thinks that there is any risk whatsoever of Canada being taken over by the US under Trump, as a state, territory, protectorate, or whatever, has failed a fundamental test of intelligence and analytical ability. Such individuals should immediately stop driving, operating heavy equipment, climbing ladders, or making major financial decisions, and should appoint a guardian to take care of their daily affairs.
I wouldn't even worry as much as you apparently do in your second paragraph. It appears a secret deal between Trump and Carney may be already in the works (what "Caretaker Convention"?) and relations will more or less normalize in a few months once The Donald and his minions have made a few billion more dollars each insider trading.
I’m glad you’re so confident. Apparently Trump is now using the FBI to arrest federal judges, so things are, uh, moving fast down there now.
(In case you can’t tell: I’m saying you shouldn't be that confident in what you’re saying. Democratic countries have turned into tyrannies in the past. Your failure of imagination on what threat the US might pose to us does not mean everyone else needs to be that complacent.)
Also, even if it doesn’t happen in the next 3.5 years under Trump, the fact that this is now on the table means future Trumpian administrations (Vance 2028?) could continue the threats. It’s a fundamental breakpoint in the relationship.
Trump is a complete piece of shit and doing stuff like that will continue to tank his public support within the US. The sooner that happens the better. But arresting one judge and one former judge is a hell of a distance from whatever form people imagine annexing another country will take.
1. I grant that either Carney was not being truthful a month ago or not being truthful now. I'm inclined to cut him a break because I think managing this relationship with Trump is a hard file.
2. Regarding my apparent inability to operate heavy machinery, if you're going to be an jerk, you'd better provide a better supporting argument than that. (any supporting argument at all would be an excellent start)
I'd be more sympathetic about the first point if he hadn't presented the call one way to emphasize his competence and now presented it another way to drum up scary Trump vibes ahead of election day. Seems a tad opportunistic both coming and going, right?
#2 wasn't directed at you individually and it sounded like you were worried about tariff effects on the economy rather than on outright annexation, which is at least a more reasonable concern. I worry that Trump will inadventently trigger a domino effect global recession with his reckless tactics that he can't undo with a backtracking Tweet, so economic concerns aren't unfounded.
I have no issue with people voting however they want on real issues. Maybe some people think criminals are the real victims, that debt-funded social programs are awesome, that the CBC produces thrilling content and their commentary isn't biased at all, that 1 million immigrants a year is a perfectly reasonable number. I disagree but at least these are real issues someone has thought about. The annexation narrative is a campaign of fearmongering bullshit though, and anyone who changed their vote on that basis has been manipulated by disingenuous bad actors.
I think if your inclined to give him a break, you probably inclined to give Trudeau a break over his vacation to a donor'w island, his SNC Lavalin interventions, the WE charity debacle etc.
After all its just a little Liberal lie for the good of the nation.
What Trump said about fentanyl does have a small grain of truth. When he first started on about the northern border, everyone jumped on the fact that they’ve only confiscated around 40 kg, nothing compared with Mexico. While that’s true, 40 kg is enough to kill every person in both the cities of Los Angeles and New York, well almost. It’s 20,000,000 doses.
Let’s also not ignore the reporting of Sam Cooper and the establishment of super labs in Canada under the control of Chinese and Mexican gangs who manufacture the shit.
Since October of last year, three superlabs were shut down in Western Canada and enough fentanyl confiscated (precursor chemicals and processed) for a couple of hundred million doses, to be exported from our shores. You should read some of the reporting of Sam Cooper on this topic, especially about how the Biden administration warned Trudeau about the growing threat and it was ignored. There is a good chance that this knowledge was passed on the Trump who, in his usual messaging, managed to get some of the facts mixed up.
Would it have made a difference instead of focusing on retaliation, we will never know. BTW, what was the name of the fentanyl czar again?
One final question. When the super labs were taken down, the RCMP said that the bulk of the fentanyl was destined for export, but not the US which is an odd thing to say. But just curious, how much of it coming from Mexico might possibly have been made here?
and how much has gotten through. I contend more gets distributed than ever gets confiscated.
Though it’s obviously lame that Poilievre is not laying out detailed fiscal plans and legislative goals in his platform, is it possible that Poilievre is not pushing details of his platform because the Liberal party’s new found religion with Carney at the helm is to flip toward some longer held Conservative platform elements and parrot what the Conservatives have said? E.g. Poilievre “keeping the powder dry”. Or is that just bullshit?
Down 2-1 with one minute left in the third period but don’t pull the goalie, want to keep the powder dry. Sorry, what?
(Anyway it’s too late now. The time for CPC to put it all on the table was two weeks ago.)
You hold troops in reserve for the final push. You keep your powder dry to use it when needed. The final push is now, and they need everything they’ve got. It’s possible that this is everything they have (or are aware of).
There are events determining a lot of this race, but another set of factors relate to Poilievre and Byrne’s approach. To use euphemism, they burnt bridges early and often. And maybe burning the boats to prevent withdrawal was a bad idea after all.
It's also true that everything changes once they are actually in power and their platforms are meaningless. They do give some clarity on their priorities tho, I think. And that "fiscal anchors" are a thing of the past?
Jagmeet Singh and his close advisors have a severe shortage of political acumen and situational awareness.
As the Liberals plummeted in the polls that predicted a historic shellacking, Singh refused to trigger an election and be seen as the one who enabled a Conservative majority. He lost the plot, because the long game for NDP benefit was a rare opportunity to consolidate the political left under the NDP banner and leave the Liberal Party swinging in the wind. The consolidation template is evident from Ontario to British Columbia and has produced NDP governments in every western province.
The NDP will need to do some soul searching in the year ahead. The political runway for gender and race politics is diminishing and the working class and poor have moved on. (As will Jagmeet Singh.)
I remember reading years ago that Jagmeet Singh’s ascension to NDP politics in Queens Park and then quickly jumping to Ottawa was a deceptive move, in that he was actually a Liberal. Not necessarily a Liberal plant but was more motivated by Liberal politics than NDP. His guidance of his party over these last years makes one wonder.
Which causes one to wonder why the NDP sent Mulcair packing, thinking that Singh was an upgrade?
Policies statements have come to mean little. Witness how the "First Past The Post" worked out.
Far Left & Far Right are BOTH the problem.
If Carney becomes PM, I hope he has the gumption to run the PMO's office, not vice versa.
At least the Liberals are presenting a thin veneer of party unity. On the other hand the PCs are ready to go at each other's throats. If Polievre looses it will be a bloodbath.
If Carny wins, he will be very much OK with PMO running everything, as now, at least in appearances.. Provides a convenient shield for him. The only change Carney represents is a change for much worse.
"Carney's self-serving bullshit, Poilievre's bullshit platform, Singh's bullshit excuse. "
Guys, this tone is becoming very tiring.
It's a weekly election feature that is literally called the "Bullshit Bulletin." JG
Of course "Bullshit Bulletin" is irreverent and "bull shitty". My post referred to the overall tone of most of The Line of late--perhaps since January. Other posts (below) expand on this a bit.
Respectfully, it needs to be pointed out The Line, and it's tone(s), is a much needed and healthy antidote and counterbalance to what the MSM and CBC has become.
I agree. They are among the best-balanced commentators available in Canada. But, since the Liberal leadership race and the upcoming election, their tone has become darker and more negative than my previous experience as a paid subscriber and donor.
My post is a comment on this significant swing in the frequency of this change. Simply put: It's less fun to read.
Yes, I have also noticed the change. Many see this election as the most consequential in a couple of generations. Many also see this election as if not directly existential to Canada, then pretty close to. That is by and large quieted down. My guess is that the current tone of The Line reflects the gravity of this election and the unease which many voters feel.
not to mention the divisions that are showing up in the polls -- young vs old, west vs east, rural vs urban etc. Tough to make that cheery!
A useful comment.
It’s also less fun being Canadian these days 🤷🏼♀️
It's the bullshit bulletin. How else should the bullshit be presented?
The overall tone of The Line is the genesis of my post.
I subscribe because I like the irreverent tone. lol
Like you, that's also a reason for my continued subscription. But as I said to Notorious Skeptic above, it isn't the irreverent tone that's getting me down, it's the apparent continuous irreverent tone.
You're right. Its too bad this is the reality of our life now.
Voted in early election but I only voted so I can complain about the promises made and eventually forgotten and "SNC LAVAN " returns with a vengeance. I have no confidence in anyone running and your complete honesty in their platforms has just about made me regret I even voted. I love The Line, please keep up the good work.
Your point about alleged encouragement of prisoners to vote Liberal by prison staff being shown as BS rings quite true. I recall a front page story - featuring a Liberal logo on a prisoner’s shaved head - in Macleans Magazine at least 10 years ago. (Perhaps an archivist could point to the specific issue). The conclusion of the report was that prisoners overwhelmingly voted Liberal. So an alleged attempt by prison staff to influence prisoners to vote Liberal seems a waste of effort. The prisoners hardly need encouragement. The only reason I can see for a warden to encourage his wards to do something they would do anyways is to improve his or her performance review. But they wouldn’t stoop that low, would they?🙄🙄🙄
I understand your argument in the last paragraph, and I also understand that the word has more than one meaning, but I would suggest 'render' may not be the best verb choice in this context...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/render
Apparently even more stuff is coming out about this cursed phone call, how Carney warned Trump that he would have to run against him in the campaign and presumably not to take it personally.
Great friends, these two oligarch bullshit artists. Peas in a pod. Of fucking course they made a deal. I wouldn't be surprised if spooky tariffs are threatened on Monday morning. Then we know the fix was in all along.
Absolutely true.