You spent nine (9) minutes ragging on the biological clock thing, the whole time saying "I don't want to make a big deal of this, but...."
...and in that segment, you said not once, not twice, but SEVERAL times that Poilievre should have made it clear this is not a women issue, but an issue for both men and women.
Jen went so far as to say "could you please not talk to us (women) like we're cattle"....
...and yet the actual quote was "..we will not forget that young 36-year-old couple whose biological clock is running out faster than they can afford to buy a home and have kids;"
Can you PLEASE point out the inherent misogyny to me??? ....because I cannot see it.
Sorry, I love you guys, but I hold you to a standard as well, and I would appreciate it if you could react to what he actually said rather than what you thought he said.
Jen will always find the fly in the soup......her glass is always half empty......
I do like the interviews Jen and/or Matt do, but I don't bother to listen to there rants on The Line..... I can get the gist of the pod cast by scanning comments......
Funny. Someone(s) could make her eat the separatist soup she cooked for us. Knuckle dragging barbarians who due low IQ are meant to only serve and not to notice the eastern Laurentian choker around their necks. Frigidwind's comment is an opinion he/she is entitled to. I do not know any open separatists, so I cannot say what they are like. But I know one thing, if that crowd reaches a certain threshold, it will include some people with real political skills and organizational and communications skills.
A big reason this got so big is because Mo Amir (vancolour on Twitter) described it as a comment about women. The dude is basically functioning as a campaign operative without the job title.
I dunno, Jen. I don’t find “biological clock” offensive in any way, and it’s better than saying it’s a menopause and sperm motility problem 😀. And Pierre spoke of couples, not just women. Which leaves out a whole segment of single women having kids. Sometimes a politician just can’t win.
Jen are you angling for a $400K plus Commissioner position with the Liberal party? You list a lot of challenges an independent self governing Alberta would face and then list anticipated negative outcomes to all of them? Why? Is it because the hairy arm pitted worker bees who promote ideas of freedom don’t live in your neighborhood? (This is how a Laurentian thinks BTW) Congratulations on your research I was amazed at your rattling off all the states with more population than Alberta. Don’t lose the file it might be useful for your US citizenship test 😆.
Seriously as a state you have a lot more control over your legal environment you don’t have the all encompassing Federal tyranny that Ottawa wields over the provinces. The US federal government has a lot less control over the states in areas like criminal law, internal commerce, euthanasia of the unborn and seniors, etc.
And Canadian democracy is fast becoming an oxymoron when a few large parties preselect their candidates and fire those who might be different enough to be different from the opposition candidates to risk the election outcome. The obscenity of spending tax revenues on a 75 percent tax credit for donations to a “recognized” political party when a crippled person only gets a 15 percent credit for buying a wheelchair or an unapproved cancer drug. Is beyond belief.
As someone once said a slave that chooses its master every four years is still a slave. And the masters he gets to choose between are so vetted to prevent “garumba“ that they are virtually indistinguishable. Compare this to the open primary process in the US wheee anyone can seek nomination and can’t be removed because of some foolish enthusiastic position they took in the past. Sure you get results that make the parties uncomfortable (eg AOC in the Democrats, Sarah Palin for the Republicans) but this is a process of natural selection which leads to a better species. The Canadian selection process can best be described as inbreeding. Copying English royalty?
Matt may have concerns about offending people like Mike Myers when discussing Carney’s absurd comments about “Canada leading” but I sure as hell don’t. Fear of offending people? FFS, anyone offended at hearing Canada is currently in no position to lead the world at ANYTHING needs to be metaphorically slapped upside the head. More than once.
Seriously, what are we good at? Our military contributions are disgraceful and we are not the least bit ashamed about that. Our health care system sucks – I can’t tell you how relieved I am to live just one hour from Buffalo – and many people passionately guard against making ANY substantive changes to it. Our economy is an ossified relic that (like our health care system) is built entirely on a fear of free-enterprise/competition supplemented by insane subsidies with entirely predictable results. And in case a fear of competition isn’t enough to cripple us economically we are also more over-regulated than someone who takes triple doses of Metamucil every day and for good measure we also insist that we must cater to every woke shibboleth before sticking a shovel in the ground. We have no respect for free speech. Our patriotism consists of sneering at Americans. And Net-Zero Carney thinks we are in a position to lead the world? Good grief. This is more insane than anything PP (and possibly Jagmeet) has ever said. But of course, it feeds many Canadians’ delusions about their Country.
What is becoming very apparent to me is that the reaction to Trump’s buffoonery has resulted in many people panicking and looking to grasp onto anything that looks like a safe harbour to them. As a result they are more than happy to sign up with someone who they think can take them back to what they recall as the blissful pre-Trump times of six months ago. Well, six months ago every problem set out above was already in place and getting worse.
And this rant should absolutely not be taken as an endorsement of PP. As Jen said, some of these Conservative policies might have been reasonable to put forward 2+ years ago. Not today. Smashing the cartels are mere table-stakes at this point and PP himself is still dedicated to preserving them. Nothing short of a massive Javier Milei-type overhaul is gonna’ get us anywhere. And that ain't on offer anywhere that I can see.
Man, you are on fire here, good points. I will elaborate on one item only, if either PP or Carney have a Javier Milei-type overhaul up their sleeve, letting on that before the election day would for sure tank their chances of winning.
I’m wondering when people are going to figure out that Carney actually hasn’t said anything. He states that the world of globalization is over because of US action, but then proposes essentially globalization. He states that we need to diversify trade east and west but is going to keep Bill 69. We need free trade deals with Europe, but hands-off supply management which has been the one reason why the free trade deals don’t work. of the policy proposals he has made, he has ripped them off the conservatives.
Once again, I feel that we are falling for style over substance.
Also, the CPC canning any candidate right now is insane. They were going to form government for like 18 months minimum. The fact that they didn’t have everyone in place before now, and fully vetted, raises big questions. I’ll give the libs the benefit of not being prepared for this moment (leader being elected, leader signing off, etc) in a way I won’t give the CPC the same leeway.
Agree, the fact they hadn’t done a more thorough vetting struck me as very odd for same reasons. Especially as I would have thought they had ample resources to do it and had a number of potential candidates to choose from so could avoid the ones with problematic histories.
I think Biological Clockposting is good actually. Pierre is having a hard time punching through against a coronated PM, and that one little phrase punched through!
As a greybearded dad, I promise you that the clock exists for men too although not as severely - we would absolutely have had a 4th kid if we had started earlier, even though we totally could produce one (we just did last year). I'm just too tired and I don't want to be an old man with teenagers
The real biological clock is : you're going to die
The issue with the AB separatists is that they’re just the dregs of society, the kind that get shit on because they bring it upon themselves through stupidity compounded by obstinacy. Obviously AB has legitimate concerns about how it fits into Canada, but when was the last time that Wexit was a movement helmed by and consisting of smart people? Never. Instead, you have the antivax oppositional defiant disorder types who moan on about “globalists” because they’re too stupid to get with the times, which is exactly why G&G were able to poke so many holes in their narrative with little effort - because it’s a movement of idiots, by idiots and for idiots. Their American analogues are the backwards MAGA types who think that the Dear Leader will bring back jobs in the sock factory that pay 100k+. Does anyone think it’s just a coincidence that they decided to buddy up to the Trump administration? No, because they see in them kindred spirits- which gives us a great view of what their governance would look like if they ever got near power. Fundamentally, their issue is that they think they’re actual people instead of things that, by virtue of their ineptitude, exist to do as they are told; G&G pointed out the susceptibility of being weaponizing as patsies for bad actors. QC separatism, as dumb as it was, at least had (note the past tense) a thin stratum of serious thinkers that attempted to work out the kinks, though they failed as well. Without those types, what can one expect from a moment of those who share posts about the virtues of ivermectin on Facebook and prance around with “ARREST TRUDEAU” signs? At best, comedy with them as the punchline, at worst an even dumber version of the FLQ, with a few fat bearded knuckledraggers with F-150s trying their hand at being “the resistance”. The usual rejoinder will be “but we’re people and we count”, and to that I say: no, you exist to be servants, do as you’re told and comply, because usually when you try to think for yourself it goes poorly.
Sorry Frigidwind. You exude exactly the attitude that infuriates Albertans who have seen central Canada put roadblocks into place, hindering over, and over, and over again Alberta’s natural growth.
I want to set something completely clear for Central Canadians (and all Canadians). I grew up in Alberta on a farm. I am in fact likely far more conservative than Pierre Poillievre. I moved to the States and am now a citizen. When I moved here (Denver, please come visit Colorado) I assumed I would be a Republican. Well, I did not vote for President Trump. Turns out, I am a George Bush Sr./Bill Clinton voter, and I am willing to bet that almost all conservative Albertans are the same.
Please stop saying that Canadian Conservatives are the same as MAGA. It is akin to calling Canadian Liberals Stalinists…and that is also equally insane.
I didn’t say “Canadian conservatives”. The text specifically focused on AB separatists. The vast majority of Canadian (and Albertan) conservatives are not separatists. “Maple MAGA” is a tiny portion of the population and conservative voters. Improve your reading comprehension. Also, G&G have shown many, many times of how Albertans aren’t actually that conservative (the PCs were fairly analogous to Liberals in other provinces in terms of policy), so I’m gonna say you’re likely an outlier in AB in terms of political ideology. As for “infuriating” Albertans…they seem to agree with me, given the overwhelming opposition to separation.
Appreciate your correcting me on my reading comprehension and therefore my response. Thank you.
That said, why cast such a dire description upon 1 million+ people (rough number taken by this channel’s own poll) that you have likely not even met? In fact, I am guessing you don’t even live in Alberta nor Western Canada (please prove me wrong).
For example, roughly quoting you:
Dregs of Society? Stupid? Not smart? Too stupid to get with the times? Idiots, by idiots, for idiots? Backward MAGA types?
Regardless of what you think, this kind of dialogue is simply not constructive. If you want to take the high ground, please at least give lip service to it.
Thank you. I think this idea that Conservatives in Canada are akin to Republicans is simplistic and wrong and that is even more the case when it comes to the MAGA Republicans. Personally I don’t even get how someone can be MAGA if they’re not American.
I agree Canadian Liberals are not quite Stalinists. They do however tolerate dictatorial and tyrannical behavior in their leadership and political commissariats. Anti free enterprise, state dominance, weakening property ownership laws - not that these amounted to much anyway-, disarming the population, banning truly free speech, compliant French judiciary - the list goes on.
I too became a free and proud American. And a Republican. For me the choice was easy when looking at the competition. Having seen what happened to Canada over 70 years there was no way I wanted my great new country to suffer the same fate.
I’ll come to Denver if you’ll come to Cottonwood AZ. And you’re welcome to carry if you want. 😎
Depends on what you mean by “competent”. In the sense that it didn’t look like the scrawlings of the types I saw in2020-2021 re vaccines/the WEF/lizard people etc, sure. It did touch on some legitimate grievances, which I did acknowledge, but also mixed in some idiotic arguments (eg AB as a “disctinct culture”, which is a transparent attempt to copy QC - and by that token practically every province, city and town has a “distinct culture”.). The solutions range from reasonable (provincial control over resource revenue, reworking equalization), pointless symbolism a la Trudeau (parliamentary apology for the NEP more AB art - lol) and stupid (malapportionment of parliament, affirmative action for Albertans in the civil service, “consultations” etc). If I were inclined to be charitable, I’d say it’s a group of politicians who identified some reasonable concerns (that I, an Albertan, share!), laid them out in a manner more calculated to pander to their base than persuade, offered some solutions that attempted to address their issues while stroking some egos and then went off the rails with the demands while shooting themselves in the foot with a threat of separation.
Going back through AB history, it’s a clear fact that the separatists have almost uniformly been malcontents that didn’t fit into any mainstream party, and the delegation to Maralago wasn’t much different.
It's interesting to see how The Line (Jen & Matt) exemplify a huge Canadian issue.
We can't have serious discussions. And neither can Matt and Jen.
1) You can't discuss immigration - even very normal, majority supported opinions - without massive throat clearing about how amazing immigrants are and how they are better.
2) To actually address affordability and fertility you'd have to enact very radical policies that would reduce housing value and give serious incentives to couples. Yet we can't even talk about this without a 10 minute rant against "biological clock". If we have to debate the sensitivity of factually accurate statements (that apply to both sexes) we're fucked. Because the actions necessary are a lot more divisive than "biological clock".
3) You want major policy proposals from the Cons but won't accept that actually addressing things like affordability, housing, fertility, etc. would involve... very disruptive and aggressive policies. Yet we can't even talk about fertility or immigration without upsetting the apple cart.
I'm not a PP supporter or Con partisan. Yes, they're policies are grossly inadequate. But then - we can't even have a serious discussion as a country. We have to tiptoe even around DISCUSSING these issues, never mind taking action.
As a Millennial with kids, we are so fucked. The Line has started to really depress me because they recognize a lot of the issues, but aren't even serious about talking about them. And if we can't even open space for real, honest discussion, we'll never, ever in a million years solve the problems.
Regarding the Albertxit segment, it was good to hear that the polling numbers alone indicate a necessary level of increased attention to succession. It's almost like it might be important. But then much time was spent torpedoing why this attention to a western succession model (Cascadia in particular) was completely unwarranted... because of polling numbers!
Umm...
What was missed (again) was where that support for succession is rising/growing, creating a very concerning TREND line into the future and why, because of that rising trend, this is NOT some deluded fringe element unhinged from legitimate concerns of how this might play out... unless one honestly believes that Preston Manning is also an equivalently deluded unserious fringe lunatic. I don't think he is.
I certainly can grasp why he explains that such a typical attitude about western succession demonstrated by our hosts on this topic plays its role that he thinks will only be amplified by a majority Liberal government in Ottawa (because that's the long term trend line out of Ottawa). The historical message by central and eastern Canada is that western concerns matter a very great deal but, if you're a good Canadian, they don't really. Now close your fringe mouth and get back to preferred Laurentian politics as usual. Under our New And Improved Leadership, we have today's latest poll numbers to follow.
I'm not reading or hearing anything informed from The Line editors that differs from this narrative.
Let's revisit what Manning actually says in the opinion piece that I think is quite interesting:
"Western political leaders need to provide a mechanism for recognizing and addressing the growing support for Western secession in an orderly and democratic manner, so that its support and leadership are not surrendered to extremists or eccentrics for lack of thoughtful consideration of how best to proceed. (ed: Jen seems to have missed this part entirely nor comments on Smith reaching out to Legault doing exactly this. What... too fringe?) Initially, this mechanism need not be a Western secession party after the Quebec model of the Parti or Bloc Québécois (Matt seems to have missed this part entirely but doubles down on Quebec succession polling numbers are currently low), but rather a democratic forum to first consider various alternative courses of action (by) organizing a “Canada West Constitutional Conference.”
Is this Conference is a good idea? A bad idea? What do our hosts think about this? That would be interesting. But 'tackling' the Manning piece and dismissing it as some unwarranted fringe movement I think only adds to the problem empowering succession that Manning points out is not well understood by other Canadians behind the rising trend. I think this podcast adds compelling evidence to this legitimate claim.
Perhaps I am being too simplistic but I feel Pierre Poilievre has more than answered the question on vision and so I am a bit perplexed why Jen keeps banging on each week about it. His main TV ad that’s running is exactly that. His vision is mainly focused on household economics, personal freedom and safety/security. Really, its cornerstone is affordability. It avoids wandering at all into culture areas except to the extent it extols personal freedoms, I expect because as soon as Conservatives mentions anything culture related it 1) brings out the brings out kookiness and 2) gives the Liberal party something to jump on.
I get that Jen is looking for something else to inspire her but to say there hasn’t been a vision articulated isn’t really true and I think this needs to be called out. It isn’t her responsibility to do this, but it would be interesting to hear her crack at a compelling Conservative vision. I think she’s done a quick dip once or twice on this but I’d like to hear more.
It looks like Jen's comments about Alberta separatism hit hard for some folks. I suspect if a different set of polls taken where the question is: 'Should Alberta separate if Canada refuses to give the same deal as Quebec', we might get a different response. If they find the right person/s to lead and organize, then what is Canada going to say? No, Alberta, Quebec is different, that's why. And thus we get to the heart of the matter and one that rubs, I think, most Canadians the wrong way: Quebec special place in confederation.
After listening to all this I will make one simplistic comment: Canada desperately needs a strong majority government lead by someone willing to make decisions and use that majority.
Oof — Jen doubling down on that is rough to listen to. “If we’d have structured society in a way that” — the problem is that there’s a structure to society rather than biology.
Yes,Albertans need to get ou more. A neighbour told me he could hear a banjo playing when he drove down a RRoad,another sign of ‘Fresh Eggs’ for sale. Funniest thing I heard all week,and true. I know people who have never left the province :”Why? I’m in gods country!” Sigh. Yes,Ottawa has been rough on Alberta,and all provinces past Kenora,ON. I saw more flags on pickup trucks in Northern Ontario than in AB combined. Power is very centralized,and the government acts entitled. Insulting and aggravating. Seperation is going to cost us so much in so many ways. No is my vote
Appreciated the discussion on Poilievre's comments re biological clock. It's a difficult subject for a male politician to really drive home. See JD Vance and his efforts trying to bring the issue to the forefront. But the policy issue is real. It ties together the healthcare challenges many are facing (lack of access to specialized or even primary care physicians), but the affordability of not being able to afford a home. Which further compounds the long-term demographic and economic challenges Canada faces.
In our own personal circumstances, we held off for a number of years to build capital, equity, and be able to afford the family, and by the time we had the security in our late 20's/early 30's, we ultimately just made the decision to move to the US, with all the issues and challenges associated with that, because it still provided a better long-term outlook at a micro-level than what Canada could provide for family planning and long-term economic well-being.
It ties together as well to your earlier segment on the Conservatives tinkering around the edges, in a good way, with their policies. But ultimately, the challenges with Canada run deeper and are more structural, which is probably the consistent overarching theme of The Line generally tbh, than any of the federal parties recognize. The provincial parties recognize this, but struggle in their solutions. Alberta with its failed experiment in privatizing certain aspects of its healthcare system to create greater access is a recent example.
On the last segment on western separatism, whole heartedly agree with the analysis. The only thing I would note is that Premier Scott Moe a couple years ago conducted some closed door town halls/meetings to deal with individuals who were agitating greater autonomy and distance from Ottawa, albeit in a post-covid environment. What came of it was some initiatives to take some steam out of the kettle on that particular issue with policy solutions, see the Marshal Service or the appointment of a Chief Firearms Officer, for example, that solved both real policy problems and the obvious political ones. The solution to the recent upsurge is just that, which Danielle Smith is I think attempting to do, but in a more dynamic political environment. I don't have a good answer, but I think that's the needle she is trying to thread.
I'll add that while the Quebec-Alberta referendum comparison is fair, Quebec was pushing for independence; Alberta, even with independence, will likely join the United States. I'm not sure the capital flight dynamics would be comparable at that point. But another angle on this; would those separatists be comfortable joining the US if Obama/Biden were President? Not sure on that question.
You spent nine (9) minutes ragging on the biological clock thing, the whole time saying "I don't want to make a big deal of this, but...."
...and in that segment, you said not once, not twice, but SEVERAL times that Poilievre should have made it clear this is not a women issue, but an issue for both men and women.
Jen went so far as to say "could you please not talk to us (women) like we're cattle"....
...and yet the actual quote was "..we will not forget that young 36-year-old couple whose biological clock is running out faster than they can afford to buy a home and have kids;"
Can you PLEASE point out the inherent misogyny to me??? ....because I cannot see it.
Sorry, I love you guys, but I hold you to a standard as well, and I would appreciate it if you could react to what he actually said rather than what you thought he said.
I haven't listened to the podcast yet, but I had the same reaction to this week's title alone.
I too love the line, but sometimes, even Matt and Jenn are blind to their own shortcomings and a bit too quick to jump to conclusions.
Nobody's perfect, nor should we expect perfection.
But an acknowledgement of the bad faith arguments, when they occur would be a good start.
EDIT: listened to it and it was as bad as I expected.
Jen will always find the fly in the soup......her glass is always half empty......
I do like the interviews Jen and/or Matt do, but I don't bother to listen to there rants on The Line..... I can get the gist of the pod cast by scanning comments......
Funny. Someone(s) could make her eat the separatist soup she cooked for us. Knuckle dragging barbarians who due low IQ are meant to only serve and not to notice the eastern Laurentian choker around their necks. Frigidwind's comment is an opinion he/she is entitled to. I do not know any open separatists, so I cannot say what they are like. But I know one thing, if that crowd reaches a certain threshold, it will include some people with real political skills and organizational and communications skills.
A big reason this got so big is because Mo Amir (vancolour on Twitter) described it as a comment about women. The dude is basically functioning as a campaign operative without the job title.
It’s a major problem with everything these days. You can be 100% right but people are worried more about the tone.
I dunno, Jen. I don’t find “biological clock” offensive in any way, and it’s better than saying it’s a menopause and sperm motility problem 😀. And Pierre spoke of couples, not just women. Which leaves out a whole segment of single women having kids. Sometimes a politician just can’t win.
Jen are you angling for a $400K plus Commissioner position with the Liberal party? You list a lot of challenges an independent self governing Alberta would face and then list anticipated negative outcomes to all of them? Why? Is it because the hairy arm pitted worker bees who promote ideas of freedom don’t live in your neighborhood? (This is how a Laurentian thinks BTW) Congratulations on your research I was amazed at your rattling off all the states with more population than Alberta. Don’t lose the file it might be useful for your US citizenship test 😆.
Seriously as a state you have a lot more control over your legal environment you don’t have the all encompassing Federal tyranny that Ottawa wields over the provinces. The US federal government has a lot less control over the states in areas like criminal law, internal commerce, euthanasia of the unborn and seniors, etc.
And Canadian democracy is fast becoming an oxymoron when a few large parties preselect their candidates and fire those who might be different enough to be different from the opposition candidates to risk the election outcome. The obscenity of spending tax revenues on a 75 percent tax credit for donations to a “recognized” political party when a crippled person only gets a 15 percent credit for buying a wheelchair or an unapproved cancer drug. Is beyond belief.
As someone once said a slave that chooses its master every four years is still a slave. And the masters he gets to choose between are so vetted to prevent “garumba“ that they are virtually indistinguishable. Compare this to the open primary process in the US wheee anyone can seek nomination and can’t be removed because of some foolish enthusiastic position they took in the past. Sure you get results that make the parties uncomfortable (eg AOC in the Democrats, Sarah Palin for the Republicans) but this is a process of natural selection which leads to a better species. The Canadian selection process can best be described as inbreeding. Copying English royalty?
Matt may have concerns about offending people like Mike Myers when discussing Carney’s absurd comments about “Canada leading” but I sure as hell don’t. Fear of offending people? FFS, anyone offended at hearing Canada is currently in no position to lead the world at ANYTHING needs to be metaphorically slapped upside the head. More than once.
Seriously, what are we good at? Our military contributions are disgraceful and we are not the least bit ashamed about that. Our health care system sucks – I can’t tell you how relieved I am to live just one hour from Buffalo – and many people passionately guard against making ANY substantive changes to it. Our economy is an ossified relic that (like our health care system) is built entirely on a fear of free-enterprise/competition supplemented by insane subsidies with entirely predictable results. And in case a fear of competition isn’t enough to cripple us economically we are also more over-regulated than someone who takes triple doses of Metamucil every day and for good measure we also insist that we must cater to every woke shibboleth before sticking a shovel in the ground. We have no respect for free speech. Our patriotism consists of sneering at Americans. And Net-Zero Carney thinks we are in a position to lead the world? Good grief. This is more insane than anything PP (and possibly Jagmeet) has ever said. But of course, it feeds many Canadians’ delusions about their Country.
What is becoming very apparent to me is that the reaction to Trump’s buffoonery has resulted in many people panicking and looking to grasp onto anything that looks like a safe harbour to them. As a result they are more than happy to sign up with someone who they think can take them back to what they recall as the blissful pre-Trump times of six months ago. Well, six months ago every problem set out above was already in place and getting worse.
And this rant should absolutely not be taken as an endorsement of PP. As Jen said, some of these Conservative policies might have been reasonable to put forward 2+ years ago. Not today. Smashing the cartels are mere table-stakes at this point and PP himself is still dedicated to preserving them. Nothing short of a massive Javier Milei-type overhaul is gonna’ get us anywhere. And that ain't on offer anywhere that I can see.
Man, you are on fire here, good points. I will elaborate on one item only, if either PP or Carney have a Javier Milei-type overhaul up their sleeve, letting on that before the election day would for sure tank their chances of winning.
I would love to see that, but doubtful.
If true, my bet is on PP.
Same here.
Yeah, that is definitely a fair point.
I’m wondering when people are going to figure out that Carney actually hasn’t said anything. He states that the world of globalization is over because of US action, but then proposes essentially globalization. He states that we need to diversify trade east and west but is going to keep Bill 69. We need free trade deals with Europe, but hands-off supply management which has been the one reason why the free trade deals don’t work. of the policy proposals he has made, he has ripped them off the conservatives.
Once again, I feel that we are falling for style over substance.
Also, the CPC canning any candidate right now is insane. They were going to form government for like 18 months minimum. The fact that they didn’t have everyone in place before now, and fully vetted, raises big questions. I’ll give the libs the benefit of not being prepared for this moment (leader being elected, leader signing off, etc) in a way I won’t give the CPC the same leeway.
Agree, the fact they hadn’t done a more thorough vetting struck me as very odd for same reasons. Especially as I would have thought they had ample resources to do it and had a number of potential candidates to choose from so could avoid the ones with problematic histories.
Right?? I’m left feeling like things that look bad now were still bad then, they just didn’t think it would hurt their chances.
I think Biological Clockposting is good actually. Pierre is having a hard time punching through against a coronated PM, and that one little phrase punched through!
As a greybearded dad, I promise you that the clock exists for men too although not as severely - we would absolutely have had a 4th kid if we had started earlier, even though we totally could produce one (we just did last year). I'm just too tired and I don't want to be an old man with teenagers
The real biological clock is : you're going to die
Same here. I'm 43 and working on #2. Would love a third, but time is against me.
The issue with the AB separatists is that they’re just the dregs of society, the kind that get shit on because they bring it upon themselves through stupidity compounded by obstinacy. Obviously AB has legitimate concerns about how it fits into Canada, but when was the last time that Wexit was a movement helmed by and consisting of smart people? Never. Instead, you have the antivax oppositional defiant disorder types who moan on about “globalists” because they’re too stupid to get with the times, which is exactly why G&G were able to poke so many holes in their narrative with little effort - because it’s a movement of idiots, by idiots and for idiots. Their American analogues are the backwards MAGA types who think that the Dear Leader will bring back jobs in the sock factory that pay 100k+. Does anyone think it’s just a coincidence that they decided to buddy up to the Trump administration? No, because they see in them kindred spirits- which gives us a great view of what their governance would look like if they ever got near power. Fundamentally, their issue is that they think they’re actual people instead of things that, by virtue of their ineptitude, exist to do as they are told; G&G pointed out the susceptibility of being weaponizing as patsies for bad actors. QC separatism, as dumb as it was, at least had (note the past tense) a thin stratum of serious thinkers that attempted to work out the kinks, though they failed as well. Without those types, what can one expect from a moment of those who share posts about the virtues of ivermectin on Facebook and prance around with “ARREST TRUDEAU” signs? At best, comedy with them as the punchline, at worst an even dumber version of the FLQ, with a few fat bearded knuckledraggers with F-150s trying their hand at being “the resistance”. The usual rejoinder will be “but we’re people and we count”, and to that I say: no, you exist to be servants, do as you’re told and comply, because usually when you try to think for yourself it goes poorly.
Sorry Frigidwind. You exude exactly the attitude that infuriates Albertans who have seen central Canada put roadblocks into place, hindering over, and over, and over again Alberta’s natural growth.
I want to set something completely clear for Central Canadians (and all Canadians). I grew up in Alberta on a farm. I am in fact likely far more conservative than Pierre Poillievre. I moved to the States and am now a citizen. When I moved here (Denver, please come visit Colorado) I assumed I would be a Republican. Well, I did not vote for President Trump. Turns out, I am a George Bush Sr./Bill Clinton voter, and I am willing to bet that almost all conservative Albertans are the same.
Please stop saying that Canadian Conservatives are the same as MAGA. It is akin to calling Canadian Liberals Stalinists…and that is also equally insane.
I didn’t say “Canadian conservatives”. The text specifically focused on AB separatists. The vast majority of Canadian (and Albertan) conservatives are not separatists. “Maple MAGA” is a tiny portion of the population and conservative voters. Improve your reading comprehension. Also, G&G have shown many, many times of how Albertans aren’t actually that conservative (the PCs were fairly analogous to Liberals in other provinces in terms of policy), so I’m gonna say you’re likely an outlier in AB in terms of political ideology. As for “infuriating” Albertans…they seem to agree with me, given the overwhelming opposition to separation.
Appreciate your correcting me on my reading comprehension and therefore my response. Thank you.
That said, why cast such a dire description upon 1 million+ people (rough number taken by this channel’s own poll) that you have likely not even met? In fact, I am guessing you don’t even live in Alberta nor Western Canada (please prove me wrong).
For example, roughly quoting you:
Dregs of Society? Stupid? Not smart? Too stupid to get with the times? Idiots, by idiots, for idiots? Backward MAGA types?
Regardless of what you think, this kind of dialogue is simply not constructive. If you want to take the high ground, please at least give lip service to it.
Thank you. I think this idea that Conservatives in Canada are akin to Republicans is simplistic and wrong and that is even more the case when it comes to the MAGA Republicans. Personally I don’t even get how someone can be MAGA if they’re not American.
I agree Canadian Liberals are not quite Stalinists. They do however tolerate dictatorial and tyrannical behavior in their leadership and political commissariats. Anti free enterprise, state dominance, weakening property ownership laws - not that these amounted to much anyway-, disarming the population, banning truly free speech, compliant French judiciary - the list goes on.
I too became a free and proud American. And a Republican. For me the choice was easy when looking at the competition. Having seen what happened to Canada over 70 years there was no way I wanted my great new country to suffer the same fate.
I’ll come to Denver if you’ll come to Cottonwood AZ. And you’re welcome to carry if you want. 😎
Wasn’t the buffalo declaration at least competent?
Depends on what you mean by “competent”. In the sense that it didn’t look like the scrawlings of the types I saw in2020-2021 re vaccines/the WEF/lizard people etc, sure. It did touch on some legitimate grievances, which I did acknowledge, but also mixed in some idiotic arguments (eg AB as a “disctinct culture”, which is a transparent attempt to copy QC - and by that token practically every province, city and town has a “distinct culture”.). The solutions range from reasonable (provincial control over resource revenue, reworking equalization), pointless symbolism a la Trudeau (parliamentary apology for the NEP more AB art - lol) and stupid (malapportionment of parliament, affirmative action for Albertans in the civil service, “consultations” etc). If I were inclined to be charitable, I’d say it’s a group of politicians who identified some reasonable concerns (that I, an Albertan, share!), laid them out in a manner more calculated to pander to their base than persuade, offered some solutions that attempted to address their issues while stroking some egos and then went off the rails with the demands while shooting themselves in the foot with a threat of separation.
Going back through AB history, it’s a clear fact that the separatists have almost uniformly been malcontents that didn’t fit into any mainstream party, and the delegation to Maralago wasn’t much different.
It's interesting to see how The Line (Jen & Matt) exemplify a huge Canadian issue.
We can't have serious discussions. And neither can Matt and Jen.
1) You can't discuss immigration - even very normal, majority supported opinions - without massive throat clearing about how amazing immigrants are and how they are better.
2) To actually address affordability and fertility you'd have to enact very radical policies that would reduce housing value and give serious incentives to couples. Yet we can't even talk about this without a 10 minute rant against "biological clock". If we have to debate the sensitivity of factually accurate statements (that apply to both sexes) we're fucked. Because the actions necessary are a lot more divisive than "biological clock".
3) You want major policy proposals from the Cons but won't accept that actually addressing things like affordability, housing, fertility, etc. would involve... very disruptive and aggressive policies. Yet we can't even talk about fertility or immigration without upsetting the apple cart.
I'm not a PP supporter or Con partisan. Yes, they're policies are grossly inadequate. But then - we can't even have a serious discussion as a country. We have to tiptoe even around DISCUSSING these issues, never mind taking action.
As a Millennial with kids, we are so fucked. The Line has started to really depress me because they recognize a lot of the issues, but aren't even serious about talking about them. And if we can't even open space for real, honest discussion, we'll never, ever in a million years solve the problems.
Regarding the Albertxit segment, it was good to hear that the polling numbers alone indicate a necessary level of increased attention to succession. It's almost like it might be important. But then much time was spent torpedoing why this attention to a western succession model (Cascadia in particular) was completely unwarranted... because of polling numbers!
Umm...
What was missed (again) was where that support for succession is rising/growing, creating a very concerning TREND line into the future and why, because of that rising trend, this is NOT some deluded fringe element unhinged from legitimate concerns of how this might play out... unless one honestly believes that Preston Manning is also an equivalently deluded unserious fringe lunatic. I don't think he is.
I certainly can grasp why he explains that such a typical attitude about western succession demonstrated by our hosts on this topic plays its role that he thinks will only be amplified by a majority Liberal government in Ottawa (because that's the long term trend line out of Ottawa). The historical message by central and eastern Canada is that western concerns matter a very great deal but, if you're a good Canadian, they don't really. Now close your fringe mouth and get back to preferred Laurentian politics as usual. Under our New And Improved Leadership, we have today's latest poll numbers to follow.
I'm not reading or hearing anything informed from The Line editors that differs from this narrative.
Let's revisit what Manning actually says in the opinion piece that I think is quite interesting:
"Western political leaders need to provide a mechanism for recognizing and addressing the growing support for Western secession in an orderly and democratic manner, so that its support and leadership are not surrendered to extremists or eccentrics for lack of thoughtful consideration of how best to proceed. (ed: Jen seems to have missed this part entirely nor comments on Smith reaching out to Legault doing exactly this. What... too fringe?) Initially, this mechanism need not be a Western secession party after the Quebec model of the Parti or Bloc Québécois (Matt seems to have missed this part entirely but doubles down on Quebec succession polling numbers are currently low), but rather a democratic forum to first consider various alternative courses of action (by) organizing a “Canada West Constitutional Conference.”
Is this Conference is a good idea? A bad idea? What do our hosts think about this? That would be interesting. But 'tackling' the Manning piece and dismissing it as some unwarranted fringe movement I think only adds to the problem empowering succession that Manning points out is not well understood by other Canadians behind the rising trend. I think this podcast adds compelling evidence to this legitimate claim.
Perhaps I am being too simplistic but I feel Pierre Poilievre has more than answered the question on vision and so I am a bit perplexed why Jen keeps banging on each week about it. His main TV ad that’s running is exactly that. His vision is mainly focused on household economics, personal freedom and safety/security. Really, its cornerstone is affordability. It avoids wandering at all into culture areas except to the extent it extols personal freedoms, I expect because as soon as Conservatives mentions anything culture related it 1) brings out the brings out kookiness and 2) gives the Liberal party something to jump on.
I get that Jen is looking for something else to inspire her but to say there hasn’t been a vision articulated isn’t really true and I think this needs to be called out. It isn’t her responsibility to do this, but it would be interesting to hear her crack at a compelling Conservative vision. I think she’s done a quick dip once or twice on this but I’d like to hear more.
It looks like Jen's comments about Alberta separatism hit hard for some folks. I suspect if a different set of polls taken where the question is: 'Should Alberta separate if Canada refuses to give the same deal as Quebec', we might get a different response. If they find the right person/s to lead and organize, then what is Canada going to say? No, Alberta, Quebec is different, that's why. And thus we get to the heart of the matter and one that rubs, I think, most Canadians the wrong way: Quebec special place in confederation.
After listening to all this I will make one simplistic comment: Canada desperately needs a strong majority government lead by someone willing to make decisions and use that majority.
Oof — Jen doubling down on that is rough to listen to. “If we’d have structured society in a way that” — the problem is that there’s a structure to society rather than biology.
Yes,Albertans need to get ou more. A neighbour told me he could hear a banjo playing when he drove down a RRoad,another sign of ‘Fresh Eggs’ for sale. Funniest thing I heard all week,and true. I know people who have never left the province :”Why? I’m in gods country!” Sigh. Yes,Ottawa has been rough on Alberta,and all provinces past Kenora,ON. I saw more flags on pickup trucks in Northern Ontario than in AB combined. Power is very centralized,and the government acts entitled. Insulting and aggravating. Seperation is going to cost us so much in so many ways. No is my vote
Appreciated the discussion on Poilievre's comments re biological clock. It's a difficult subject for a male politician to really drive home. See JD Vance and his efforts trying to bring the issue to the forefront. But the policy issue is real. It ties together the healthcare challenges many are facing (lack of access to specialized or even primary care physicians), but the affordability of not being able to afford a home. Which further compounds the long-term demographic and economic challenges Canada faces.
In our own personal circumstances, we held off for a number of years to build capital, equity, and be able to afford the family, and by the time we had the security in our late 20's/early 30's, we ultimately just made the decision to move to the US, with all the issues and challenges associated with that, because it still provided a better long-term outlook at a micro-level than what Canada could provide for family planning and long-term economic well-being.
It ties together as well to your earlier segment on the Conservatives tinkering around the edges, in a good way, with their policies. But ultimately, the challenges with Canada run deeper and are more structural, which is probably the consistent overarching theme of The Line generally tbh, than any of the federal parties recognize. The provincial parties recognize this, but struggle in their solutions. Alberta with its failed experiment in privatizing certain aspects of its healthcare system to create greater access is a recent example.
On the last segment on western separatism, whole heartedly agree with the analysis. The only thing I would note is that Premier Scott Moe a couple years ago conducted some closed door town halls/meetings to deal with individuals who were agitating greater autonomy and distance from Ottawa, albeit in a post-covid environment. What came of it was some initiatives to take some steam out of the kettle on that particular issue with policy solutions, see the Marshal Service or the appointment of a Chief Firearms Officer, for example, that solved both real policy problems and the obvious political ones. The solution to the recent upsurge is just that, which Danielle Smith is I think attempting to do, but in a more dynamic political environment. I don't have a good answer, but I think that's the needle she is trying to thread.
I'll add that while the Quebec-Alberta referendum comparison is fair, Quebec was pushing for independence; Alberta, even with independence, will likely join the United States. I'm not sure the capital flight dynamics would be comparable at that point. But another angle on this; would those separatists be comfortable joining the US if Obama/Biden were President? Not sure on that question.
Anyways, random ramblings. Good episode.