Here’s a thread for the Canadian election
Today’s the day. The prediction is that the liberal will win – and that Trump bears some of the blame:
The Conservative Party had a big lead in polls…until President Donald Trump started his tariff talks and annexing Canada.
“In an Angus Reid Institute poll released on Dec. 30, the Conservatives were in super-majority territory with 45% support, compared to the Liberals at 11%. The results of a poll released on Saturday had the Liberals at 44% with a four-point lead over the Conservatives at 40%.”
Of course, are the polls correct? I certainly don’t know. But it does seem like an oddly fickle response to make Trump’s bluster the deciding factor, and it’s not as though the Conservative candidate is saying he wants Canada to become part of the US. It also seems to me like the country that elected Trudeau over and over and over isn’t suddenly becoming overwhelmingly conservative
I live in Mesa, and Canuckistanian snowbirds are many of my neighbors. Absolutely many of them would vote Liberal in the belief they are sticking it to Trump. Never mind that Carney was Justin Castreau’s chief advisor, under whom Canada dropped from par with the US to the bottom of the G-nation rankings.
Their richest province is now poorer than Mississippi.
Of course legacy media is running with “it’s Trump’s fault”. Quite aside from that, elections in Canada are not much like elections in the US.
For one, Canada is completely run by its rackets and elites, including legacy media.
For two, the people do not get to choose the Prime Minister, who doesn’t even have to be in Parliament, and does not have a fixed term.
For three, the “constitution” of Canada was not designed with a Prime Minister in mind. In the assemblage of laws and documents set down at various times that in Canada are considered to be the “constitution”, the office of the Prime Minister is hardly mentioned, much less defined.
The upshot is that citizens in Canada don’t get much say in what their government does, and they are much farther down the road that the US has been on where the government ends up selecting itself and serving its own ends.
However, they do have paper ballots and get them all counted in a very short time, so they are one up on us there. But that’s probably to be expected when elections are of such little consequence, they may as well be clean as not.
Donald J. Trump, what can’t he do?
In case it’s of interest…
The theory underpinning the Westminster governments (like the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) is that all power derives from King-In-Parliament, and that power is unlimited and absolute, bound only by physical and logical impossibility. The “constitution” of a Westminster government is the day-to-day understanding of how the components of King-In-Parliament work together to get things done. There is no one document that spells out how a Westminster government works and there’s nothing corresponding to the American constitutional amendment process; when there’s enough of a consensus the constitution just changes, and it doesn’t matter that it isn’t written down anywhere what a “Prime Minister” is or how you get one.
The US Constitution was established by the people of the United States, working through their states. That’s why the whole mechanism of Federal government is explicitly spelled out (as thoroughly as they thought they needed to, anyway). Unlike the King-In-Parliament, the people and the states are not part of the Federal government; they have created this machine and delegated it to act in their interests in circumscribed (at the time anyway) situations.
But in the Westminster governments the King and Parliament are both actually in the government doing day-to-day stuff as well as floating in the ether with absolute and unlimited power, so they can pull new governing powers out of that ether whenever they wish. The Federal government cannot in theory do this, there is a bright line between the components of the Federal government and the people-through-the-states that established it.
No one knows how extensive the powers of the people-through-their-states are, if they’re absolute and unlimited like King-In-Parliament, but whatever those powers are, Amendment X confirms that they still have any they didn’t delegate away. And one of those powers is to create and adopt new constitutions, because that has been done now twice.
And that’s why there’s an amendment process that sidesteps Congress, because the people-through-their-states can not only create and adopt a new constitution but change the one we have now.
What’s far more important than any of the theory of course, is that if the broad mass of the population tolerates the behavior of the government, it behaves that way regardless of what pieces of paper say.
I don’t think a parliamentary system per se is disagreeable. Canada’s political order IMO would be improved if you had fixed terms of office for legislators and if you had a rotation-in-office rule in place for elected officials and the holders of senior discretionary appointments. Also, it should be a matter of law that candidates for seats in legislatures are nominated by caucuses of party members living in particular constituencies and that candidates for seats in legislative bodies must reside in their constituencies before nominating caucuses, to have filed their most recent tax return from an address within the constituency and to have a sufficient residence history in the provincial subregions touching on the constituency. I suspect the country’s politics would also benefit by requiring candidates for elective office be within a given age range (39-72 for federal and provincial legislatures, wider rages for local offices), by replacing the current system for selecting upper chambers, by modifying the powers of upper chambers, by replacing the current system for selecting the heads of state, and by enhancing the discretion of heads of state. After 1982, they also developed a hideous problem with misbehavior by the appellate judiciary.
[Canada’s] richest province is now poorer than Mississippi.
Gordon Scott.
Great comment.
I would add that is now true for most of Europe at the GDP per capita level. My guess is the problems are the EU, demographics, technology and poor energy choices.
Europe has always lagged the US, but in the past 25 years it got worse.
–Jeremy Rifkin, “The European Dream: How Europe’s Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream” (2004)
I remember browsing this book back then and wondering.
Good times.
Jeremy Rifkin is still a tool.
Election called for Carney. So Canada won’t become the 51st state? 🙂
Canadians are sensitive about their relations to us. Of course Trump’s style is going to be off-putting to them.
Afte Justin Trudeau resigned in failure, Conservatives were leading the polls by a mile. And we were all watching and admiring speeches by Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.
Then Trump took office, repeatedly and inexplicably shot his mouth off about annexing Canada, tore up the free trade agreement he had negotiated with Canada during his first term and launched a full scale trade war. Immediately thereafter, Canadian Liberals roared back from the dead to not only win, but win convincingly. In the matter of a few months, Pierre Poilievre went from Prime Minister in waiting to now being ousted from from the Canadian Parliament altogether.
Nah. I’m sure Trump’s behavior had nothing to do with it.
Trump is King Midas in reverse.
Rifkin hes still around snorfle
Of course trump will crush canadaa economy like a tin can
Polievre lost his own seat yes thats a legit election
And now comes Miguel Cervantes to claim that the election was stolen. Tell me, are you picking any AM signals with that tinfoil hat?
In all seriousness, MAGA has become like the boy who cried wolf with the claims of election fraud. I’m not discounting or denying leftist dirty tricks at all, but sometimes you lose elections because the people preferred the other party. In a situation like this where the country of Canada is literally under threat of annexation from the United States, it is not surprising in the least that voters turned to the Liberal party. It is, rightly, seen as the party most willing to stand up to Trump. And this is the same electorate that made Justin Trudeau prime minister so many times.
It’s just a shame that so many sane Canadians are going to have to live under woke tyrants for another election cycle.
The only question is, HOW FAST Carney, who has already performed some impressive flip-flopping during his career, will climb down from his tree.
(To the applause of the state-run media.)
On the other hand, he may yet be able to persuade the “True North Strong and Free” that it is far preferable to be subservient to the WEF/WTF (or, if one prefers, the CCP) than to find some sort of modus vivendi with le Diable south of the border….
(The two above alternatives, to be sure, are not mutually exclusive….)
A defer to a greater authority
https://www.steynonline.com/15249/losers-gotta-lose
A victim of the human rights kangaroo tribunals a man abandoned by national review betrayed by the lawfare a prophet about his former homeland
CC™ can put his tin foil where the sun don’t shine.
Canadians are going to continue to suffer under totalitarians until they learn to ignore the latest shiney object from the south.
But CC™ will always have The Great Orange Whale.
I haven’t seen how the prairie provinces voted, as opposed to the east and west provinces.
Canada, like the UK, will pay the price for sticking with the wrong leadership.
Bauxite is right. Canadians elected Carney because of Trump. Now they can live with him. Here’s what they’re getting:
(Was going to link to Mark Steyn’s column, but see that Miguel beat me to it.)
Bauxite: “It’s just a shame that so many sane Canadians are going to have to live under woke tyrants for another election cycle.”
Yes, it is. But if a solid majority of Canadians vote for woke tyrants because they’re pissed off at Trump, that tells you something about the country. There’s a silver lining, however. Sane Canadians can always come to the States. We should welcome them.
Trump wasn’t wrong about Canada under Trudeau and he wasn’t wrong about the need for a reset in Canadian-U.S. relations. If his trash-talk hurt Canadian feelings, well, too bad. I’d like to see better relations between the U.S. and Canada but not if it means pulling our punches on contentious issues and eternally trying to appease Canadian sensitivities vis-à-vis the U.S., which will never be appeased. (FWIW, I went to university in Canada and have relatives in Montreal and Toronto.)
Finally, let us note that Trump has accomplished things that nobody else has. He’s gotten the Europeans to start taking responsibility for their own defense (or at least talk about it) and he’s revived Canadian patriotism. What’s next: a return to the Canadian Red Ensign?
If Canadians were to finally get good and sick of their poor leaders they could change them quickly. They just have to get enough voters to reach that point.
I saw an insightful comment on X (I know, I could hardly believe it myself). It noted that the Canadians are former subjects. They didn’t take their independence; they politely asked until it was given, and then they held fast as a member of the Commonwealth.
However far down the road we are, however many citizens are prepared to be ruled instead of led, there is still a significant (and maybe growing) cohort that takes pride in the fact that our country was born in blood and fire, not a strongly worded letter.
This is analogous to the theme that Trump actually benefitted from losing in 2020; his 2nd term now will be so much more productive.
Another year or 3 of Trudeau-style governance will further weaken Canada in purse and spirit. Our deal to make it our 51st state will be that much easier and more advantageous for the USA.
It’s 3-D chess, obviously.
OTOH, I care a little that California, NY, IL voters muck their states up because they are part of the US, and have a peripheral effect on me as a Texan. Take that down by an order of magnitude or so, and you get my level of care about Canada.
West TX: as a native New Englander, I care more about Canada than you do. Canada played a big role in my region’s history and there are still large French-Canadian and Maritime communities in many New England cities and towns. It’s like the relationship between Texas and Mexico. New England also is or was a popular vacation destination for Canadians. Cape Cod and the Rhode Island shoreline are the French-Canadian Riviera–“Je me souviens” (I Remember) fleur-de-lis license plates all over the place in the summer. That will probably change, to the detriment of communities that depend on Canadian tourism.
I enjoyed the time I spent in Canada and am grateful for the education I received there many years ago. That’s why Canada’s descent into woke dictatorship saddens me. Trump is an irritant, but the real problems have to do with Canada’s political culture, not Trump’s inflammatory comments.
What we see across the occidental world is a dilatory and otiose response to the malicious projects of the political class. Canada is not alone in this. Ultimately, we have to attempt an internal reconstruction and hope for the best in re the rest of the West.
==
The true enemy, of course, is China.
It’s been a long time since I’ve paid attention to Canada, but IIRC the political center of gravity is to the left of the USA, and Ontario has the most weight to throw around due to its population.
The western provinces of BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan have long been considered more conservative than the rest of the country, but with Trudeau having opened up the immigration floodgates I wonder how true that really is? My wife and I visited Vancouver about 1-1/2 years ago, and (at least in the downtown area) you felt as if you had landed in a place that was a weird mashup of Hong Kong and India.
I heard that one of the issues that has Canadians ticked off is the cost of housing. Yet strangely enough they appear not to have blamed that on the Liberals.
and he’s revived Canadian patriotism.
==
Chuckles. If there were such a thing as Canadian patriotism, the Conservative Party would have been consistent advocates of low-levels of immigration and the Liberal Party would have been out on their ass after the experience of the last 10 years and its effects on (for example) the housing market in Canada.
==
I’m a regular participant of a blog run by starboard Canadians. They are focused on a half dozen shiny objects (the carbon tax, ‘deficiency payments’ to Quebec), but have no interest in any road map out of the morass they’re in right now.
==
Now look at some other places. See, for example, the Irish Republic, where the response to the political elites population replacement policies is at best nascent. There is one minor Euroskeptic party in their spectrum.
I heard that one of the issues that has Canadians ticked off is the cost of housing. Yet strangely enough they appear not to have blamed that on the Liberals.
==
Immigration flows into Canada are massive and the housing market hasn’t kept up.
==
Please note, the agricultural population of Canada reached a plateau during the period running from 1930-40. The country was at that time as settled as its collection of biomes would permit. Further additions to the population would be allocated to town, not country.
==
Europe in 1945 had a large population of displaced persons you could not return to the captive nations, and there was certainly an argument for Canada taking its share of those to be resettled. Well, the displaced persons camps in Europe closed in 1959. You also had a small stream of outmigration from the captive nations and Canada was a proper destination for some. Well, that came to an end in 1989.
==
The resettlement of those populations aside, Canada could have gotten along passably with issuing a mean of 20,000 settler’s visas a year and tolerating a temporary resident population which averaged around 100,000 or so. Currently, there are 2.6 million temporary residents in Canada and the government has been handing out north of 400,000 settler’s visas per year.
==
On the provincial and local level, you have all sorts of policies which do damage to housing markets such as prescribed greenbelts, rent control, ‘anti-discrimination law’, and overly elaborate procedures to implement evictions. And, like other occidental countries, Canadian cities with the aid of superordinate levels of government are addled by the notion that public agencies should be in the rental housing business.
==
There has also been an explosion of vagrancy in Canada, in part a function of a function refusal to enforce the drug laws.
I think going too Trump-centric with the analysis is a problem in general, including among Trump’s staunchest enemies and his staunchest supporters. This includes here. As some of the sharper commentors on LI pointed out, a lot of the dynamics we saw emerged before Trump was inaugurated. Trudeau’s first resignation announcement greatly improved Lib Party support in the polls by removing (at least in name) one of the major ballast problems they suffered. Then there was the collapse in the third parties to the left as they rallied to support the big tentpole against the Conservatives. These played out well before Trump’s inauguration and helped define the race.
I do think Trump could have handled this better. Some riffing on the 51st State is fine, and so is putting the tariff issues on the table. But ultimately I think he did a lot of damage to Polievre’s campaign and to a lesser degree US-Canadian Relations in a way that wasn’t necessary; I was hoping we’d see more negotiations on things like Keystone XL, as well as more coordination with Polievre. But ultimately there were some pretty major weaknesses with the Canadian Tories, including Polievre apparently resting on his laurels after active and impressive campaigning, apparently expecting anti-Trudeau hate to carry him to victory (which is exactly what the Lib strategies were meant to buck). The Libs and their left wing allies neutralized many of the weaknesses they had and put the Tories in an awkward position.
But above all I think the Canadian Electorate needs to have a fair bit of blame levied against it. The kneejerk anti-American left wing nonsense has done plenty of damage before, and ultimately Trump’s tariffs were a reaction to Canadian protectionism and tariff policies towards the US, which mixed in with other border issues were things the Canadian electorate had by and large signed on to. Getting on board with some kind of economic 1812 because Bad Orange Man made jokes about Canada as the 51st State and thus getting involved in a tariff war Canada was never likely to win while talking about the prospect of a war between Canada and the US as if it were likely was always stupid. Doubly so with a lot of incredibly gullible, incredibly stupid reactions to obvious propaganda like “Carney got Trump to play nice by not taking his calls for several days/weeks” (Bullshit, absolute bullshit; even if I believed that were slightly true their office staff would be in touch and continuing to communicate and backchannel, and nothing in the pattern we’ve seen in Canada-US Comms since then whether on the National or Province/State level indicated that, but it’s obviously Lib Party soft messaging to try and go “Trump Bad, Carney Strong!”) or “Trump talked about tearing up US-Canadian Treaty in Constitution!” (Which ignored conflating a proposal to pipe water to California with the wider treaties) all while they nodded along like sheep.
If waving the bloody toga of the maple leaf and hate America and 1812 is enough to get you to ignore the hypocritical, corrupt, incompetent, and oppressive misrule of Trudeau and Carney and the Lib Party political machines, I’m sorry but you are a fundamentally unserious group of people and the 1812 Homages talking about protracted guerilla war going on for years (and yes I dealt with that) are just performative LARP about how supposedly serious you are to avoid addressing the problems. If we want to apportion some of the blame for this to Trump (AS I DO) it’s important to try and measure and apportion it like we would for other actors. Carney and Trudeau pulled a rabbit out of their hat (with or without the assistance of some corrupt shenanigans at the polling place, but unlike 2020 I don’t think those were determinative), but Polievre and the Conservatives rested on their laurels too much and then misplayed, and above all the Canadian Public decided that they were willing to accept continued poor US-Canadian relations whose impetus lay with the Canucks as well as blood libels and defamations against their nationhood so long as it wasn’t coming from the US and they got to show up “Cheeto Hitler” and the Yanks.
I largely agree with Hubert’s comments and assessments of the matter.
Because someone South of you mocks your government your going to vote in someone that is REALLY going to screw your country. So you can feel good about sticking is to literally Hitler. Cuz your feewings were hurt. The next few years are going to be disastertopia.
F Around Find Aboot post election? Self inflicted Oh Canada.
yes Danielle Smith of Alberta proved most mature, with Doug Ford, the most foolish, did he do his party any favors, thats why I lean on someone like Steyn’s insights, honestly the Anglosphere is a busted jalopy, New Zealand on reserve, perhaps India, as the longest held colony, counts in the calculus,
I do wonder with that Minitrue bill the Parliament passed some years, how actually honest was the coverage of the neighbor to the South, I mean the Corporate Press here surpasses Fleet Street in their malfeasance, and they aren’t paid anymore (i don’t think,) I’m reminded of the dystopian Sino Anglo alliance in Joss whedon’s firefly, an Empire by different nomenclature, Oceania cross atlantic neighbor,
of course recent past is prologue except for Reverend Pavlovski, and the head of the Truckers union, really few spoke out against the Maple tyranny,
Or F Aboot Find Out?
Mitchell Strand,
Many of the Canadian English came from those who fled the US due to the Revolution. They were the Loyalists.
And the French Canadians are worse.
I once was programmer to a Canadian product manager who was insufferable about Canada’s superiority to America.
Trump is America squared. I wouldn’t be at all surprised that a Canadian vote for Carney was a vote against Trump.
For a good while it looked like the Conservative Party might win a supermajority of the sort they won in 1984 and 1958. You’ll recall what the Conservatives accomplished during those years which was worth accomplishing. Not a whole lot. This may have relieved the Conservatives of presiding over another failed ministry. Just a thought. (Poilievre was always evasive on immigration).
==
I would not pretend to know what motivates the Canadian electorate. I merely note that their collective behavior is not what you’d expect from a population which wished to thrive and enjoy the blessings of liberty. The same is true of the electorates of much of Europe though not all of Europe. The resistance is currently strongest in Hungary, France, and some of the other Eastern European states.
A large part of the problem is due to what is essentially the government-run Leftist Media.
People just don’t hear much anything else, not that they’re actively looking for it.
Besides, far more enjoyable to go hysterical.
And berserk…as this would seem to demonstrate clearly that you’re a serious and rational person…
Pride is a sin, People!
This is not aboot (!) Trump.
I lived the better part of each year in Canada from 2000 -2010.
Nice and easy going on the surface, resentful below.
Legacy Canadians have a MASSIVE inferiority complex in regards to America.
‘Blood and Fire’. We’ve got it, they don’t, they know it, and it rankles. Endlessly.
Honest to God, it has destroyed their souls.
@Bauxite
Well if it isn’t Comrade Substance out to play. Aren’t you supposed to be dining out at the crow buffet?
But no. Apparently you’re back to engage in pearl clutching horsecrap as you are wont to do, while also doing very little of substance, while showing you uncritically accept the left wing MSM’s framing… at least when you think it will benefit your case. I’d call this Gell-Mann Amnesia but I think that is too generous because I suspect there’s little in the way of actual amnesia going on so much as wanton gaslighting.
The problem is that “mile” wasn’t nearly as much of an advantage as it looked, and the Libs and their allies skillfully moved to close the gap, starting with Trudeau’s resignation. And notably this began even before Trump’s inauguration. Moreover, Poilievre did not adequately counter this.
Hence some very cogent comments on LI:
And why over at Rebel Media they chiefly highlighted this:
https://www.rebelnews.com/why_did_pierre_poilievre_lose_the_election
All of this was a big problem even before Trump. I do think Trump on the whole made things worse, and I have complained about that before. But the idea that Poilievre had this locked in was a chimera, an illusion. His lead was never unassailable and indeed a united left wing coalition would find it easy enough to match and defeat. Which is precisely what happened and why to be frank it looks like the turning point of this happened before.
Perhaps, but “we all” were not all those involved or even relevant. Unlike you, the left adapted and had begun doing so even before Trump, while Poilievre and the Conservatives did not. Indeed, they and the Lib dominated media up there willfully did not adjust even after this began, hence why you are uncritically talking about Trump starting the trade war while displaying selective amnesia about Canadian tariffs and other shenanigans beforehand. I do believe Trump rode the 51st State thing too hard for too long and this hurt Pollievre (whether intentionally or not), but Pollievre was already in more trouble than he knew as Mark Steyn pointed out, precisely because he rested on his coattails.
https://www.steynonline.com/15249/losers-gotta-lose
Again, as Steyn and Rebel Media and others pointed out, this was obtained by the left wing coalition collapsing and rallying around the Lib Party tentpole, a process that began well before Trump’s inauguration.
And again, I’ll note that while Trump launched a “full scale trade war” that was in response to the Canadians tariffing the US and otherwise violating previous agreements.
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/panel-finds-canadas-practice-reserving-dairy-quotas-inconsistent-with-usmca-2022-01-04/
Among other things.
But none of those things allows you to blame everything on Trump and moreover to claim that Trump was completely unjustified in doing what he did. All while completely ignoring the utterly fucking unhinged, thoroughly mendacious propaganda on both sides of the border trying to paint Trump as an unhinged warmonger to try and gin up the spirit of 1812 (a Big Lie I note you are all too happy to go along with) while painting Carney as a strong horse.
Do I think Trump handled the Canadian issue as well as possible? No. In particular I believe he rode the 51st State thing far past when it was funny. But what is completely missing from your “analysis” (and I barely deign to call it that, because it actually isn’t based on analyzing jack shit, not even the actual polls, so much as hauling the Orange Man Bad trombone out of your arse) is anything on the Canadian side, who are portrayed as purely reacting to American and particularly Trumpian outrage.
It’s ironic how trying to paint Poilievre as a passive victim of Trump’s totally-unjustified-and-for-no-reason-one-day actions, given how that would underline how he failed to adjust. But doubly so there.
Strawman. I do think Trump’s behavior had plenty to do with it, but I don’t think it was decisive. And if you took the polls half as seriously as you claim, you’d have noticed what a more or less united left wing vote share would do.
Says a dumbfuck gaslighter who probably does not know the first thing about Canadian politics or affairs, or what Trump has done on the Pacific Rim.
In reality you are King Midas in Reverse when it comes to analysis on Trump.
He could only wish to get as good a reception as you do with yours, o Bauxite.
As for stolen? I think that’s overstating it. I certainly would not rule out some level of funny business in places like Ontario and even less with Lib Party armtwisting, but ultimately this election saw the Cons cruising for a bruising if the left wing parties rallied around the Libs (like they did) even without Trump, though I do think Trump made this worse.
Says the person who has cried wolf about Trump being useless, midas in reverse, or the weakest of Republican candidates (without a fucking iota of evidence, I might add, hence the pervasive statistical illiteracy). I have plenty of issues with MAGA’s poor follow through with fraud, but it is better than allowing it there.
Sure. And the place of balance in Canada is well to the left, as is shown by the voter share. Which the Libs brought “home” around themselves, helped by a censorious and biased media. Trump I think worsened this, especially among older Canadians, but he did not cause it.
“Threat of annexation from the United States.”
It’s amazing how Bauxite wants to be a fucking mendacious idiot uncritically signal boosting the most deranged hysteria from the left and MSM (at least when it is convenient to him on the Orange Whale Hunt), and demands we take this seriously. Without indicating the deeper problems there. And ironically I do think this shows a way in which the Libs prepared the battle space since before Trump’s inauguration. I am more than amenable to the fact that Trump’s 51st State thing was an unfunny joke he kept repeating and that the left helped goad him to do it more and then turned this into 1812 style threats of an invasion and annexation (made more credible by you). And for that Trump deserves a share of the blame.
But it’s important to measure and apportion shares of the blame. And it takes a fucking brainlet to not realize how this particular narrative was based on sand and involved much of the media blatantly lying about the “threats” and on behalf of Carney. Much as they had for Trudeau before.
Perhaps, we will see.
Remind me, when did Trudeau first get into office? Pierre or Justin. Doesn’t that hurt the Unified Theory of Bad Orange Man?
Oh, let’s not bother Bauxite with pesky things like *Checks notes*… Chronology.
And yet you can do fuckall to answer why beyond blame Trump. And yet even one who is not fervently devoted to claiming Trump can do no wrong might question why a public would be willing to unite around a corrupt carpetbagger like Carney and nod its head to some of the most deranged gaslighting and messaging about Trump planning to invade Canada or Carney standing up to him by supposedly not answering his calls for days or weeks (Bullshit, absolute bullshit; even if I believed for a second direct contact was suspended – and I don’t – their staffs would have still been in contact, let alone how that would go against the cross border contact we had seen with the Canadians and Trump on both the National and Province level).
If you’re willing to vote for Trudeau’s henchman after the Trucker crackdown, corruption in the judiciary and corporate governance, alienating India, and a host of other issues because the Libs make an alliance with their partners to consolidate the vote and wave the bloody toga of Bad Orange Man, you have bigger problems than Bad Orange Man. If you cannot even try to counter this fact, then you are probably not the right person for primetime, pace Poilievre, as Mark Steyn pointed out.