• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trudeau Popularity - or not (various polling, etc.)

People co-operate / collaborate / conspire with other likeminded individuals, often across national borders, to achieve ends that they desire. Some folks have money and are more effective in their endeavours.

Everybody is subject to their efforts to persuade / entice / coerce. All the time.

It is up to the individual to sort out the bafflegab and steer their own course.

I would much sooner live in a world of propaganda than live in a censored world.

l would also much sooner live in a fractured world of many small states than live under one central authority.

There is no one bastard that I would trust on anything, let alone on everything.
 
George Soros interferes with democracies around the world. I don't give a shit whether he was coerced or did steal from his fellow jews in the 30s as a teen. He has been a extremely rich oligarch who throws his money around for power and control, he is pretty open about it.

Many do oppose him and the other buffoon, Herr Schwab. The WEF has ZERO business influencing world policies or national interest, none, nada, zilch. Damn straight I will oppose bullshit like that. Canadians will decide for ourselves what is best for us not Soros, Schwab, WEF or any other unwanted foreign entity.
An opinion that is yours to have.
One that is sponsored and shaped by different extremely rich oligarchs who throw their money around for power and control, seeking to influence world policies, foreign nationals, and electorate opinions- just in a different direction, and with less fanfare.

Edit: Does your opinion trump those of the Canadians of all levels that share the ideals that Soros/Schwab represent? Are those opinions invalidated by their source? Their association? Their organization?
 
Last edited:
At what point does it stop being a conspiracy theory, though?


These are the verifiable facts, as it pertains to Canada & the broader 'Great Reset'...

- Trudeau & Freeland are both prominent members of the WEF, as is Mark Carney. This is all verified ...
But your specific claim was this:
... The moment him & Freeland basically became public that they take their marching orders from a f**king Nazi ...
Depending on your definition of "taking marching orders", that's a big claim. Big claims need big evidence.

After all, if hanging out with certain people = guilt or influence, there's presidential candidates south of us who hung out a lot with Jeff Epstein we should worry about, no? Or is THAT all based on PhotoShop?
Untitled.jpg

I will give you this: we should be mindful of all big-money types trying to influence things outside their sandboxes.
 
An opinion that is yours to have.
One that is sponsored and shaped by different extremely rich oligarchs who throw their money around for power and control, seeking to influence world policies, foreign nationals, and electorate opinions- just in a different direction, and with less fanfare.

Edit: Does your opinion trump those of the Canadians of all levels that share the ideals that Soros/Schwab represent? Are those opinions invalidated by their source? Their association? Their organization?
Power Corp enters Chat.....
 
John Ibbitson, writing in the Globe and Mail, gives us a history lesson:

----------

What past party revolts can teach us about the internal Liberal rebellion targeting Justin Trudeau​

JOHN IBBITSON
PUBLISHED YESTERDAY

On Sunday Feb. 3, 1963, cabinet ministers filed into the dining room at the prime minister’s residence – some angry, some confused, all worried that internal divisions had placed their Progressive Conservative government at risk. Then John Diefenbaker walked in.

The prime minister told his cabinet he wanted to dissolve Parliament and fight an election on American interference in Canadian affairs. Defence minister Douglas Harkness objected. You have lost our confidence, he declared. You should resign.

Mr. Diefenbaker leapt to his feet. Who is loyal? he demanded to know. Some rose, some stayed seated. The prime minister stalked out of the room, trailed by ministers who shouted “Traitor!” at those left behind.

Six decades later, Justin Trudeau also faces an internal rebellion, led by a cabal of Liberal MPs who want the unpopular prime minister to resign.

All those involved should take care. History tells us that such revolts can make a party unelectable for many years.

Caucus rebellions usually occur “when a leader so obviously demonstrates weakness and unpopularity,” Norman Hillmer, professor of history at Carleton University, said in an interview.

One of the worst was the cabinet split that brought down Mr. Diefenbaker.

Although his government had chalked up major successes – important reforms in immigration, health care and the justice system; a new bill of rights; leadership in the fight against apartheid – Mr. Diefenbaker’s increasingly erratic behaviour had made the Progressive Conservative prime minister unpopular with the public and many in his own party.

By the winter of 1963, his minority government was being torn apart over whether to accept nuclear-tipped Bomarc surface-to-air missiles from the United States as part of its commitment to North American air defence. Mr. Harkness wanted Canada to say yes to nuclear Bomarcs; external affairs minister Howard Green wanted Canada to say no. Mr. Diefenbaker couldn’t, or wouldn’t, decide.

After that stormy February meeting, Mr. Harkness and two other cabinet ministers resigned. Those resignations helped doom Mr. Diefenbaker in the 1963 election that made Lester Pearson Liberal prime minister.


Factional infighting helped keep the Tories out of power, with one brief exception, for more than two decades. That exception arrived in May, 1979, when Joe Clark led the PCs to a minority-government win against Pierre Trudeau’s Liberals.

But Mr. Clark’s government lost a vote of confidence over its first budget, resulting in an election in February, 1980, that delivered a fresh, majority-government mandate for Mr. Trudeau.

Over the next three years, Mr. Clark spent as much time fighting a rebellion within his own party as he did fighting the Liberals. Mr. Clark ultimately lost the leadership to Montreal businessman Brian Mulroney, who led the PCs to a huge majority-government victory the following year.

But though he worked hard to keep the party united, Mr. Mulroney’s caucus consisted of Quebec nationalists, populist conservatives and Red Tories. It was bound to fracture.

By 1993, Lucien Bouchard had led an exodus of MPs from caucus, forming the Bloc Québécois, and many conservatives were backing Preston Manning’s new Reform Party. The Progressive Conservatives were reduced to two seats in the fall election that gave Jean Chrétien’s Liberals a majority government.

For the next decade, divisions within the conservative movement doomed it to opposition status. But the Liberals were themselves divided.

Following their third majority-government win in 2000, finance minister Paul Martin openly and successfully conspired to force Mr. Chrétien to resign. By 2003, Mr. Martin was prime minister.

But the Liberals were tarnished by a scandal involving party kickbacks, while the right finally united as the new Conservative Party under Stephen Harper. By 2006, the Conservatives were in power. Bickering within the Liberal Party contributed to a decade in opposition, until Mr. Trudeau unified the party and brought it power in 2015.

Now Mr. Trudeau faces his own caucus revolt, with the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre streets ahead in the polls. Caucus divisions risk dooming the Liberals once again to years in the wilderness.

But Robert Bothwell, professor emeritus of history at University of Toronto, offers this consolation: Internal party splits “are bad, but not necessarily fatal,” he told me.

Both the Tories and the Grits have stabbed themselves in the back more than once. But sooner or later, both rose again.

----------

Parenthetically, I remember the Diefenbaker/Harkness thing very well. I was a young, junior NCO, serving in a Honest John missile battery in Camp Shilo and we - and our missiles - were part of the crisis and we knew it.

But the bigger lesson is that parties are very human things and people can disagree on matters of principle and leaders can find it hard to decide on big questions of principle.
 

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but aside from his family, the biggest supporter of Justin Trudeau is Pierre Poilievre.

If Trudeau pulls a Biden and goes away, the CPC has to shift their messaging. They can substitute “The LPC” for “Trudeau” but without a specific person to pin it on, it won’t have the same effect.

Plus, if someone like Mark Carney becomes LPC leader, it’s a bit harder to argue that he is Trudeau part deux.
 

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but aside from his family, the biggest supporter of Justin Trudeau is Pierre Poilievre.

If Trudeau pulls a Biden and goes away, the CPC has to shift their messaging. They can substitute “The LPC” for “Trudeau” but without a specific person to pin it on, it won’t have the same effect.

Plus, if someone like Mark Carney becomes LPC leader, it’s a bit harder to argue that he is Trudeau part deux.

Wait for it.... ;)

1730246851748.png
 
An opinion that is yours to have.
One that is sponsored and shaped by different extremely rich oligarchs who throw their money around for power and control, seeking to influence world policies, foreign nationals, and electorate opinions- just in a different direction, and with less fanfare.

Edit: Does your opinion trump those of the Canadians of all levels that share the ideals that Soros/Schwab represent? Are those opinions invalidated by their source? Their association? Their organization?

Everybody has a right to be wrong. ;)
 
Nice try (again?), guys ....
Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland has rejected the idea of the Liberal caucus holding a secret ballot vote on Justin Trudeau's leadership, saying it's "just not how Liberals govern themselves."

Last week, 24 members of the caucus signed on to a letter calling on the prime minister to step down, but the next day Trudeau said firmly that he will lead his party into the next election.

Some of the dissenters are now calling for Liberal MPs to vote in a secret ballot on whether Trudeau should remain leader.

Freeland said leaders are not chosen by secret ballot in the Liberal party.

"Our party and our caucus have had many opportunities to decide our own rules for choosing a leader," she said at her weekly press conference on Tuesday.

"Our party decided on that, and our caucus decided on that. And in our rules, the leader is not chosen by secret ballot of caucus members." ...
Also, more kvetching from the hard left ....
 
Last edited:

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but aside from his family, the biggest supporter of Justin Trudeau is Pierre Poilievre.

If Trudeau pulls a Biden and goes away, the CPC has to shift their messaging. They can substitute “The LPC” for “Trudeau” but without a specific person to pin it on, it won’t have the same effect.

Plus, if someone like Mark Carney becomes LPC leader, it’s a bit harder to argue that he is Trudeau part deux.
For the win! Besties! You can do it, Justin! Fight the good fight!

1730285991509.jpeg

ps. Love the CTV photoshop! 😂 Makes it look like PP is JT’s mini-me. LOL PP is actually 6’3” to JT’s 6’2”, not that you would know it from the media’s juxtaposition…
 
6
For the win! Besties! You can do it, Justin! Fight the good fight!

View attachment 88751

ps. Love the CTV photoshop! 😂 Makes it look like PP is JT’s mini-me. LOL PP is actually 6’3” to JT’s 6’2”, not that you would know it from the media’s juxtaposition…
6’3”? I know he’s tall but I don’t think he’s that tall. There are few pics out there with them together and JT always seems taller.

1730287052948.png
 
Campbell Park, writing in yesterday's Globe and Mail, weighs in on the issue:

----------

Trudeau seeks to dodge the verdict of his own party​

CAMPBELL CLARK
PUBLISHED YESTERDAY

It’s obvious why Justin Trudeau doesn’t want Liberal MPs to hold a secret-ballot vote on his leadership: He might not win.

There can be no other reason at this point, when Mr. Trudeau is deep into a third term, facing defeat in the Commons and contested within his own Liberal Party.

That’s why Mr. Trudeau’s loyal cabinet ministers are pushing back against the idea of a vote. It’s a proposal that could actually force the Prime Minister to go.

Last Wednesday, two dozen Liberal MPs backed a letter asking him to step aside, but the Prime Minister strode out confidently and declared his party “strong and united.”

The truth is that it is neither of those things.

Mr. Trudeau reflected on the complaints of his backbench MPs for just one day before he told reporters he is staying to lead the Liberal Party through the next election – and then more backbenchers expressed doubts about his leadership.

Now there are MPs calling for a way to decide it definitively, so the mess doesn’t drag on – a secret-ballot vote.

It really would be simple, wouldn’t it? Mr. Trudeau’s loyalists insist that he has the support of the vast majority of Liberal MPs, but the backbenchers calling for him to step down don’t think that’s true. Why not decide things with a vote?

The ministers who spoke out against a secret ballot before Tuesday’s cabinet meeting offered half-baked arguments against it: It’s not the way we do things, there’s no need, MPs can express themselves in caucus meetings, and we’re pretty united, anyway. Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said the leadership issue is “largely settled.”

But that’s not so. The Liberal caucus is distinctly unsettled.

The MPs who want the Prime Minister to go have been poorly organized and hesitant about pressing the point, as if they’re too shy to step above their station and question the lord of the manor.

But it’s pretty clear that the group of MPs who signed the letter reflect a wider uneasiness among Liberal MPs. It’s just not clear precisely how deep that sentiment runs.

A secret-ballot vote could settle the question – but that’s why it is truly dangerous for Mr. Trudeau. It is the closest thing those dissidents can get to a mechanism that would force the leader out.

There’s no official way to do that. The Liberal Party dispensed with leadership-review votes for sitting prime ministers almost two decades ago. Liberal MPs didn’t sign on to Reform Act provisions that would have given them the legal power to eject their leader.

But nothing prevents Liberal MPs from expressing a view through a vote. If a majority of Liberal MPs were to cast ballots asking Mr. Trudeau to quit, it would amount to an undeniable demand from his own party.

Already, it is a remarkable thing that the dissenters on the Liberal backbench are calling for the question to be put to a vote. They apparently feel they work in a caucus full of MPs who think Mr. Trudeau should go but will only muster the courage to express it under the cover of secrecy.

But at this point, not holding a vote is itself a damaging commentary on Mr. Trudeau’s situation. It amounts to the Prime Minister dodging the verdict of his own MPs so that he can seek another mandate from the people of Canada. That’s an odd message to send to voters.

For the Liberals, not settling the issue means it keeps dragging on. Mr. Trudeau’s insistence last Thursday that he will stay on – one day after he promised caucus dissidents he would reflect on their message – did not calm dissent. The cabinet ministers who told reporters the rebellion is over are more likely to have riled it up.

The Liberals are so far behind in the polls that there will inevitably be more party figures calling for Mr. Trudeau to step aside to put the party first. Without a vote, the Prime Minister won’t have evidence that he leads a party that’s behind him.

Not settling the question means the Liberals will remain unsettled.

----------
"Unsettled" means divided and divisions in political parties are not uncommon: think the Diefenbaker era and the 'Martinis vs the Chretienistas' and, quite recently Mulcair's NDP but divided parties don't do well.
 
Campbell Park, writing in yesterday's Globe and Mail, weighs in on the issue:

----------

Trudeau seeks to dodge the verdict of his own party​

CAMPBELL CLARK
PUBLISHED YESTERDAY

It’s obvious why Justin Trudeau doesn’t want Liberal MPs to hold a secret-ballot vote on his leadership: He might not win.

There can be no other reason at this point, when Mr. Trudeau is deep into a third term, facing defeat in the Commons and contested within his own Liberal Party.

That’s why Mr. Trudeau’s loyal cabinet ministers are pushing back against the idea of a vote. It’s a proposal that could actually force the Prime Minister to go.

Last Wednesday, two dozen Liberal MPs backed a letter asking him to step aside, but the Prime Minister strode out confidently and declared his party “strong and united.”

The truth is that it is neither of those things.

Mr. Trudeau reflected on the complaints of his backbench MPs for just one day before he told reporters he is staying to lead the Liberal Party through the next election – and then more backbenchers expressed doubts about his leadership.

Now there are MPs calling for a way to decide it definitively, so the mess doesn’t drag on – a secret-ballot vote.

It really would be simple, wouldn’t it? Mr. Trudeau’s loyalists insist that he has the support of the vast majority of Liberal MPs, but the backbenchers calling for him to step down don’t think that’s true. Why not decide things with a vote?

The ministers who spoke out against a secret ballot before Tuesday’s cabinet meeting offered half-baked arguments against it: It’s not the way we do things, there’s no need, MPs can express themselves in caucus meetings, and we’re pretty united, anyway. Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said the leadership issue is “largely settled.”

But that’s not so. The Liberal caucus is distinctly unsettled.

The MPs who want the Prime Minister to go have been poorly organized and hesitant about pressing the point, as if they’re too shy to step above their station and question the lord of the manor.

But it’s pretty clear that the group of MPs who signed the letter reflect a wider uneasiness among Liberal MPs. It’s just not clear precisely how deep that sentiment runs.

A secret-ballot vote could settle the question – but that’s why it is truly dangerous for Mr. Trudeau. It is the closest thing those dissidents can get to a mechanism that would force the leader out.

There’s no official way to do that. The Liberal Party dispensed with leadership-review votes for sitting prime ministers almost two decades ago. Liberal MPs didn’t sign on to Reform Act provisions that would have given them the legal power to eject their leader.

But nothing prevents Liberal MPs from expressing a view through a vote. If a majority of Liberal MPs were to cast ballots asking Mr. Trudeau to quit, it would amount to an undeniable demand from his own party.

Already, it is a remarkable thing that the dissenters on the Liberal backbench are calling for the question to be put to a vote. They apparently feel they work in a caucus full of MPs who think Mr. Trudeau should go but will only muster the courage to express it under the cover of secrecy.

But at this point, not holding a vote is itself a damaging commentary on Mr. Trudeau’s situation. It amounts to the Prime Minister dodging the verdict of his own MPs so that he can seek another mandate from the people of Canada. That’s an odd message to send to voters.

For the Liberals, not settling the issue means it keeps dragging on. Mr. Trudeau’s insistence last Thursday that he will stay on – one day after he promised caucus dissidents he would reflect on their message – did not calm dissent. The cabinet ministers who told reporters the rebellion is over are more likely to have riled it up.

The Liberals are so far behind in the polls that there will inevitably be more party figures calling for Mr. Trudeau to step aside to put the party first. Without a vote, the Prime Minister won’t have evidence that he leads a party that’s behind him.

Not settling the question means the Liberals will remain unsettled.

----------
"Unsettled" means divided and divisions in political parties are not uncommon: think the Diefenbaker era and the 'Martinis vs the Chretienistas' and, quite recently Mulcair's NDP but divided parties don't do well.

"Dictators ride to and fro on tigers from which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry." - Winston Churchill
 
Trudeau has the temperament to take down the Liberal Party. He doesn't give a shidt about the individuals. He loves the perks of being PM, flying around, living First Class, inwardly feeling impressive, etc.

He is a millionaire. Everyone else is a peon and can starve as far as he is concerned. Frick them.
 
Trudeau has the temperament to take down the Liberal Party. He doesn't give a shidt about the individuals. He loves the perks of being PM, flying around, living First Class, inwardly feeling impressive, etc.

He is a millionaire. Everyone else is a peon and can starve as far as he is concerned. Frick them.

More importantly Trudeau is a Great Man, a Man of Destiny. Just ask him. He was chosen and raised to that purpose. He believes it.
 
More importantly Trudeau is a Great Man, a Man of Destiny. Just ask him. He was chosen and raised to that purpose. He believes it.
It reminds me of the War of the Roses - one king similar to JT and the opponent more like PP.

I'm no expert on the War of the Roses but a lot of English kings were alot like JT - raised to believe he was special.
 
6

6’3”? I know he’s tall but I don’t think he’s that tall. There are few pics out there with them together and JT always seems taller.

View attachment 88752
I saw a few OSINT sources that all seemed to put him around that…I’ve passed him jogging in my neighborhood and I’d say he looked about eye level to me and I’m 6’2”, so that’s not unreasonable…if anything they’re close enough that that CTV photoshop comes across as needlessly silly…maybe CTV should have gone full fanboy, with Trudeau giving his lauding appreciation to the diminutive Poilievre? 😆
IMG_5226.png
 
Back
Top