I guess it all depends on whether you're past- or future-focused. A few months ago, when Trudeau was the leader and Trump was only a Presidential candidate, I would not have voted Liberal, and that would have been because I was focused on the past ten years. But everything has changed for me now. Trudeau is gone and Trump is President and what we will need for our future is a leader who's a respected, world-class economist who can bring Canadians together in a positive way. Carney is both those things, while Poilievre is most definitely not.
7 5
Newsflash: All political parties put their interests first. You're all focused on either getting or keeping power. Even if your reasons for wanting power are so that you can better serve Canadians, you know that you can't do that without power. So let's not pretend otherwise.
I look forward to the upcoming election campaign and to hearing whether your party has any positive and productive ideas to put forward.
5 0 0
It's true that Poilievre's 'everything is broken and it's all Trudeau's fault' schtick isn't playing anymore. But I think his bigger problem is that a third of his base are actually Trump supporters and would be quite okay with Canada becoming the 51st state. If he distances himself too much from Trump, he'll lose them. And if he doesn't, he'll lose everybody else.
He doesn't have much time to recreate himself as a positive, pro-Canada force, but he should spend that time talking with Doug Ford!
5 1 1
After a decade of Liberal leadership, I'm ready for a change, but haven't yet seen any indication from Poilievre that he has what it will take to fight Trump and win over new economic and military allies. We're in a crisis situation and childish name-calling and silly slogans aren't what we need!
5 0 1
Why stop there when they could go with United Russia?
3 1 0
I attended every one of the virtual town halls put on by the Province in 2023. I listed while caller after caller said "absolutely no way" to the idea of leaving the Canada Pension Plan while Jim Dinning (completely ignoring the fact that he was supposed to be the neutral Chair) tried valiantly but unsuccessfully to convince them that it was a good and viable idea. Despite the fact that the Province won't release the results of their consultations, it's pretty clear to everyone that their reason is that a substantial majority of Albertans aren't interested, so I can't imagine any petition submitted by this group would have any effect.
4 0 2
It's because of fentanyl. No, it's because of migrants. No, it's because of the trade deficit. No, it's because of American banks. No, it's because of American agriculture. No, it's because we want to annex Canada. No, it's because of fentanyl again.
Does Smith really believe she can negotiate with someone who can't keep his own objectives straight from one hour to the next? Does she really believe she can be diplomatic with a megalomaniac bully who has no respect for Canadians or Canadian sovereignty? She's as dishonest and/or delusional as he is!
8 3 0
The government retains all its administrative and executive capabilities during prorogation, so its ability to respond to the trade war threats isn't reduced. However if an election were to happen now, government would be dissolved. The governing party would become a "caretaker" government with limited powers. And all the parties would become focused on campaigning against each other, rather than leading through the crisis. This is not the time for an election.
3 0
A recent Angus Reid poll broke it down to 63 percent of Albertans considering themselves "Canadian first". The 37 percent that considered themselves "Albertan first" represented the highest percentage of all the provinces.
When Scott Moe was asked why he signed on with the other Premiers to the united response to the US tariff threats, he said "Manitobans are Canadians first". I don't think Smith believes that of Albertans, or at least she doesn't believe it of the Albertans she represents.
1 0 0
No listings have been posted by E.B. Clarke
It's not clear that the tariffs will be adjusted. Trump has frequently referred to them as a revenue source that he'll use to fund tax cuts. That suggests permanency. Or at least that they'll last the duration of his reign. (I'd say "term" but I expect that if Trump is still alive in 2029, he'll be making plans to stay.)
5 0