The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.
rikster wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 2:20 pm
Did you forget Poilievre trying to pin the oil price collapse of 2014 on Trudeau who wasn't elected until November of 2015?
Rikster, I went looking for this. Do you have a link? While I blew past this comment earlier, I would like to see what he said, as I do not remember this.
Not sure if you can pull up the article as its behind a paywall, but give it a try;
For a guy who likes to invoke George Orwell, Pierre Poilievre doesn’t seem to have paid very close attention to what he actually wrote. His willingness to weaponize obvious misinformation, like a chart he shared on social media suggesting Justin Trudeau was elected in late 2014 (rather than late 2015), is reminiscent of one of the most famous lines from 1984. “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
The idea that Justin Trudeau’s election in late 2015 is somehow responsible for the economic impact of the massive collapse in oil prices that happened a year earlier — and was driven by a decision made in Saudi Arabia — is a pretty obvious example of spurious correlation, and one Conservatives have been trading in for years now. But sharing a chart that falsely indicates Trudeau was elected in late 2014, as Poilievre did, is a whole different level of deceit. The fact that he did it more than once, despite being called out for the obvious falsehood, shows just how little he cares about the truth.
THWhen looking for the article came across this bit of information which I hadn't realized;
Yeah. The first one was a bit misleading. But, the Liberals did nothing to reverse what likely would have been a shorter flat spot. They imposed a lot of restrictions, including preventing oil and gas lines being built, and the LNG plants to export it. LNG exports would have reduced world coal consumption, and therefore overall carbon emissions by more than Trudeau’s crap has done. That single act has cost Canada easily a couple of hundred billion, and bumped the curve back up closer to the Americans. Ironically, the curve is almost as bad a year later. No need for his staffer to make an unforced error like that.
The second one states that Pierre supported his party’s platform of looking at Cap and Trade, and thought it might work for a while, but abandoned it once cap and trade turned out to be a waste. Then they pivoted to a regulation based approach. But, once he campaigned for and became the voice of the party, he has been adamant about dropping the carbon tax. As he says, it has been very ineffective as a carbon reduction program, and hurt the economy probably about as much as his pipeline policies. Plus, carbon tax was the new abortion topic for the media. Pierre did what most good politicians do on a media suicide issue. They argue like hell in private, make a decision, then support the group decision.
Not quite the same as claiming you were not the one to move your company HQ to New York, because you had stepped down before the deal was 100% concluded, but you did preside over the board during the vote, and supported the deal.
rikster wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 2:20 pm
Did you forget Poilievre trying to pin the oil price collapse of 2014 on Trudeau who wasn't elected until November of 2015?
Rikster, I went looking for this. Do you have a link? While I blew past this comment earlier, I would like to see what he said, as I do not remember this.
Not sure if you can pull up the article as its behind a paywall, but give it a try;
For a guy who likes to invoke George Orwell, Pierre Poilievre doesn’t seem to have paid very close attention to what he actually wrote. His willingness to weaponize obvious misinformation, like a chart he shared on social media suggesting Justin Trudeau was elected in late 2014 (rather than late 2015), is reminiscent of one of the most famous lines from 1984. “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
The idea that Justin Trudeau’s election in late 2015 is somehow responsible for the economic impact of the massive collapse in oil prices that happened a year earlier — and was driven by a decision made in Saudi Arabia — is a pretty obvious example of spurious correlation, and one Conservatives have been trading in for years now. But sharing a chart that falsely indicates Trudeau was elected in late 2014, as Poilievre did, is a whole different level of deceit. The fact that he did it more than once, despite being called out for the obvious falsehood, shows just how little he cares about the truth.
THWhen looking for the article came across this bit of information which I hadn't realized;
Yeah. The first one was a bit misleading. But, the Liberals did nothing to reverse what likely would have been a shorter flat spot. They imposed a lot of restrictions, including preventing oil and gas lines being built, and the LNG plants to export it. LNG exports would have reduced world coal consumption, and therefore overall carbon emissions by more than Trudeau’s crap has done. That single act has cost Canada easily a couple of hundred billion, and bumped the curve back up closer to the Americans. Ironically, the curve is almost as bad a year later. No need for his staffer to make an unforced error like that.
The second one states that Pierre supported his party’s platform of looking at Cap and Trade, and thought it might work for a while, but abandoned it once cap and trade turned out to be a waste. Then they pivoted to a regulation based approach. But, once he campaigned for and became the voice of the party, he has been adamant about dropping the carbon tax. As he says, it has been very ineffective as a carbon reduction program, and hurt the economy probably about as much as his pipeline policies. Plus, carbon tax was the new abortion topic for the media. Pierre did what most good politicians do on a media suicide issue. They argue like hell in private, make a decision, then support the group decision.
Not quite the same as claiming you were not the one to move your company HQ to New York, because you had stepped down before the deal was 100% concluded, but you did preside over the board during the vote, and supported the deal.
I have less issues with how Carney walked a fine line and was technically correct in his answer than I do that fact that PP is unqualified to be the head of an $800 Billion dollar asset managment company, or any of Carney's previous resume positions ....
When he worked for Brookfield his responsibility was to its shareholders and if that meant moving the head office to the US then that was the right decison...
If he becomes leader of the Party and is re elected then I am confident that he will make decisions that are in the best interest in the country...
And if you have a choice between someone who has played the games at the highest level on a number of occasions or someone who has never played a game, for me its a pretty simple choice....
Had a quick peak at Brookfields website to make sure my $800 billion in asset management was correct and see that they are now managing over $1 trillion in assets...
Wonder if skippy could get a job delivering interdepartment mail?
What I’m gathering from everything rik has to say is that he is A-OK with someone who possesses no moral or ethical fortitude stepping into the highest office in the country.
He has picked his horse and will back him all the way because he thinks that horse is qualified to understand and manage economic issues. He doesn’t care that almost all of the policies his guy is for will be utterly ruinous for the country.
Somewhere in NW BC trying (yet again) to trade a(nother) Swede…..
rikster wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2025 10:03 pm
I have less issues with how Carney walked a fine line and was technically correct in his answer than I do that fact that PP is unqualified to be the head of an $800 Billion dollar asset managment company, or any of Carney's previous resume positions .
“No your honour. While the car I was driving did crash into that parade of people, killing hundreds, I jumped out seconds before, so I was not technically driving it at the moment of the crash”
Btw, the next Federal election is how we choose our governing party and our next Prime Minister. It is not how we choose the head of any of Carney’s previous positions. But another Canadian who has run many successful hundred billion dollar companies is Elon Musk. I’m guessing he’s be your first option, if he decided to run for Prime Minister, if heading up large companies is the criteria.
Mëds wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 5:59 am
What I’m gathering from everything rik has to say is that he is A-OK with someone who possesses no moral or ethical fortitude stepping into the highest office in the country.
He has picked his horse and will back him all the way because he thinks that horse is qualified to understand and manage economic issues. He doesn’t care that almost all of the policies his guy is for will be utterly ruinous for the country.
Not at all...
This is an as compared to choice...If Carney loses the Liberal leadership race and either one of the ladies wins meaning both Carney and Bayliss lose then I will likely sit this election out because I won't vote Freeland or Gould and I certainly wont vote for skippy...
If Carney loses the race but Bayliss wins, then I will vote for Bayliss....
You and the others who are supporting PP have spent all of your energy pointing out flaws with someone who is not even in the race and pointing out things about Carney you don't like...
Some have even admitted that its not the lying that bothers them its a matter of how good at lying are you as a way to excuse their guys lying...
The reality is that the Conservatives have an awful candidate who has demonstrated character flaws that I dislike and has shown during his time in minor roles within Government that he struggles with judgement...
The next day, Harper “dressed him down so sharply that people outside the room were embarrassed,” according to one account in the Globe and Mail. “His face was flushed, as if he’d brushed away tears. Ministers avoided Mr. Harper’s gaze.” The meeting was tense enough for a couple of people to speculate that Poilievre may have felt his political career was over, or at least that he was on thin ice.
If you think Carneys role in Brookfields move to the US is disqualifying I say your really reaching and running out of excuses not to vote for him...
The man has been involved, as an advisor, with plenty of questionable decisions that Trudeau and his cabinet have made. It wasn’t until Trudeau’s star had really begun to dim that it was reported that Carney was being courted by the Liberal party, at which point he declined and began attempting to put as much distance between himself and the Trudeau Liberals as he could.
I get that politics is like this, however it behooves the electorate to not be beguiled by these subtle tactics. Carney would be Trudeau-heavy. Smarter and possessing education and experience, however he would possess all of the same elite arrogance and untrustworthiness.
Somewhere in NW BC trying (yet again) to trade a(nother) Swede…..
Megaterio Llamas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 9:49 am
Carney and Polly aree both kinda carnies when you think about it.
Carney Lied, gosh dang it!!!
Meanwhile a Conservative spokesperson put out this statement;
“Last night, Mark Carney lied to Canadians,” Michael Barrett, a Conservative member of Parliament from eastern Ontario, told reporters Wednesday.
“Donald Trump asked companies to move to the United States, asked them to take their jobs, take their investment dollars to the United States.”
Meanwhile the Liberals put out this statement;
An aide to Carney said the former central banker’s comments on Tuesday night were actually referring to the formal vote by Brookfield shareholders, which took place on Jan. 27, shortly after he resigned from all of his corporate roles to enter politics. Carney had also been the chair of Bloomberg Inc.
But the Conservatives say that the decision was made in October which is why they deem Carneys comments to be a lie, which is interesting considering Donald Trump wasn't elected until November...
Bottom line?
I'm going to lie about you lying....
Forgotten in all of this by PP supporters?
PP couldn't get anywhere near any of Carneys former jobs, and certainly not one which was responsible for managing assets of $800 Billion and now $1 Trillon...
