CanucksCorner.com Forums

rikster wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 5:01 am

Megaterio Llamas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 8:06 pm It seems Chrystia Freeland talked about a nuclear alliance against the United Sttes in the Liberal debate:

I knew the Libs were kind of dangerous, but this is nuts.


https://x.com/KirkLubimov/status/1894574336474058962

Why shouldn't Canada have a nuclear deterent?

Never crossed our mnds until another NATO country made it clear it has interest in taking the country away from us....

Came away pretty upbeat about the opportunites that lay ahead for the country, and was pretty upset learning that 80% of our military spend goes to purchase US products..

Man has Canada been sleeping at the wheel...

Carney and Bayliss were both pretty impressive while Gould just wants to give us more free stuff to make things better...

Topper wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 6:20 am Both Carney and Freeland returned to their WEF roots and some of a "Global New World Order".

Carney round aboutly admitted the countries finances have been a mess the past five years that he has been advising the government and that many of the policies have been wrong and need to be scrapped. Freeland countered that he was taking Conservative talking points.

All want to keep social programs in place, Gould and somewhat Freeland, want to expand them, cut taxes, and increase spending. Money grows on trees.

Carney said that grants, subsidies and tax relief to foreign companies, think Trudeau's EV mess, are the things he would split out of his operational budget into a seperate budget. It seems rather arbitrary what spending goes where but it is what he calls investments. It isn't a capital expenditure budget, rather a slush fund budget for pet white elephants.

Gould, who should be running for the NDP, with the zinger of the night when talking of dealing with Trump, "you don't bring a pocket calculator to a knife fight". Sadly that was as rough as the debate got.

Bayless was the only one to criticize Trudeau's handling of Trump negotiations a weak.

There was no real domestic bread and butter discussion. Nothing on crime, drugs, very little on housing and Gould was the only one to connect with voters on pocket books issues. Sadly her idea are for more government spending.

As Kinsella noted, it was Ottawa insiders sipping wine in a swanky bar talking to Ottawa insiders. They weren't talking to voters.

There is more life in a scrap of lumber than in Carney. He'll be eaten alive in a real debate or negotiation where he needs to think on his feet. Great moment in the post debate presser when a reporter asked him about being vice chair of Brookfield. Carney snapped " I was chairman".

All refused and weaseled out of the direct question of what they would do differently from Trudeau.

Carney went after Pierre's security clearance. LOL, don't they realize that he has security clearance when he was a minister in the Harper government. Carney squirmed when asked how he had time to do his security clearance paperwork but not his financial disclosure paperwork.

Pierre and Yves won the debate.

rikster wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 7:14 am Good to know Harper made PP get his security clearance, doesn't answer why he doesn't have it today?

Topper wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 12:46 pm Did Mark Carney work with then Finance Minister Paul Martin in 1995-1998 as he claims or was he at Cambridge studying and with Goldman Sachs as his resume states?

Topper wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 12:46 pm Did Mark Carney work with then Finance Minister Paul Martin in 1995-1998 as he claims or was he at Cambridge studying and with Goldman Sachs as his resume states?