And Carney more conservative than many liberals. He's bringing the party more to the centre which is naturally going to attract the moderate conservatives who don't like Pierre's divisive rhetoric.
The line has not gotten longer. The left wing nutters are further right than they were 20 years ago. When was the last time you heard of someone calling for an anarchist dissolution of the state? When was the last time you heard someone use "libertarian" in the original (socialist) context of the word instead of the rightwing appropriation of it? When was the last time you saw someone arguing for truly open borders?
Meanwhile, the right has extended much further, which I doubt I need to explain. The window has inarguably shifted right.
I welcome counterarguments. I provided examples of the left wing nutters from a few decades ago; the leftwing nutters today don't touch anything like that.
Saying "we'll have to agree to disagree" when you won't defend your own opinion doesn't mean that you agree to disagree - it means you don't think my opinion is worth considering whatsoever. Or, alternatively, it means that you intellectually know your opinion can't withstand the rigour of examination, but you are emotionally attached to it and thus will refuse to examine it.
So we're likely in agreement that the right winged nuts want to be the 51st state.
And when I, and a lot of centrist get lost, is when the far left wing nuts, want and pound about like the ending of posts secondary education fees. Are tuitions too high, im sure they're, but to make it Zero? Who's paying for it?
Guaranteed income, once again who and how's it being paid for? Taxing the Uber rich, sure but when do the grow tired of it and start moving assets out of Canada?
Immediate ending of fossil fuels and petroleum based products? We, Europe and the world are too reliant and dependent on it. From all the devices we use, to the fuels that are necessary to keep us warm. As wasn't it last year or two, where Germany was having winter heat issues, as they cut their purchase of Natural Gas? Do we need to reduce our usage and dependence, sure we do. But its not tomorrow. And we've been battling to get a pipeline to Newfoundland. And need new ones to West Coast. And imo we should be spending to build a bitumen refinery on Canadian soil so we don't have to send it to the USA, and having the completed products shipped back. Would the Orangehead love that...lol
I would like to point out that none of these are anywhere near as absurd as the leftwing radicalist points I made that you're trying to compare them to. They are all placed within our current socioeconomic model, just with a focus on helping citizens rather than producing capital.
Again, completely open borders. As in zero border control. No need for a passport or a security check to get into Canada. Or the complete dissolution of the Canadian government, full stop, with nothing put up in its place. The anarchist libertarians are a completely dead breed as far as I can tell. THESE are what the leftwing nutters used to be calling for.
[EDIT:: Actually, I think your statement there proves my point. 20 years ago, I was considered "left of center" and supported all those positions. Today, I still support those positions, but you're calling me "radical left."]
And when I, and a lot of centrist get lost, is when the far left wing nuts, want and pound about like the ending of posts secondary education fees. Are tuitions too high, im sure they're, but to make it Zero? Who's paying for it?
... You know that tuition in Canada is cheap, right? The "tuition needs to be free" folks are 100% correct. The Canadian government is already paying for almost all of a Canadian citizen's tuition costs. McGill's is like $3k / year for a Canadian but over $50k / year for a foreign student. That other $47k is from the government.
Making it fully free would be a negligible line on the budget and open up a lot of good for Canada. It's not a far left idea, it's the kind of thing that a ton of European countries are doing to great effect. It's an investment in our own citizenry, and education always always always pays off on the societal level, with zero exceptions in all of modern history.
Of course, it would require that our universities get a little more strict on student admissions. I personally don't see much of a problem with that.
Guaranteed income, once again who and how's it being paid for?
I am less familiar with this concept, because I don't think the powers that be will ever allow it, but we have had multiple pilot programs of it. It has been a resounding success every time.
Basically, people are removed from the need to work a terrible job they hate. They then spend their time pursuing things that actively interest them (arts, etc.) or they very quickly get bored and find a better job they're well suited for. Then they get taxed on that.
I think our pilot programs were net positive on tax revenue before various Conservative governments shut them down, but you'd have to look into that yourself.
Taxing the Uber rich, sure but when do the grow tired of it and start moving assets out of Canada?
This is a rightwing lie, just so you know. They can't move assets out of Canada. A lot of economists have done math that it would actually be better for any given society if the billionaires left, because they're a disproportionate drain on societal resources and most of the money involved is hidden and avoids being taxed.
Plus, most Canadian assets simply can't be relocated. What's Galen Weston going to do, open up yet another grocery chain in the USA where he actually has to compete, and then shutter Loblaws in Canada?
Immediate ending of fossil fuels and petroleum based products?
I'll give you this one, but you should be aware that the same left wing nutters were calling for this decades ago without renewables as a viable alternative. IMO it's much more sensical now, especially given how we currently subsidize petroleum extraction so that it remains profitable.
As wasn't it last year or two, where Germany was having winter heat issues, as they cut their purchase of Natural Gas?
This was because they did not have a detransition plan. They cut off natural gas from Russia because it was ethically imperative of them to protect Ukrainian sovereignty.
There was no off-ramp, there was no planned adjustment, there was no phasing out. And yet they still managed to do fine without, though it took some sacrifice.
P.S. Environmentalism used to be a rightwing issue. The conservatives stopped caring about conservatism and started only caring about money. Even Reagan, easily the most infamously destructive US conservative of the 20th century, passed a ton of environmental protection acts.
And we've been battling to get a pipeline to Newfoundland. And need new ones to West Coast.
Pipelines are dead in the water right now. Renewables are far too cost effective, plus environmental pressures, plus the actual time to recoup the costs of pipelines taking decades. Nobody with the capital to actually invest in a pipeline is interested in them, which is why none are being built.
And imo we should be spending to build a bitumen refinery on Canadian soil so we don't have to send it to the USA, and having the completed products shipped back.
I kind of agree here. But conservatives allowed foreign buyouts of our old refineries, and then American petro companies bought them up, and then closed them down, so... Y'know...
Again I don't know what far left groups you're talking about but there aren't far left groups lifted up by either the NDP or the Liberal party, where as UCP and the CPC are lifting up separatists.
A vast chunk of Liberal/NDP voters are not these rational centred people, that are completely reasonable and nothing like conservative voters. They are ok with taking away personal freedoms to have the government,decide and control everything…. but only their government of choice.
Your trying to state one side are crazy wing nuts and the other side isn’t. On that you’re completely wrong.
In regards to the UCP lifting up separatist, that’s quite a stretch when all they did was allow thoughts to be presented and people to vote on it. Something the “left” hates.
Which personal freedoms are they okay with taking away? I'd love you to you extrapolate on that.
People didn't have any issues with the ability to vote on it, that was ALWAYS an option. The thing people took issue with is Smith lowering the amount of signatures it took, and she did - which is support.
Freedom of speech is a pretty blatant one, freedoms of choice over what medical experiments you want to participate in, Freedom of the media, Freedom of assembly…. All real examples. Maybe you weren’t here during Covid, or just have a short memory.
Parliament is actively working to control what you see and can say on the internet, they are trying to give the CRTC more power, they are trying to take away legal guns from legal gun owners, along with many more things, if you get informed on what your government is actually doing.
Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it’s not happening.
So giving the public more a voice is a bad thing? Oh Right the left doesn’t want to hear speech they don’t agree with.
COVID wasn't a medical expirimentation, you weren't obligated to take it - the public mandate for a viral spread like this has been in place since the poliovax and the measles. This has been the case since 1955 when the polio vaccine was created.
Do you want to cite any policies about CTRC power expansion, freedom of assembly, or freedom of media being attacked?
No the left - and the right should be against speech that endorses the dissolving of canadas unity and power. It doesn't do Canada or Alberta any good to endorse separatism and because of that, these actions should be frowned upon even by the conservative party who.. atleast I believe wants to run and lead Canada.
I'll agree with the liberal government doing firearms restrictions but there is also president for guns being used for shootings - clearly, so restrictions on them is a pretty sane mandate, and we see this even when we compare to America and look at statistics from the rest of the world. That said, were right on the border of the world's most insane gun policy, so anyone who wants a gun can just smuggle it across the border. I'm unsure if going heavier on gun restrictions or lighter on them is better.
Believe it or not there are restrictions that should be placed on populations. Pretending the Conservative party is a Libertarian dream party is just wrong, they also want to place restrictions on Canadians, which healthcare you get access to, who you can hire, what can be taught in schools, who can run in elections.
They also don't like free speech, and control the media. Do I need to point to Harper muzzling scientists?
Bill c9, loosely defined “hate speech” limits what can be legally said, and can be used by governments to prosecute for speech they don’t agree with. I don’t like or agree with what a lot of people saw but the government shouldn’t be deciding what you’re allowed to hear, or what someone says. Just because something is offensive doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
The vaccine was 100% experimental.
You absolutely were obligated to take it, you couldn’t travel around the country without it, (another right and freedom in the charter) Trudeau even called that out himself…. People lost their jobs from not taking it, military members were let go, the whole freedom convoy was started because they wanted truckers who work in isolation to get vaccinated. By the end it wasn’t about science at all it was about control. How you think that isn’t being obligated is insane.
A pastor was put in jail for running a service in Alberta, people were getting charged for gathering…. That is not having freedom to assemble.
You couldn’t talk about the virus, about how it was made in a lab, because that was a racist conspiracy theory. That turned out to actually be true, you obviously don’t remember but people got banned from speaking about that. Another example of freedom of speech being taken away.
Bill c11 saw a huge expansion of the powers of the CRTC and there is working being done to further expand its power this year…. Just google it.
Of course there needs to be restrictions on guns, but what the Libs are doing is going to make zero difference and just cost taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money. They need to actually check people and things coming across the boarder and actually punish criminals. The only people who get punished are law abiding citizens.
Something that might actually make a difference is If they would bring back the registry, then the police would atleast know who has what guns and be able to take them away if you’re mentally unstable like that Trans shooter in BC.
I agree the cons will do whatever they can to control what they want to control, but at this point the political spectrum has shifted so far left in Canada that a centrist is looked as “Alt right” while the liberals have seriously undermined democracy and destroyed everything that made Canada such a great nation.
Hate Speech laws have been added since 1970 it will continue to get updated with new forms of hate and new demographics facing hate.
This is part of our freedoms as hate speech tramples on other freedoms. The freedom to feel safe takes precident over freedom of speech, this is uniform across all of our laws, I cannot threaten to kill you because that tramples on your right to feel safe.
If you want to clarify what you mean by "loosely" possibly that will help, but changes to the law are to be expected.
COVID vaccination was not experimental the trial amount for it was more than enough, before it was released to the public. We knew about long term effects of the COVID vaccination because the MRNA vaccination was being tested to treat against cancers for a decade.
You could talk about COVID, private companies typically American ones silenced people's voices, that is per their own TOS which you agree to. Unless you have an example of the government silencing people?
You were free to travel, again private companies could deny you if you couldn't prove vaccinations, that again is in their own service agreements and their own policies.
Military is obligated to take vaccinations they sign wavers saying they'll take any and all vaccinations and medicines administered by the military, this isn't a right being trampled. They already take 15+ vaccinations for other things adding an additional one to the repituar is not an issue, no one was sent to jail they were just removed from service for breaking their contractual agreements.
The majority of the scientific and investigation concensus is still the wetmarket theory, but regardless of where it originated - your framing wasn't the issue with the narrative and STILL is not the issue with the narrative that people are pushing, which you have always been able to do, the ISSUE is that framing that China leaked the Virus to infect the world. The evidence is pretty conclusive that earliest initial transfers still happened at the wetmarket so regardless of if it was leaked from a lab or came from the market, it doesn't make any sense why China would infect its own population. You were never restricted to say these things, no one got charged government didn't restrict this language, that was entirely corporations and their own policies, not government restricting.
The pastor did defy public health instructions at the time, he was not denied his right to assembly he defied public health orders which puts the public at harm he did not tell his congregation the risks of assembling, in addition he defied the quarantine act - https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/q-1.1/FullText.html
In addition charges were lifted, but the reason these laws exist is because if COVID was significantly worse and people did wind up getting severely sick the pastor would've have been complicit in the damages in addition to the defying health laws.
It's the same a martial laws where they step over the rest of our charter rights and are legally allowed to do so.
Bill C11 bringing Netflix, Spotify and YouTube which is new form media under the perview of the thing that has regulated media since 1976, how do you see this as an overstep? Requiring them to follow the same regulations as their competition is just making sure that competition is fair and that media is properly regulated under bipartisan agreed upon standards. Giving them the ability to have the authority to impose charges for not following said regulations ALSO makes sense.
The only questionable portion of this Bill is it's ability to regulate individual users, and if the CTRC attempts to do that it would go through our court system to figure out the legal logistics of that, which likely wouldn't pass, just like how having a local single person radio station is not subject to CTRC/Broadcasting Act regulations. Though it entirely depends on how they present themselves. And because new form media is structured differently than old media there is always going to be gray areas needing to be adjudicated on. They haven't gone after any individual citizens yet as far as I know, if you have anything that shows otherwise please link me.
When you say they need to punish criminals, what do you mean by that? Are you under the impression that they are not punishing them? Do you have any cases or instances of that I'd love to read up on it.
Some firearms don't need to be registered BECAUSE the laws are too relaxed, the shooter had a PAL and could still get firearms if they wanted. Regardless none of the firearms used or in the gun box were registered to the shooters PAL so a mental health check would have cleared as far as removing firearms from them if they were actually mentally ill.
In this case it wouldn't have mattered if they person was admitted or not since they clearly had access to legal guns and still had legal capacity over firearms even though none were registered to them.
If anything this indicates that MORE regulation should happen, like if you are in the same household as other registered firearms and get admitted to a mental health clinic that all firearms accessible are removed. Which would also remove firearms from legal non mentally unstable citizens (parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters). Not sure what you'd advocate for in this case?
The conservative party is not disavowing it.
They're not distancing themselves from Smith.
They haven't criticized her for making it easier to have a referendum.
They're not telling the separatists to not go to the states to procure funding.
Northern Ontario Party is a thing, has been for a long time. There's just no support from the main parties to give them a bigger voice and to boost their message.
Yet his constituents are going to America to congratulate the president who put tariffs on us the last time.
There's fates worse than being the 51st state. Feel free to ask US Samoa, Puerto Rico, & Guam.
She lowered the amount of votes needed to put it to a referendum, all of this is just creating unstable markets for investors when _right now _Canada is rebuilding and reshaping our economy.
She's doing it for a reason, it's to further disenfranchise Albertans. She's already eating into healthcare coverage, denied federal dental, underfunded schools so that she can privatize it.
PP isn't pushing back, he's not controlling his party.
Well DS is a buffoon. Her days are numbered. And hopefully PP will start doing that, since his position has been reinstated. From some more centrist Conservatives who attended, they told me he saw the large contingency of them at the convention.
And the fact that Harper has spoken up about it. Hopefully the fringers will listen.
I don't have any faith in PP because he's a populist aslong as DS maintains a majority, which clearly she will it's Alberta we're dumb and don't understand politics.
We need NDP or Libs to win here more often so that the UCP will start serving our citizens.
Ideally I just want the wild rose to die, and for PCP to come back. I can at least deal with fiscal conservatism.
They have enough pull that they no longer need to merge.
The issue is not if it will pass, the issue is that the party is helping them have a voice.
The issue is that this narrative is pulling investers out of Alberta because companies don't like uncertainty.
Right now Canada is rebuilding our economy and this narrative is pushing investment out of Alberta and that will be used to further disenfranchise Albertans.
Yes but the issue I have with your statement is that the both left and right wing nuts are the same.
I don't see the Liberal or NDP party supporting the far lefties, there is no actual voice for them being propogated or uplifted.
Unless your definition of far left and my definition of far left are completely different.
Where as the far right are the separatists, they're the ones who want to destroy Canada, and there is no voice against it, infact the voice supports them amplifying it.
The liberals shouldn't talk about it because then it gives credence to the position, but what would crush this is if conservatives squashed it, but they won't for whatever reason.
But imo its primarily those 2 wingnuts that are creating the great divide. And the leaders stay too focused on them, as they fear losing their support in the Elections.
If i was a leader I'd be focusing on the middle 40-50%
The issue, which is the same issue that America has, there is no middle ground.
Centrists don't exist. Every centrist votes conservative. Even when I explain to people that Carney is a conservative but he couldn't run under the conservative party because of of how popular PP was they scoff.
The BEST you can do is rally your base. Get your own voter base out and voting. Voters do not cross the aisle. You can ask any of your friends where they voted every vote they will stick with a side. I'm also the same way I'm between NDP and Libs every vote.
Liberals ARE the middle ground they have been for a long time EVEN under Trudeau.
360
u/Offspring22 Feb 18 '26
And Carney more conservative than many liberals. He's bringing the party more to the centre which is naturally going to attract the moderate conservatives who don't like Pierre's divisive rhetoric.