Some of his ideas, like defunding CBC, are foolish.
I don’t think Pierre Poilievre is a Nazi. Statements like that are unhelpful.
Arkouda@lemmy.ca
on 02 May 2025 19:43
nextcollapse
He likes to dine with Nazis, and we all know the old adage about Nazis at a dinner table.
BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world
on 02 May 2025 19:45
nextcollapse
That was America’s favorite phrase in 2024…
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
on 02 May 2025 19:51
nextcollapse
PP is a populist conservative politician so he's not actively fascist, but do you know what happens when your society has a fascism-shaped hole? Politicians like PP expand to fill that hole.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 03 May 2025 22:53
collapse
There’s that classic liberal attitude we all know and love.
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 04 May 2025 00:20
collapse
Classic conservative attitude we all loathe
Zippygutterslug@lemmy.world
on 03 May 2025 03:42
nextcollapse
You’re adorable.
The_Caretaker@lemm.ee
on 03 May 2025 17:35
nextcollapse
Yes, a government so small it fits in your rectum or vagina. Free speech unless you want to say gay people exist. No censorship unless your book or webpage says something they don’t like and less regulations lead to more corporate power. Corporate takeover of government and the means of production is pretty much what fascism is about.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 03 May 2025 21:18
collapse
Cool made up things! Republicans are trying to ban you from saying gay people exist now? Source? Websites are being censored? Source?
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 04 May 2025 00:20
nextcollapse
Did you miss when Herr trump banned all those DEI websites? Like are you really that ignorant of what is going on?
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 05 May 2025 18:17
collapse
Banned all those DEI websites? You mean removed policies from their government websites that no longer existed?
If the government end a government program, it’s not “censorship” to remove said program from government websites lol.
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 05 May 2025 20:35
collapse
If the government end a government program, it’s not “censorship” to remove said program from government websites lol.
It is when it’s targeted specifically to non straight white men. Lol you need to try harder at trolling
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 05 May 2025 23:59
collapse
That’s not “censorship”. Nothing is being “censored”. The goverment ended all DEI programs in their ranks, so they removed all DEI programs from their websites. Do you think they should keep advertising DEI programs that no longer exist?
Lol you need to try harder at trolling
What is it with Lemmy and accusing everyone who dares to have an opposing view of “trolling”? What exactly in my posts says “trolling”?
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 06 May 2025 00:12
collapse
That’s not “censorship”. Nothing is being “censored”. The goverment ended all DEI programs in their ranks, so they removed all DEI programs from their websites. Do you think they should keep advertising DEI programs that no longer exist?
It literally is when it’s targeting anyone but white men.
What is it with Lemmy and accusing everyone who dares to have an opposing view of “trolling”? What exactly in my posts says “trolling”?
Oh, you actually believe this? Ouch, that’s so much worse, sorry about that! I apologize. I’m against views that go against respecting others and I’m also against people who defend fascists, that is something I’m proud of.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 06 May 2025 00:22
collapse
It literally is when it’s targeting anyone but white men.
Removing outdated information from a website is censorship because it “targets” anyone but white men? What? The DEI programs no longer exist, so the government removed the information about the DEI programs. That makes sense no matter how you feel about the DEI programs ending. If it doesn’t exist, you remove the info about it.
Are you trying to argue that ending DEI programs is “censorship”? That’s an entirely different argument, and “censorship” isn’t even remotely the right word for it.
Oh, you actually believe this?
Believe that you’re just saying I’m “trolling” because you disagree with me? Yes, I believe that because that’s what you’re doing. You haven’t shown any evidence of me “trolling” because I’m not. We’re having a discussion, or at least I’m trying to. It seems to me like you’re trying to get my opinion and views censored by calling them “trolling”, and I’m assuming you’re also reporting my comments as such too right?
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 06 May 2025 00:25
collapse
The DEI programs no longer exist, so the government removed the information about the DEI programs. That makes sense no matter how you feel about the DEI programs ending. If it doesn’t exist, you remove the info about it.
why?
You haven’t shown any evidence of me “trolling” because I’m not.
I know, I apologized, this is so much more sad that you’re serious
It seems to me like you’re trying to get my opinion and views censored by calling them “trolling”, and I’m assuming you’re also reporting my comments as such too right?
you don’t know what censure is, and no I’m not reporting you.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 06 May 2025 00:33
collapse
why?
Why…what? Why would they remove the information about programs that no longer exist? Because they no longer exist. The information is no longer relevant, and leaving it up would only cause confusion.
you don’t know what censure is, and no I’m not reporting you.
CenSURE and cenSOR are very different things. Are you claming that the removal of the DEI stuff from the government websites is censuring or censoring?
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 06 May 2025 00:42
collapse
Why…what? Why would they remove the information about programs that no longer exist? Because they no longer exist. The information is no longer relevant, and leaving it up would only cause confusion
Uhuh, but why?
CenSURE and cenSOR are very different things. Are you claming that the removal of the DEI stuff from the government websites is censuring or censoring?
Censors can censure.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 06 May 2025 00:44
collapse
Ok so there’s no point for me trying to continue this discussion with you as you clearly aren’t arguing in good faith. See ya.
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 06 May 2025 00:48
collapse
Ok so there’s no point for me trying to continue this discussion with you as you clearly aren’t arguing in good faith. See ya.
Right back at ya
The_Caretaker@lemm.ee
on 04 May 2025 01:43
collapse
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 05 May 2025 18:13
collapse
Wikipedia is not a source.
No one is trying to deny gay people are a thing.
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 05 May 2025 21:09
collapse
The sources in Wikipedia are
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 05 May 2025 23:33
collapse
So provide those sources along with what part of them you’re actually talking about.
Which laws specifically?
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 05 May 2025 23:35
collapse
You see them. They were provided to you.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 05 May 2025 23:58
collapse
I don’t see them, because I don’t go to wikipedia links and look for a needle in a haystack to support your argument.
You provide the links to the laws that you think support your argument.
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 05 May 2025 23:59
collapse
my argument? Lol no. Also it’s not a needle in a hay stack, everything is neatly listed at the bottom haha.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 06 May 2025 00:07
nextcollapse
You’re arguing that I should go and find my own examples of something that I am arguing isn’t happening, rather than the person making the argument that it is providing actual examples. That’s not how conversations and arguments work.
The original person, or yourself, can provide evidence to back up the original claim. It’s not my job to go and guess what exact part of what link you’re talking about.
my argument?
You as in the person who is making the argument.
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 06 May 2025 00:13
collapse
You’re arguing that I should go and find my own examples of something that I am arguing isn’t happening, rather than the person making the argument that it is providing actual examples. That’s not how conversations and arguments work.
No, I’m not, I’m saying look at the sources provided to you
The original person, or yourself, can provide evidence to back up the original claim. It’s not my job to go and guess what exact part of what link you’re talking about.
It’s there, the entire wiki is about the subject
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 06 May 2025 00:16
collapse
And I’m saying that Wikipedia is not a source, and that I’m not going to go to a wikipedia page and then look for the specific source(s) that the person thinks proves their point when there could be 50 different articles linked on that page.
Show me a source for a LAW that the current US government has passed making it illegal to say that gay people exist. Go.
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 06 May 2025 00:21
collapse
The sources are there, gay erasure is happening. I can’t learn it for you.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 06 May 2025 00:23
collapse
Show me a source. Wikipedia is not a source. Show me 1 specific example of a law that is “gay erasure” please. That’s not too much to ask, surely?
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 06 May 2025 00:27
collapse
Tell you what, go to that wiki, scroll down and take a gander at the part that says “reference” and let me know what you see? That’s not too much to ask, surely?
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 06 May 2025 00:30
collapse
Show me a source. Wikipedia is not a source. Show me 1 specific example of a law that is “gay erasure” please. That’s not too much to ask, surely?
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 06 May 2025 00:30
collapse
Tell you what, go to that wiki, scroll down and take a gander at the part that says “reference” and let me know what you see? That’s not too much to ask, surely?
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 06 May 2025 00:34
collapse
Show me a source. Wikipedia is not a source. Show me 1 specific example of a law that is “gay erasure” please. That’s not too much to ask, surely?
Last chance then I’ll correctly assume that there are no sources on there that support the “gay erasure” argument.
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 06 May 2025 00:38
collapse
Last chance then I’ll correctly assume that there are no sources on there that support the “gay erasure” argument.
It won’t be correct, plugging your ears, And closing your eyes isn’t “correctly assuming”
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 06 May 2025 00:42
collapse
If you can’t provide a single piece of evidence to support your argument no matter how many times you’re asked, it’s correct to assume it doesn’t exist. Bye now :)
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 06 May 2025 00:44
collapse
If you can’t be bothered to look at the evidence provided then, no its not correct to assume it doesn’t exist lol.
The_Caretaker@lemm.ee
on 06 May 2025 00:18
collapse
What Tool_Shed said. Wikipedia isn’t a source, it’s a reference. Links to the sources are included in the Wikipedia page. If you are refusing to look at the links then you are simply a troll. You don’t care to read the truth. You are more interested in spreading MAGA bullshit. There are 58 sources at the bottom of the page, many of which include links to state legislature websites and specific laws you can read yourself. You aren’t a freedom advocate you are a troll and not a very bright one.
ferretfacefrankburns@lemmy.ca
on 03 May 2025 21:20
collapse
PP was part of the Harper government which muzzled climate scientists, has made an enemy of the free press and implemented a racist snitch line to report religious minorities. Yeah, that’s the kind of “free speech” Poilievre believes in, the kind that shut the fuck up and doesn’t contradict the party line. So yeah, he’s a fucking fascist and you are a fucking idiot to think he is anything but a fucking fascist.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 03 May 2025 02:59
nextcollapse
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 03 May 2025 22:51
collapse
How is the American government “fascist”?
It gets posted thousands of times because it’s true. “Nazi” Is the default attack by the far left. Someone *doesn’t * want free speech abolished? Nazi!
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 04 May 2025 00:21
nextcollapse
Oh, i don’t know, fascist policies? That should be pretty fucking obvious
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 05 May 2025 18:16
collapse
Fascist policies such as……?
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 05 May 2025 20:36
collapse
Do you genuinely live under a rock? Can you actually be that oblivious? You need to educate yourself bud
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 06 May 2025 01:09
collapse
Can you please help educate me by showing me some of these fascist policies?
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 06 May 2025 01:59
collapse
Tell ya what, you’ve been graced with marvelous things called a brain, and eyes and hands. I’m sure if you did the most basic cursory glances anywhere you would see them :) I believe in you!
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 06 May 2025 02:19
collapse
Awesome, so you can’t provide a single fascist policy.
Thanks!
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 06 May 2025 02:23
collapse
Awesome! You’re ignorant to his fascist policies!
Thanks!
pulsewidth@lemmy.world
on 04 May 2025 03:07
collapse
Here’s dozens of concrete examples of how Trump’s government is directly enacting fascist policies. I’m not sure if you’re trolling so I put in a very small amount of effort to locate these articles, there are hundreds online.
P. S. If you hit the paywall they’re available on paywall bypass websites.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 05 May 2025 18:03
collapse
The democrats did/do all of those things too. Installing “loyalists” to top jobs is what every admin does. Biden did it. Obama did it. Everyone does it.
The media example is dumb. There are dozens of media, most highly critical of the trump, allowed in to the White House briefings etc. What 60 minutes did with that rambling Kamala interview deserves to have consequences, as they deliberately edited it to make her look better so as to not hurt her election chances.
Also just FYI - the Nazis were a socialist party. They were left wing.
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 05 May 2025 20:36
nextcollapse
Also just FYI - the Nazis were a socialist party. They were left wing.
No, they really aren’t
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 06 May 2025 01:08
collapse
Aren’t? The Nazi party hasn’t existed for almost a hundred years. The National Socialist German Workers’ Party were left wing socialists.
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 06 May 2025 01:59
collapse
There are still nazis, the nazis aren’t, and we’re never left wing.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 06 May 2025 02:18
collapse
National Socialist German Workers’ Party
T00l_shed@lemmy.world
on 06 May 2025 02:24
collapse
DPRK. It’s a name
pulsewidth@lemmy.world
on 06 May 2025 06:09
collapse
No, the democrats do not install Biden loyalists - people who have loudly and publically repeatedly announced uncritical support of Biden. They do not hire staff that are without any formal education or without significant qualifying experience for important roles - whereas Trump does all of those things. To say they all do the same shows a very uncritical assessment of reality.
The Nazi party believed firmly in social & familial heirarchy, oppressed the underclasses openly through targeted programs to eliminate trans, gay, Jewish and other minority groups, worked hand in glove with the factory owners and corporations to crush and outlaw unions, praised and supported the former Monarchy and Kaiser, and purged the communist party from the German political assembly through violence and incarcerations - and ultimately sent all communists, Marxists and labour leaders to death camps along with any other minorities they had decided to murder. So to insist they were left wing simply because their party name includes the word ‘socialist’ is naieve and ignorant to history.
Check sources from actual historians and you will find the same conclusions and volumes of evidence.
The only (in)famous people I know claiming the ‘Nazis were left-wing’ are the criminal liar Dinesh D’Souza, and all the usual right wing grifters Stephen Crowder, Prager ‘University’, Matt Walsh and so on - they are lying, as they do about most things. There are much better sources of news and information.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 06 May 2025 06:18
collapse
No, the democrats do not install Biden loyalists
hahahaha
They do not hire staff that are without any formal education or without significant qualifying experience for important roles
hahahahahahahahaha
pulsewidth@lemmy.world
on 06 May 2025 09:01
collapse
I mean, if that’s the best argument you have? OK.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 06 May 2025 18:14
collapse
Smoogs@lemmy.world
on 03 May 2025 08:09
nextcollapse
Oh ffs. Stop playing it down. Look at the riding he’s being given. Battle river. It’s conspiracy city. Far cry from Carleton… I know that part of Alberta well . I’m telling you right now: it ain’t good . He went from serving coffee to the convoy to living with them.
Step off with the gaslighting. This is the type of exact crap the Americans just went through. Knock it the hell off.
SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
on 03 May 2025 08:16
nextcollapse
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
on 04 May 2025 01:24
nextcollapse
Hey, just wanted to say you’re right. And these people here are bad faith commentators. They push things towards hyperbolic statements in the same way the right went nuts in their own way.
Unfortunately I fear this is what we have to come to accept now until everything blows up.
Zippygutterslug@lemmy.world
on 04 May 2025 02:11
collapse
Protip:
Shove your head up your butt and you won’t have to close your eyes to ignore the nazis
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
on 04 May 2025 03:53
collapse
Seriously consider what you’re saying here. That PP is a Nazi, he clearly is not, while telling me my head is up my ass
Zippygutterslug@lemmy.world
on 04 May 2025 04:06
collapse
People running for high office that make campaign stops with white supremacists are 100% nazis, no exaggeration necessary.
People that are not nazis don’t tolerate nazis.
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
on 04 May 2025 14:55
nextcollapse
No, what you’re doing is lazily leveraging the nazi context for your political benefit. PP is not a Nazi for having a photo op or being tangentially associated with some asshole. It’s as lazy as showing pictures of people with Epstein and calling them pedophiles because they were in a photo.
It’s bullshit politics. The sad part is that you will never realize how it’s your credibility that is lost. And unfortunately since you associate with certain values, you lose credibility for the whole. There’s reason to shit on him for spending time with these people. But when you go hyperbolic and dramatically call him a Nazi, you lose the plot
Zippygutterslug@lemmy.world
on 04 May 2025 16:01
collapse
Shoving your head up your ass won’t keep you safe from the nazis.
Good luck, boy.
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
on 05 May 2025 00:24
collapse
There is no argument you have here. Pp is not a Nazi. All this does it’s discredit you. Be more precise
The dude is aligned with trump and is a fascist. I wouldn’t call them nazis just yet, but they are certainly very, very fascist.
I work in a very conservative workplace in Alberta, and when I call trump a fascist I get zero pushback. In fact, they just nod in agreement. When I say that Peter rabbithait is aligned with trump, they don’t argue against that point either.
The “good ones” know their support for him is short lived, and they will have to piss or get off the pot soon. I hope goodness prevails.
Hikuro93@lemmy.world
on 02 May 2025 19:44
nextcollapse
If it was the other way around he’d never let Carney hear the end of it - “Carney, the guy who had to get someone else to quit in order to keep his seat”.
He already didn’t let Carney hear the end of it - “Carney, who was not elected…”
avidamoeba@lemmy.ca
on 02 May 2025 19:59
nextcollapse
I for one didn’t expect someone to resign this quickly.
PP has Mr. Kurek to thank. Some of you will understand this statement differently than others. 😂
GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
on 03 May 2025 17:02
collapse
This isn’t the first time this kind of thing has happened, provincially or federally, and it tends to be resolved pretty quickly. The same thing happened when Trudeau took leadership, for reference. Now, certainly this happens a lot less often when a party leader loses in a riding he previously held, but the mechanics are the same. Get a new leader, have a leader who can’t vote or perhaps speak in Parliament, or have a by-election in a safe riding.
Chip_Rat@lemmy.world
on 04 May 2025 16:38
collapse
Can you expand on that thing about when Trudeau took leadership, or link to an article, I’m not sure I remember this situation.
GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
on 04 May 2025 16:59
collapse
My bad, he was in fact elected in a general election, although there were rumors about him running in a by-election shortly before that, and all of that was before he was even leadervof the Liberals. I honestly, don’t remember anything about him in politics prior to leading the Liberals except that half-remembered by-election tidbit.
Another relevant example would be when Preston Manning resigned and Stephen Harper ran in his riding after being newly chosen to lead the Conservatives. There were a number of reasons for that to happen, and a bit of political maneuvering to have them all happen at the same time.
Chip_Rat@lemmy.world
on 04 May 2025 17:11
collapse
Thanks.
Yeah I understand why these manuvres are used, and sometimes would benefit democracy.
In this case PP was shown the door by his own riding, I think that either shows: a) the people do not want him in office, in which case this is just sidestepping democracy, or b) the conservatives failed to place their own leader in a "safe"enough riding, which shows a clear problem with that parties management, lead by PP, in which case he should probably move along as well.
GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
on 04 May 2025 17:34
collapse
I’ve said elsewhere there were only 3 real options available to them, and this was one of them. The fact of the matter is, the leader of the Conservative Party is chosen by Conservatives and he gets elected by a riding, and those are two different things. Now, if the people in this new riding think he should be gone, then he most likely will be, both from that riding and the party. And if Conservatives in general think this was the wrong choice for the party, we will see the results of that in the next general election if not sooner.
Now, I’m not saying I disagree with your assessment, and I personally think the Conservatives made the wrong choice (not surprising, I didn’t vote for them), but these are the choices we’ve established in our system. Perhaps this is one that should be changed, perhaps not.
xc2215x@lemmy.world
on 02 May 2025 20:19
nextcollapse
That was quicker than I expected.
DaddleDew@lemmy.world
on 02 May 2025 20:19
nextcollapse
Imagine if he fails to be elected again in the partials
funkajunk@lemm.ee
on 02 May 2025 21:07
nextcollapse
He’ll win, the only reason he’s coming to Alberta is because it’s a slam dunk.
Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
on 02 May 2025 22:44
collapse
82% in favour of conservatives during the last election but Carney can wait 6 months to launch the by-election, that might be long enough to piss off some conservatives that might want to get rid of PP.
Chip_Rat@lemmy.world
on 04 May 2025 16:36
collapse
He says he won’t wait and will call the by-election right away.
It’s bonkers, and certainly PP would never do such a thing in return, but not doing it would just lead to 6 months of "Carney is a coward who won’t let me in because I am always right and he hates that.
This snowflake is going to get treated with kid gloves over and over, and he isn’t going to learn a thing, will never return the courtesy, and continue to drag Canada and Canadians down as he goes.
Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
on 04 May 2025 18:35
collapse
Something I find pretty crazy is that he’s pushing out someone who was close to reaching 6 years of service, meaning that person is giving up on 6 years of pension contribution because MPs need to be in their position for 6 years to be eligible to keep it. What they contributed will be given back to them but in the end they won’t have much to show for their service when they retire.
OrteilGenou@lemmy.world
on 02 May 2025 20:25
nextcollapse
Nobody respects you Milhouse
njm1314@lemmy.world
on 02 May 2025 20:28
nextcollapse
Are there not residency requirements?
zipzoopaboop@lemmynsfw.com
on 02 May 2025 22:14
nextcollapse
My riding decided to elect someone who lives two cities away, so I guess not at the local level at least
Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
on 02 May 2025 22:40
collapse
Man that seems so Twisted to me. How can you represent people you don’t spend any time around? How can you claim to know their needs if you don’t even live among them?
spongebue@lemmy.world
on 03 May 2025 07:22
nextcollapse
I’m not Canadian, but I’ve previously known that in the US you only have to live in the same state as the district you’re representing. An argument in favor of that concept (that I admittedly just made up) is that congressional boundaries get rewritten every decade. In theory, this could be used to push a rep out of Congress if someone really wanted to, if they were required to live in district. State boundaries are much more stable so this is pretty good immunity to that.
prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca
on 04 May 2025 12:08
collapse
The system is designed in such a way that the residents get to make that decision. If they want to choose a non resident to represent them, they are allowed to do that.
In theory, an informed population should vote against this behaviour, but this particular riding will vote conservative until it kills them (which it’s likely to do).
Bonifratz@lemm.ee
on 02 May 2025 20:33
nextcollapse
Actual beta male
TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
on 02 May 2025 20:51
nextcollapse
So I’m guessing Alberta is Canada’s version of Alabama?
zippaling@sh.itjust.works
on 02 May 2025 21:01
nextcollapse
Probably closer to Texas, since we have a bunch of oil.
TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
on 02 May 2025 21:05
nextcollapse
puppinstuff@lemmy.ca
on 02 May 2025 21:30
nextcollapse
Is it within parliamentary procedure to address him as the former member from Ottawa-Carleton?
raynethackery@lemmy.world
on 02 May 2025 21:36
nextcollapse
American here. Can someone explain why Carney won’t be seeking NDP support?
Xhead@lemmings.world
on 02 May 2025 22:11
nextcollapse
Political parties should just standby the morals and principles they try to uphold.
If they align together, great they can both vote yes. If they don’t then they don’t. Pandering to other parties to get their vote just gets in the way of what you are actually trying to achieve.
The tend to make agreements on cooperation as a part of the partnership. A smaller party can trade up, gaining roles in the government, or concessions on certain policies.
Xhead@lemmings.world
on 04 May 2025 22:02
collapse
And do you think that’s conclusive to a well functioning government?
To me that just leads to corruption, incentivizing self severing interest.
I can’t really answer your question, as I’m don’t have that strong an understanding of how Governments work.
I can say that minority governments are meant to be less successful by design. It’s meant to sort of limit the damage that can be done without majority confidence from the electorate.
Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
on 02 May 2025 22:43
nextcollapse
To form an alliance you mean? The Bloc Quebecois already said they’ll be quiet for the next year as there’s lots to do, having two parties to work with means you don’t necessarily need to always bend the same way so it’s advantageous to leave the door open to sometimes compromise left and sometimes compromise in favour of what Quebec wants…
He probably will but it will be on an issue by issue basis. Carney only needs three votes from any of the Bloc Québécois or the NDP to pass anything. He can pull from either party.
The_Caretaker@lemm.ee
on 03 May 2025 17:30
nextcollapse
Shouldn’t there be some kind of election to fill the seat the politician resigned from? Otherwise, they could just have supermodels with masters degrees running for office, then resigning so a Nazi with a beer belly and a GED can take over.
ironchico@lemmy.world
on 03 May 2025 21:00
collapse
There will be a by-election and I’m sure someone will run against him from another party, but it’s a very conservative riding, so he’ll probably win pretty easy. But it would be the funniest thing ever if somehow he did manage to loose.
Smokeless7048@lemmy.world
on 04 May 2025 14:56
collapse
A VERY conservative riding. Voted 90% conservative.
pepperjohnson@lemm.ee
on 03 May 2025 17:44
nextcollapse
What a chud
AtariDump@lemmy.world
on 04 May 2025 02:43
nextcollapse
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 04 May 2025 13:43
nextcollapse
IDK anything about Canadian politics.
Didn’t this guy just preside over a pretty epic loss? Why does his party still want him?
Similar thing just happened here in Australia. Leader of the party lost his seat. Even if he hadn’t he would probably resign in shame because he’s really made a mess of things.
eurisko@lemmy.ca
on 04 May 2025 14:02
nextcollapse
We have experienced a very strange situation where the cons (unfortunately) fared far better than it ever did in its modern iteration while losing its momentous advantage, meaning that there is still somewhat of a reason for Poilièvre to stay in the race. He is also very arrogant, so he will not back down easily.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 04 May 2025 22:18
collapse
Thanks. That’s helpful.
Camzing@lemmy.world
on 04 May 2025 14:57
nextcollapse
Appalling, craven, cowardly, and pathetic hubris on the part of PeePee and conservative sycophants. A deep shame on rural Alberta for being such uncritical lemmings.
They haven’t voted yet. I, for one, am not holding my breath, but maybe there will be a silver lining of hope that he doesn’t get elected, especially if an independent runs against him. Now, to get the independent candidate riled up and in place. I have a vivid imagination. Lol
They are going to simp so hard for him. But I hope Maxime Bernier (PPC) runs as well as Blake Desjarlais (NDP) and the Longest Ballot as well. But I have zero faith in rural Albertans who have been mainlining right-wing apologia for decades.
threaded - newest
that was predictable
milhouse is a fucking snake and a con-artist.
You got to get rid of those nazis or they’ll be ruling the roost in an election cycle, trust me. –an american
Some of his ideas, like defunding CBC, are foolish.
I don’t think Pierre Poilievre is a Nazi. Statements like that are unhelpful.
He likes to dine with Nazis, and we all know the old adage about Nazis at a dinner table.
That was America’s favorite phrase in 2024…
PP is a populist conservative politician so he's not actively fascist, but do you know what happens when your society has a fascism-shaped hole? Politicians like PP expand to fill that hole.
If it walks like a populist and it quacks like a populist…
People said the same thing about MAGA/Trump.
Conservatives are holding the door open for fascism, and if you can’t close it, it will come in.
“Progressives”/Liberals are straight up begging for authoritarian dictatorships.
I missed when calling for smaller government, less regulations, less red tape, untouchable free speech, and less censorship suddenly became “fascism”.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/40c2d187-2ad3-4bcc-8d8c-094afb62ef23.jpeg">
There’s that classic liberal attitude we all know and love.
Classic conservative attitude we all loathe
You’re adorable.
Yes, a government so small it fits in your rectum or vagina. Free speech unless you want to say gay people exist. No censorship unless your book or webpage says something they don’t like and less regulations lead to more corporate power. Corporate takeover of government and the means of production is pretty much what fascism is about.
Cool made up things! Republicans are trying to ban you from saying gay people exist now? Source? Websites are being censored? Source?
Did you miss when Herr trump banned all those DEI websites? Like are you really that ignorant of what is going on?
Banned all those DEI websites? You mean removed policies from their government websites that no longer existed?
If the government end a government program, it’s not “censorship” to remove said program from government websites lol.
It is when it’s targeted specifically to non straight white men. Lol you need to try harder at trolling
That’s not “censorship”. Nothing is being “censored”. The goverment ended all DEI programs in their ranks, so they removed all DEI programs from their websites. Do you think they should keep advertising DEI programs that no longer exist?
What is it with Lemmy and accusing everyone who dares to have an opposing view of “trolling”? What exactly in my posts says “trolling”?
It literally is when it’s targeting anyone but white men.
Oh, you actually believe this? Ouch, that’s so much worse, sorry about that! I apologize. I’m against views that go against respecting others and I’m also against people who defend fascists, that is something I’m proud of.
Removing outdated information from a website is censorship because it “targets” anyone but white men? What? The DEI programs no longer exist, so the government removed the information about the DEI programs. That makes sense no matter how you feel about the DEI programs ending. If it doesn’t exist, you remove the info about it.
Are you trying to argue that ending DEI programs is “censorship”? That’s an entirely different argument, and “censorship” isn’t even remotely the right word for it.
Believe that you’re just saying I’m “trolling” because you disagree with me? Yes, I believe that because that’s what you’re doing. You haven’t shown any evidence of me “trolling” because I’m not. We’re having a discussion, or at least I’m trying to. It seems to me like you’re trying to get my opinion and views censored by calling them “trolling”, and I’m assuming you’re also reporting my comments as such too right?
why?
I know, I apologized, this is so much more sad that you’re serious
you don’t know what censure is, and no I’m not reporting you.
Why…what? Why would they remove the information about programs that no longer exist? Because they no longer exist. The information is no longer relevant, and leaving it up would only cause confusion.
CenSURE and cenSOR are very different things. Are you claming that the removal of the DEI stuff from the government websites is censuring or censoring?
Uhuh, but why?
Censors can censure.
Ok so there’s no point for me trying to continue this discussion with you as you clearly aren’t arguing in good faith. See ya.
Right back at ya
I assume you are a troll since this isn’t a secret and has been in countless news articles, but here you go. en.wikipedia.org/…/Anti-LGBTQ_curriculum_laws_in_…
Wikipedia is not a source.
No one is trying to deny gay people are a thing.
The sources in Wikipedia are
So provide those sources along with what part of them you’re actually talking about.
Which laws specifically?
You see them. They were provided to you.
I don’t see them, because I don’t go to wikipedia links and look for a needle in a haystack to support your argument.
You provide the links to the laws that you think support your argument.
my argument? Lol no. Also it’s not a needle in a hay stack, everything is neatly listed at the bottom haha.
You’re arguing that I should go and find my own examples of something that I am arguing isn’t happening, rather than the person making the argument that it is providing actual examples. That’s not how conversations and arguments work.
The original person, or yourself, can provide evidence to back up the original claim. It’s not my job to go and guess what exact part of what link you’re talking about.
You as in the person who is making the argument.
No, I’m not, I’m saying look at the sources provided to you
It’s there, the entire wiki is about the subject
And I’m saying that Wikipedia is not a source, and that I’m not going to go to a wikipedia page and then look for the specific source(s) that the person thinks proves their point when there could be 50 different articles linked on that page.
Show me a source for a LAW that the current US government has passed making it illegal to say that gay people exist. Go.
The sources are there, gay erasure is happening. I can’t learn it for you.
Show me a source. Wikipedia is not a source. Show me 1 specific example of a law that is “gay erasure” please. That’s not too much to ask, surely?
Tell you what, go to that wiki, scroll down and take a gander at the part that says “reference” and let me know what you see? That’s not too much to ask, surely?
Last chance then I’ll correctly assume that there are no sources on there that support the “gay erasure” argument.
It won’t be correct, plugging your ears, And closing your eyes isn’t “correctly assuming”
If you can’t provide a single piece of evidence to support your argument no matter how many times you’re asked, it’s correct to assume it doesn’t exist. Bye now :)
If you can’t be bothered to look at the evidence provided then, no its not correct to assume it doesn’t exist lol.
What Tool_Shed said. Wikipedia isn’t a source, it’s a reference. Links to the sources are included in the Wikipedia page. If you are refusing to look at the links then you are simply a troll. You don’t care to read the truth. You are more interested in spreading MAGA bullshit. There are 58 sources at the bottom of the page, many of which include links to state legislature websites and specific laws you can read yourself. You aren’t a freedom advocate you are a troll and not a very bright one.
PP was part of the Harper government which muzzled climate scientists, has made an enemy of the free press and implemented a racist snitch line to report religious minorities. Yeah, that’s the kind of “free speech” Poilievre believes in, the kind that shut the fuck up and doesn’t contradict the party line. So yeah, he’s a fucking fascist and you are a fucking idiot to think he is anything but a fucking fascist.
First time on Lemmy/Reddit?
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.net.au/pictrs/image/8b36d611-80af-4a28-96cb-01d24a53979f.jpeg">
How is the American government “fascist”?
It gets posted thousands of times because it’s true. “Nazi” Is the default attack by the far left. Someone *doesn’t * want free speech abolished? Nazi!
Oh, i don’t know, fascist policies? That should be pretty fucking obvious
Fascist policies such as……?
Do you genuinely live under a rock? Can you actually be that oblivious? You need to educate yourself bud
Can you please help educate me by showing me some of these fascist policies?
Tell ya what, you’ve been graced with marvelous things called a brain, and eyes and hands. I’m sure if you did the most basic cursory glances anywhere you would see them :) I believe in you!
Awesome, so you can’t provide a single fascist policy.
Thanks!
Awesome! You’re ignorant to his fascist policies!
Thanks!
Here’s dozens of concrete examples of how Trump’s government is directly enacting fascist policies. I’m not sure if you’re trolling so I put in a very small amount of effort to locate these articles, there are hundreds online.
…com.au/…/donald-trump-fascist-government-crikey-…
…com.au/…/donald-trump-fascist-government-crikey-…
P. S. If you hit the paywall they’re available on paywall bypass websites.
The democrats did/do all of those things too. Installing “loyalists” to top jobs is what every admin does. Biden did it. Obama did it. Everyone does it.
The media example is dumb. There are dozens of media, most highly critical of the trump, allowed in to the White House briefings etc. What 60 minutes did with that rambling Kamala interview deserves to have consequences, as they deliberately edited it to make her look better so as to not hurt her election chances.
Also just FYI - the Nazis were a socialist party. They were left wing.
No, they really aren’t
Aren’t? The Nazi party hasn’t existed for almost a hundred years. The National Socialist German Workers’ Party were left wing socialists.
There are still nazis, the nazis aren’t, and we’re never left wing.
National Socialist German Workers’ Party
DPRK. It’s a name
No, the democrats do not install Biden loyalists - people who have loudly and publically repeatedly announced uncritical support of Biden. They do not hire staff that are without any formal education or without significant qualifying experience for important roles - whereas Trump does all of those things. To say they all do the same shows a very uncritical assessment of reality.
The Nazi party believed firmly in social & familial heirarchy, oppressed the underclasses openly through targeted programs to eliminate trans, gay, Jewish and other minority groups, worked hand in glove with the factory owners and corporations to crush and outlaw unions, praised and supported the former Monarchy and Kaiser, and purged the communist party from the German political assembly through violence and incarcerations - and ultimately sent all communists, Marxists and labour leaders to death camps along with any other minorities they had decided to murder. So to insist they were left wing simply because their party name includes the word ‘socialist’ is naieve and ignorant to history.
Check sources from actual historians and you will find the same conclusions and volumes of evidence.
The only (in)famous people I know claiming the ‘Nazis were left-wing’ are the criminal liar Dinesh D’Souza, and all the usual right wing grifters Stephen Crowder, Prager ‘University’, Matt Walsh and so on - they are lying, as they do about most things. There are much better sources of news and information.
hahahaha
hahahahahahahahaha
I mean, if that’s the best argument you have? OK.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.net.au/pictrs/image/e1d118ff-73dd-486d-9e3f-8707f9a35fc1.png">
Oh ffs. Stop playing it down. Look at the riding he’s being given. Battle river. It’s conspiracy city. Far cry from Carleton… I know that part of Alberta well . I’m telling you right now: it ain’t good . He went from serving coffee to the convoy to living with them.
Step off with the gaslighting. This is the type of exact crap the Americans just went through. Knock it the hell off.
Lol
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/bd1d3e9d-a118-481c-af10-45b3996bf3f9.jpeg">
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ca0320f4-39b3-4090-b8a3-ae5db8693c99.jpeg">
Hey, just wanted to say you’re right. And these people here are bad faith commentators. They push things towards hyperbolic statements in the same way the right went nuts in their own way.
Unfortunately I fear this is what we have to come to accept now until everything blows up.
Protip:
Shove your head up your butt and you won’t have to close your eyes to ignore the nazis
Seriously consider what you’re saying here. That PP is a Nazi, he clearly is not, while telling me my head is up my ass
People running for high office that make campaign stops with white supremacists are 100% nazis, no exaggeration necessary.
People that are not nazis don’t tolerate nazis.
No, what you’re doing is lazily leveraging the nazi context for your political benefit. PP is not a Nazi for having a photo op or being tangentially associated with some asshole. It’s as lazy as showing pictures of people with Epstein and calling them pedophiles because they were in a photo.
It’s bullshit politics. The sad part is that you will never realize how it’s your credibility that is lost. And unfortunately since you associate with certain values, you lose credibility for the whole. There’s reason to shit on him for spending time with these people. But when you go hyperbolic and dramatically call him a Nazi, you lose the plot
Shoving your head up your ass won’t keep you safe from the nazis.
Good luck, boy.
There is no argument you have here. Pp is not a Nazi. All this does it’s discredit you. Be more precise
If you use the word nazi enough it won’t mean anything, and you will push awayl soft support. They are fascists plain and simple.
Just call them that for now until one of them gets their Hugo boss uniforms on, then you can call them nazis.
If you ignore people that very obviously are nazis, you become a nazi. Be careful.
I agree, it sucks when Americans try to project their issues onto us.
arguably worse, pp is a weasel who would play a nazi for a vote or stop for 2
the guy stnds for whtever serves him best
Spoken like a true nazi
The dude is aligned with trump and is a fascist. I wouldn’t call them nazis just yet, but they are certainly very, very fascist.
I work in a very conservative workplace in Alberta, and when I call trump a fascist I get zero pushback. In fact, they just nod in agreement. When I say that Peter rabbithait is aligned with trump, they don’t argue against that point either.
The “good ones” know their support for him is short lived, and they will have to piss or get off the pot soon. I hope goodness prevails.
If it was the other way around he’d never let Carney hear the end of it - “Carney, the guy who had to get someone else to quit in order to keep his seat”.
Politicians gonna politics, no surprise there.
He already didn’t let Carney hear the end of it - “Carney, who was not elected…”
I for one didn’t expect someone to resign this quickly.
PP has Mr. Kurek to thank. Some of you will understand this statement differently than others. 😂
This isn’t the first time this kind of thing has happened, provincially or federally, and it tends to be resolved pretty quickly. The same thing happened when Trudeau took leadership, for reference. Now, certainly this happens a lot less often when a party leader loses in a riding he previously held, but the mechanics are the same. Get a new leader, have a leader who can’t vote or perhaps speak in Parliament, or have a by-election in a safe riding.
Can you expand on that thing about when Trudeau took leadership, or link to an article, I’m not sure I remember this situation.
My bad, he was in fact elected in a general election, although there were rumors about him running in a by-election shortly before that, and all of that was before he was even leadervof the Liberals. I honestly, don’t remember anything about him in politics prior to leading the Liberals except that half-remembered by-election tidbit.
Another relevant example would be when Preston Manning resigned and Stephen Harper ran in his riding after being newly chosen to lead the Conservatives. There were a number of reasons for that to happen, and a bit of political maneuvering to have them all happen at the same time.
Thanks.
Yeah I understand why these manuvres are used, and sometimes would benefit democracy.
In this case PP was shown the door by his own riding, I think that either shows: a) the people do not want him in office, in which case this is just sidestepping democracy, or b) the conservatives failed to place their own leader in a "safe"enough riding, which shows a clear problem with that parties management, lead by PP, in which case he should probably move along as well.
I’ve said elsewhere there were only 3 real options available to them, and this was one of them. The fact of the matter is, the leader of the Conservative Party is chosen by Conservatives and he gets elected by a riding, and those are two different things. Now, if the people in this new riding think he should be gone, then he most likely will be, both from that riding and the party. And if Conservatives in general think this was the wrong choice for the party, we will see the results of that in the next general election if not sooner.
Now, I’m not saying I disagree with your assessment, and I personally think the Conservatives made the wrong choice (not surprising, I didn’t vote for them), but these are the choices we’ve established in our system. Perhaps this is one that should be changed, perhaps not.
That was quicker than I expected.
Imagine if he fails to be elected again in the partials
He’ll win, the only reason he’s coming to Alberta is because it’s a slam dunk.
82% in favour of conservatives during the last election but Carney can wait 6 months to launch the by-election, that might be long enough to piss off some conservatives that might want to get rid of PP.
He says he won’t wait and will call the by-election right away.
It’s bonkers, and certainly PP would never do such a thing in return, but not doing it would just lead to 6 months of "Carney is a coward who won’t let me in because I am always right and he hates that.
This snowflake is going to get treated with kid gloves over and over, and he isn’t going to learn a thing, will never return the courtesy, and continue to drag Canada and Canadians down as he goes.
Something I find pretty crazy is that he’s pushing out someone who was close to reaching 6 years of service, meaning that person is giving up on 6 years of pension contribution because MPs need to be in their position for 6 years to be eligible to keep it. What they contributed will be given back to them but in the end they won’t have much to show for their service when they retire.
Nobody respects you Milhouse
Are there not residency requirements?
My riding decided to elect someone who lives two cities away, so I guess not at the local level at least
Nope
Man that seems so Twisted to me. How can you represent people you don’t spend any time around? How can you claim to know their needs if you don’t even live among them?
I’m not Canadian, but I’ve previously known that in the US you only have to live in the same state as the district you’re representing. An argument in favor of that concept (that I admittedly just made up) is that congressional boundaries get rewritten every decade. In theory, this could be used to push a rep out of Congress if someone really wanted to, if they were required to live in district. State boundaries are much more stable so this is pretty good immunity to that.
The system is designed in such a way that the residents get to make that decision. If they want to choose a non resident to represent them, they are allowed to do that.
In theory, an informed population should vote against this behaviour, but this particular riding will vote conservative until it kills them (which it’s likely to do).
Actual beta male
So I’m guessing Alberta is Canada’s version of Alabama?
Probably closer to Texas, since we have a bunch of oil.
Ah. I see.
And cowboys
More like Texas I’ve heard.
Is it within parliamentary procedure to address him as the former member from Ottawa-Carleton?
American here. Can someone explain why Carney won’t be seeking NDP support?
Political parties should just standby the morals and principles they try to uphold.
If they align together, great they can both vote yes. If they don’t then they don’t. Pandering to other parties to get their vote just gets in the way of what you are actually trying to achieve.
That’s my take anyways
The tend to make agreements on cooperation as a part of the partnership. A smaller party can trade up, gaining roles in the government, or concessions on certain policies.
And do you think that’s conclusive to a well functioning government?
To me that just leads to corruption, incentivizing self severing interest.
I can’t really answer your question, as I’m don’t have that strong an understanding of how Governments work.
I can say that minority governments are meant to be less successful by design. It’s meant to sort of limit the damage that can be done without majority confidence from the electorate.
To form an alliance you mean? The Bloc Quebecois already said they’ll be quiet for the next year as there’s lots to do, having two parties to work with means you don’t necessarily need to always bend the same way so it’s advantageous to leave the door open to sometimes compromise left and sometimes compromise in favour of what Quebec wants…
He probably will but it will be on an issue by issue basis. Carney only needs three votes from any of the Bloc Québécois or the NDP to pass anything. He can pull from either party.
Shouldn’t there be some kind of election to fill the seat the politician resigned from? Otherwise, they could just have supermodels with masters degrees running for office, then resigning so a Nazi with a beer belly and a GED can take over.
There will be a by-election and I’m sure someone will run against him from another party, but it’s a very conservative riding, so he’ll probably win pretty easy. But it would be the funniest thing ever if somehow he did manage to loose.
A VERY conservative riding. Voted 90% conservative.
What a chud
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/e9b33023-04e4-4b24-a79e-67138f65ff8e.jpeg">
IDK anything about Canadian politics.
Didn’t this guy just preside over a pretty epic loss? Why does his party still want him?
Similar thing just happened here in Australia. Leader of the party lost his seat. Even if he hadn’t he would probably resign in shame because he’s really made a mess of things.
We have experienced a very strange situation where the cons (unfortunately) fared far better than it ever did in its modern iteration while losing its momentous advantage, meaning that there is still somewhat of a reason for Poilièvre to stay in the race. He is also very arrogant, so he will not back down easily.
Thanks. That’s helpful.
The in fighting hasn’t begun yet.
Yes. His own party should boot him as leader.
Appalling, craven, cowardly, and pathetic hubris on the part of PeePee and conservative sycophants. A deep shame on rural Alberta for being such uncritical lemmings.
They haven’t voted yet. I, for one, am not holding my breath, but maybe there will be a silver lining of hope that he doesn’t get elected, especially if an independent runs against him. Now, to get the independent candidate riled up and in place. I have a vivid imagination. Lol
They are going to simp so hard for him. But I hope Maxime Bernier (PPC) runs as well as Blake Desjarlais (NDP) and the Longest Ballot as well. But I have zero faith in rural Albertans who have been mainlining right-wing apologia for decades.
The same people think that kids are using cat litter in schools to go to the bathroom.
Smooth brained fuckwhits.
They are
…during school shootings (US)
Nothing says democracy like ignoring the will of the people.