|
Re: Pierre Poilievre
**** him.
|
Re: Pierre Poilievre
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 13145280)
**** him.
|
Re: Pierre Poilievre
It'll be interesting to see what happens in the QC election tomorrow. There are currently no Conservative provincial MPs. There might be on Tuesday morning.
I've noticed that the ruling CAQ, which will win, has lurched further to the right recently. Perhaps trying to cosy-up to potential Conservative voters? It always amuses me when I hear the CAQ being discussed or talking about themselves. It's a hard "Q". They clearly don't speak Brit. Or, indeed, Greek, otherwise they'd know what a kakistocracy is. |
Re: Pierre Poilievre
Originally Posted by Souvy
(Post 13145291)
It'll be interesting to see what happens in the QC election tomorrow. There are currently no Conservative provincial MPs. There might be on Tuesday morning.
I've noticed that the ruling CAQ, which will win, has lurched further to the right recently. Perhaps trying to cosy-up to potential Conservative voters? It always amuses me when I hear the CAQ being discussed or talking about themselves. It's a hard "Q". They clearly don't speak Brit. Or, indeed, Greek, otherwise they'd know what a kakistocracy is. |
Re: Pierre Poilievre
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 13145284)
Judging by the popular support he gets, that may be wishful thinking. Like Trump, he knows how to push the buttons with utter tosh.
|
Re: Pierre Poilievre
Originally Posted by Bleepedy Bloops
(Post 13145279)
He makes a good opposition leader but would never vote for a party who's leader proudly aligned himself with anti-vaxxers (or more politely, the anti-vax mandates people).
|
Re: Pierre Poilievre
Originally Posted by Bleepedy Bloops
(Post 13145279)
He makes a good opposition leader but would never vote for a party who's leader proudly aligned himself with anti-vaxxers (or more politely, the anti-vax mandates people).
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 13145466)
When did he state that he is anti-vaccine? IIRC, his argument went along the lines of "...these people have been going across the border, keeping supply chains going, since the start of this thing. They spend most of the time in their cabs so why, all of a sudden, does the fact that some of them do not have a vaccine suddenly result in them being such a menace to society that you wish to take their way to make a living away...?"
|
Re: Pierre Poilievre
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 13145478)
The OP said aligned with, not being one. Google results appear to show such an alignment exists.
|
Re: Pierre Poilievre
PP is just what the CPC needs, bright, articulate, combative and conservative, unlike liberal-light O'Toole and the shrinking violet Scheer.. Of course, the bought and paid for liberal press are in full smear and innuendo mode, panicked by his polling popularity. He has my vote and I think he'd make a good PM, but then I'm pro bodily autonomy and anti vaccine mandates, something that seems to draw the sneers of some commentators here.
|
Re: Pierre Poilievre
Originally Posted by Mackem_66
(Post 13145487)
PP is just what the CPC needs, bright, articulate, combative and conservative, unlike liberal-light O'Toole and the shrinking violet Scheer.. Of course, the bought and paid for liberal press are in full smear and innuendo mode, panicked by his polling popularity. He has my vote and I think he'd make a good PM, but then I'm pro bodily autonomy and anti vaccine mandates, something that seems to draw the sneers of some commentators here.
|
Re: Pierre Poilievre
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 13145478)
The OP said aligned with, not being one. Google results appear to show such an alignment exists.
|
Re: Pierre Poilievre
Not many examples of his "utter tosh" being laid out on here. Certainly not enough to conclude "**** him".
|
Re: Pierre Poilievre
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 13145529)
​​​​​​Pr o my body, f**k society. Essentially that.
The various C-19 vaccines are not in the same ball park and, the longer they have been used, the more merit there is in the argument that there were nowhere near as effective as they were touted to be and that, as eminent virologists had suggested, there were other ways to have dealt with it. |
Re: Pierre Poilievre
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 13145539)
It's a little more nuanced than that. If the vaccines had worked as well as, let's say, the polio or smallpox, then there would be merit in the argument that not getting one left one open to ridicule.
The various C-19 vaccines are not in the same ball park and, the longer they have been used, the more merit there is in the argument that there were nowhere near as effective as they were touted to be and that, as eminent virologists had suggested, there were other ways to have dealt with it. |
Re: Pierre Poilievre
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 13145543)
That many of us are around to argue the fine points of vaccine efficacy is largely due to those vaccines. I agree it's nuanced though, that's why I find the term "pro bodily autonomy" misleading. It's kind of like the term "pro life" technically true, but insidious in nature.
The pro-life argument is a whole other kettle of fish. I doubt that many would argue that a termination to save the life of a mother is bad thing. However, once again, the situation is a little more nuanced when arguing that "my body, my choice" is the be all and end all. Would you agree that abortion is an acceptable form of contraception? If the mother can choose to terminate against the father's wishes, should it not also be the case that, if the mother decides to give birth against the father's wishes, should the father have to pay for child support? |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 7:57 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.