Giving the highest possible benefit of the doubt - what could Poilievre's angle possibly be by saying this? What does he think it gains him?

Wouldn't a better political move be to say something like "run whoever you want. x, y, and z policies are what matter and that's what our party is going to fight for"? I mean, even if it's a lie, wouldn't that be a much more politically savvy thing to say? Off the top of my head I can think of 3 or 4 other angles to take that seem a lot better than "the Liberals have a moral responsibility to keep their current leader". That's like, high school debate level shit.

Poilievre has been on Parliament Hill for 20 years. I'm just continually baffled by what appear to me to be obvious blunders in a game he should know very well. Is there something I'm missing?

edit: Is it possible that this is an ego thing for Poilievre? Is there some thread here that, he wanted to be the one to take down Trudeau, and if internal Liberal party operations accomplish that instead, that takes away some kind of marquee victory that Poilievre wanted for himself?

Dear downvoter in the thread: just testing something out here-

Parliamentarians who are wittingly working with foreign powers to interfere in Canadian politics, should be expelled from parliament.

Your thoughts?

One of the strangest elements of this story is that the Village People and Rufus Wainwright are on the Trump campaign playlist.

FWIW, in terms of % of the popular vote in 2021, Alberta voted NDP at a higher rate than Ontario. So I think the results of a FPTP election obscure the diversity of views in Alberta.

From the write-up by the urologist:

Urologic examination showed an impressive bulging over the penile stump, and after removing the ligating cord, 800 ml of blood and clots discharged from the wound

The town of Barrhead has a population of 4320 people. Only ~~10%~~ (correction, 16%) of the town petitioned for this as-yet-unpassed bylaw. Those individuals don't even represent the town of Barrhead, much less the entire province.

I don't mean this personally - I'm surprised that someone who is as vocal about proportional representation as you are would be insensitive to the demographic facts of this matter.

If were going to have a public health system, people should be required to take care of themselves

On the face of it, this sounds sensible. But, thinking more deeply, who should decide the required amount of care a person ought to take? Ideas about what it means to 'take care of yourself' are varied. And consider that some citizens of this country are simply unable to take the same personal health decisions that others have the privilege to take without a second thought.

What you're talking about here isn't a public system. A healthcare system that only serves certain chosen people is not public in any meaningful sense.

A public healthcare system is imperfect on the whole, but on average, when funded and administered properly, is structured to apportion care based on need, instead of the profit motive. I think that's worthwhile, and the right thing for a society to do from a moral standpoint.

One of the first things Trudeau did as Prime Minister was break the top-line platform promise that got him elected - he promised Canadians that the 2015 federal election would be the last one under the first past the post system. So I'd say from the standpoint of democracy, he had an absolutely horrible start.

Of course he went on to reap the benefits of the imbalanced first past the post system for two subsequent federal elections, one of which he called unnecessarily during the pandemic in order to consolidate power for his party.

I think him and his party have been vaporware since day one.

The House partisan gamesmanship needs to be ignored if we're going to be serious about national security and sovereignty. Canadians deserve to know if their member of Parliament wittingly aided a foreign interference operation. We need to know right now. The notion that an election could occur while undisclosed traitors are on the ballot? This would be catastrophic.

There are absolutely no excuses for the current government's horrific file on foreign interference:

• Not already having a foreign agent registry in place
• Not acting on the NSICOP report immediately
• Attempting to discredit the NSICOP report
• Voting against transparency and accountability on this issue at every opportunity
• Threatening a sequel to the 'Special Rapporteur' circus by suggesting that an 'internal review' will somehow be satisfactory
• Failing to say something even as simple as 'Members compromised by a foreign power should be removed from Parliament'.

There's no good reason for any of it, and their inaction is an open invitation to China, India, and others for further interference.

It's impossible to agree with Minister LeBlanc. Canadians cannot have confidence that police can investigate and lay charges when warranted. The NSICOP report details how our system is configured in such a way as to make that difficult or impossible.

This is an encouraging step, and it's nice to see the heat being turned up on the grocery monopoly.

I think we need cost controls and compulsory transparency about pricing. What stick exactly are the grocery companies wielding to prevent measures like that from being rolled out? A federal government with vision and principles would have had a plan and gotten this done yesterday. Instead, we're waiting for the assent of megacorps to a non-binding code of conduct, which everybody knows is total vaporware.

I can see why people are disaffected by all the hand waving about 'competition'. Increased competition is probably part of the solution to the problem here. But it's not a valid starting point. It's a result of wise policy and good implementation.

Median wage of $45k per year is wild. Tough to live comfortably on that in most cities in this country.

Talking points printed for comrades at the Russian troll farm