Canadian Election 2025

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we had a Carney type against Trump then we would not have Trump right now. Maybe we can learn for next time.

I don't think these guys just grow on trees, is the thing. Imagine how much easier it would be if they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we had a Carney type against Trump then we would not have Trump right now. Maybe we can learn for next time.

I don't think these guys just grow on trees, is the thing. Imagine how much easier it would be if they did.

^ I mean, actually, Romney is probably as close as we've got to this - and he'd have lost to Trump this time, for sure. Who's the D who's most like this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thus proving, everything Trump touches, dies.

Trump endorsed Carney. Basically easier to destroy Canada with a PM who will look to Europe first.

Show me where Trump endorsed Carney.

Trump didn’t endorse Carney.

What he did do, as he always does, was that once he saw that the election would be a blowout, he pretended that he’d be happy with that outcome. Trump is all about saying whatever makes him look like he’s on the winning side in the current 5 seconds.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/donald-trump-election-canada-truth-social-1.7520212

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we had a Carney type against Trump then we would not have Trump right now. Maybe we can learn for next time.

I don't think these guys just grow on trees, is the thing. Imagine how much easier it would be if they did.

^ I mean, actually, Romney is probably as close as we've got to this - and he'd have lost to Trump this time, for sure. Who's the D who's most like this?

Jamie Dimon maybe though he is not a politician.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we had a Carney type against Trump then we would not have Trump right now. Maybe we can learn for next time.

I don't think these guys just grow on trees, is the thing. Imagine how much easier it would be if they did.

^ I mean, actually, Romney is probably as close as we've got to this - and he'd have lost to Trump this time, for sure. Who's the D who's most like this?

Jamie Dimon maybe though he is not a politician.

Carney wasn’t either. He

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does Canada get a classy intellectual like Carney and we get a belligerent buffoon?

Our elected leaders are a reflection of who we are collectively.

Canadians get a guy with these credentials:

*A BA in economics from Harvard University and a PhD in economics from the University of Oxford.​
*Worked at Goldman Sachs for 13 years, gaining experience in international finance.
*Served as Deputy Governor and then Governor of the Bank of Canada (2008–2013), leading the country through the global financial crisis.
*Appointed Governor of the Bank of England (2013–2020), becoming the first non-British citizen to hold the position.​

Americans get this guy:

*Graduate of Wharton which he transferred to after the intervention of a family friend.
*Headed a family business he took over from his father and from which he can never be fired. Racked up 6 Chapter 11 bankruptcies.
*Very active in litigation. From 1973 until he was elected president in 2016, Donald Trump and his businesses were involved in over 4,000 legal cases in United States federal and state courts, including battles with casino patrons, million-dollar real estate lawsuits, personal defamation lawsuits, and over 100 business tax disputes.
*Headed a popular reality TV star in which he pretended to be a successful businessman.

MAGA be like:
Carney, what a nerd!
Trump is so cool!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we had a Carney type against Trump then we would not have Trump right now. Maybe we can learn for next time.

I don't think these guys just grow on trees, is the thing. Imagine how much easier it would be if they did.

^ I mean, actually, Romney is probably as close as we've got to this - and he'd have lost to Trump this time, for sure. Who's the D who's most like this?

Jamie Dimon maybe though he is not a politician.

Oh please - give me a break. Now you're just listing a random white banker type. One who's lost all semblance of integrity over the last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why did Trump hand the election to Liberals?

Canadian here. I have no idea, but I am grateful. Six months ago I was convinced Poilevre had it in the bag. Then Trump got involved.

A couple of other important events happened before that. Freeland stepped down because she wasn't happy with Trudeau antics. That was bold. Then Trudeau had the grace and foresight to step down early as leader to give the Liberal party a chance to find another leader. That paved the way for Carney.

But I'll admit that the tariffs, and then the talk of 51st state, helped to return Canadians to voting Liberal.

Freeland stepped down as she wasn’t earmarked to be the successor. I assuming as a political move, she was hoping distancing herself from her position in the government would allow her to run on her own platform. This is where Harris got stuck - she couldn’t say anything negative about the current government’s policies as well, that included her. Freeland honestly wouldn’t have brought a Liberal win. Trudeau resigning and The party picking Carney, despite him being off the radar in so many ways, was a brilliant tactical move.

The piece that is missing here is that Freeland and Carney have been good friends for decades - her son, his godson is in 10th(?) grade. In a TV interview last night she said that she didn't have a crystal ball in Dec. but she knew that there needed to be change in the party and precipitated it by resigning. She had a strong hunch that Trump is going to be a threat to Canada (see her book "Plutocrats" and her dealings when negotiating the USMCA) and Trudeau was dead in the water. I assume that she realized that she couldn't influence things with Trudeau in place, but could if either (she) or (Carney, with her in a support role) were at the helm.

Pundits in Canada are talking about whether Carney will be able to do the politics of leading a minority government - he doesn't have to. Freeland is genius at working with leaders across political colours, and has been instrumental in getting trade barriers between provinces removed even as Carney & Co have been campaigning. She is a backroom, late night phone call, operator and she has the skills to get disparate people singing from the same hymn sheet. Freeland knew she couldn't bring a Liberal win, but she also knew that she has the skills to make sure that a political-novice, economic wonk, can do politics successfully. I wonder whether Carney would have even run for the leadership if he didn't know that Freeland would stick around to do the politics. Anita Anand and Sean Fraser are staying on and I assume that they are parts of the jigsaw too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we had a Carney type against Trump then we would not have Trump right now. Maybe we can learn for next time.

I don't think these guys just grow on trees, is the thing. Imagine how much easier it would be if they did.

Well, part of the “problem” for many American voters is that many of our “Carney types” are not straight white men. Voters with white nationalist leanings won’t vote for competence as a priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we had a Carney type against Trump then we would not have Trump right now. Maybe we can learn for next time.

I don't think these guys just grow on trees, is the thing. Imagine how much easier it would be if they did.

^ I mean, actually, Romney is probably as close as we've got to this - and he'd have lost to Trump this time, for sure. Who's the D who's most like this?

Jamie Dimon maybe though he is not a politician.

Carney wasn’t either. He

And, of course, neither was Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thus proving, everything Trump touches, dies.

Trump endorsed Carney. Basically easier to destroy Canada with a PM who will look to Europe first.

Show me where Trump endorsed Carney.

Trump didn’t endorse Carney.

What he did do, as he always does, was that once he saw that the election would be a blowout, he pretended that he’d be happy with that outcome. Trump is all about saying whatever makes him look like he’s on the winning side in the current 5 seconds.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/donald-trump-election-canada-truth-social-1.7520212

The story is that Trump didn't think Poilievre was "MAGA" enough and didn't think Poilievre was irreverent enough to Trump. So Trump started dissing him due to the blow to Trump's fragile ego (as per usual).

https://globalnews.ca/news/11055372/donald-trump-pierre-poilievre-chrystia-freeland-comments-tariff-threat/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why did Trump hand the election to Liberals?

Canadian here. I have no idea, but I am grateful. Six months ago I was convinced Poilevre had it in the bag. Then Trump got involved.

A couple of other important events happened before that. Freeland stepped down because she wasn't happy with Trudeau antics. That was bold. Then Trudeau had the grace and foresight to step down early as leader to give the Liberal party a chance to find another leader. That paved the way for Carney.

But I'll admit that the tariffs, and then the talk of 51st state, helped to return Canadians to voting Liberal.

Freeland stepped down as she wasn’t earmarked to be the successor. I assuming as a political move, she was hoping distancing herself from her position in the government would allow her to run on her own platform. This is where Harris got stuck - she couldn’t say anything negative about the current government’s policies as well, that included her. Freeland honestly wouldn’t have brought a Liberal win. Trudeau resigning and The party picking Carney, despite him being off the radar in so many ways, was a brilliant tactical move.

The piece that is missing here is that Freeland and Carney have been good friends for decades - her son, his godson is in 10th(?) grade. In a TV interview last night she said that she didn't have a crystal ball in Dec. but she knew that there needed to be change in the party and precipitated it by resigning. She had a strong hunch that Trump is going to be a threat to Canada (see her book "Plutocrats" and her dealings when negotiating the USMCA) and Trudeau was dead in the water. I assume that she realized that she couldn't influence things with Trudeau in place, but could if either (she) or (Carney, with her in a support role) were at the helm.

Pundits in Canada are talking about whether Carney will be able to do the politics of leading a minority government - he doesn't have to. Freeland is genius at working with leaders across political colours, and has been instrumental in getting trade barriers between provinces removed even as Carney & Co have been campaigning. She is a backroom, late night phone call, operator and she has the skills to get disparate people singing from the same hymn sheet. Freeland knew she couldn't bring a Liberal win, but she also knew that she has the skills to make sure that a political-novice, economic wonk, can do politics successfully. I wonder whether Carney would have even run for the leadership if he didn't know that Freeland would stick around to do the politics. Anita Anand and Sean Fraser are staying on and I assume that they are parts of the jigsaw too.

The problem is not Freeland’s competence. The problem is she never would have been voted in as the PM. This is why Carney was “the chosen one” and the other election results prove it was a good move. Anand is a very good politician - I know her riding and people who aren’t stuck on a party but voted for her in the riding as she was the only candidate that was out knocking on doors.

Carney is not a politician. He’s an economist and banker, and that can appeal to a wider swath of the population. I think the move that was made was excellent for the party, and possibly excellent for the country. He’s going to have a learning curve, but he’s surrounded by good people. What remains to be seen is who he will put into cabinet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we had a Carney type against Trump then we would not have Trump right now. Maybe we can learn for next time.

I don't think these guys just grow on trees, is the thing. Imagine how much easier it would be if they did.

^ I mean, actually, Romney is probably as close as we've got to this - and he'd have lost to Trump this time, for sure. Who's the D who's most like this?

Jamie Dimon maybe though he is not a politician.

Carney wasn’t either. He

And, of course, neither was Trump.

I think the CVs speak for themselves in comparison.

[Anonymous]

How is it that Canadians came out in droves to vote for the Liberals and against Trump when Trump isn’t even on their ballot and then in this county we have literally endured a disastrous first Trump term yet this country again voted for this clown. A complete difference in education levels. 58% of Canadians have a college degree compared to only 33% of Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we had a Carney type against Trump then we would not have Trump right now. Maybe we can learn for next time.

I don't think these guys just grow on trees, is the thing. Imagine how much easier it would be if they did.

Well, part of the “problem” for many American voters is that many of our “Carney types” are not straight white men. Voters with white nationalist leanings won’t vote for competence as a priority.

Who are you thinking of? Mayor Pete? I like him too but he didn't head up two banks - he was mayor of a small city before joining a cabinet (where best you can say about how he did is at least planes weren't crashing and lighting on fire!), and becoming everyone's favorite TV guy. He wasn't even ever elected to Congress.