Politalk.ca

If they'd had an ounce of sense since Harper left, they'd have grabbed Carney before Trudeau did.
But they bought the MAGA bullshit that lurching firther and further to the right would gain them more votes. Canada is NOT the United States.

They never had a chance to grab Carney. He was a friend of the Trudeau family for decades, and he's Christia Freelands' chldndrens godfather.

moun10 wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2026 1:31 pm If they'd had an ounce of sense since Harper left, they'd have grabbed Carney before Trudeau did.
But they bought the MAGA bullshit that lurching firther and further to the right would gain them more votes. Canada is NOT the United States.

Wow! That's a nightmarish scenario! If the Cons had Carney the Libs would be toast. Thankfully the Cons are MAGA-lite twits.

!!! Beats me to it once again !!!

Security Clearance Controversy: The creator addresses viewer comments regarding Poilievre's lack of a top-secret security clearance (1:06-4:55). The video clarifies that while Poilievre held clearance as a cabinet minister under Stephen Harper, his current refusal to obtain one is a point of ongoing political debate, with Poilievre arguing that the Security of Information Act would restrict his ability to criticize the government (4:43-5:23).
Forensic Photo Analysis: The creator performs an informal "forensic analysis" of photographs posted by Poilievre to social media (6:07-8:22). By comparing the aspect ratios and relative size of Poilievre's head and body in different images against his wife, the creator concludes that Poilievre has, at times, digitally altered or manipulated images to appear larger or more muscular (7:12-8:22).
Anecdotal Commentary: The video highlights various comments from the creator's own audience, using them as a springboard to discuss the polarization of current Canadian politics and the difficulty in distinguishing between genuine grassroots support and potential bot activity (0:56-2:06).
The creator concludes by suggesting that Poilievre appears to be managing two distinct public personas: his "real" life as a husband and taxpayer, and his "online" life, where he potentially uses image manipulation to project a stronger, more powerful image (8:43-9:23).

Polling Trends: The host discusses a "trio of troubling polls" (5:10) for the Conservatives, including data from Nanos (3:15 - 4:20) and Leger (5:10 - 6:15), which show the Liberals holding substantial leads. Additional mentions of Research Co and Liaison reinforce a trend of declining Conservative support (21:30 - 22:25).
Critique of Conservative Leadership: Gilmore characterizes Poilievre's leadership as overly partisan, lacking substantive policy focus, and damaging to democratic discourse through his rhetoric regarding the media (10:20 - 15:00).
Political Landscape: The host expresses frustration with the current "first-past-the-post" electoral system, arguing it limits options for progressives and effectively creates a two-party race between the Liberals—whom she labels as governing like Conservatives—and the Conservatives (6:15 - 10:08, 23:17 - 24:50).
Media and Economics: Gilmore criticizes media biases, specifically the "view from nowhere," and argues that ideas like trickle-down economics are given undue credibility compared to progressive policies like wealth taxes (25:00 - 27:26).



The cherry on top? BC NDP are back on track to a projected majority:

https://www.poliwave.com/ca/bc/polls?lang=en

This is all at the feet of pp who can't push back on Smith and this is bleeding the con vote because they have to choose between being a Canadian or supporting maple maga.

Dr Strangelove wrote: Tue Aug 18, 2026 1:16 pm

This is all at the feet of pp who can't push back on Smith and this is bleeding the con vote because they have to choose between being a Canadian or supporting maple maga.

One thing I don't think Rachael sees is that Carney can do nothing about Smith. Anything he says or does will be taken as the interference from Ottawa that her Convoy section believes. Carney has to wait for Smith to get unelected.

Rachel is tone deaf on her political takes. Colored by her own priorities and naivety. She does good work as a journalist and asks important questions as is her vocation but I wouldn't vote for her.