Canadian politics thread

[Hondaracer]

Post #9000 in this thread, I win

[unit]

i was in the opposite situation where i needed something faster than amazon could deliver it so i went to the mall and bought a kids card game at the board game store and paid $40 when it was only $20 on amazon. i understand the convenience factor but kinda hard to buy local when it's twice the price unless you are desperate. i dont mind if i have to pay like 10-20% more to support my neighbourhood store but 50% more is kinda tough to swallow.

[Hondaracer]

That’s a very common occurrence unfortunately.

Stuff like batteries it’s impossible to even get close. London drugs and shoppers near me (not like either are bastions of justice either) the batteries I needed for my alarm contacts were triple Amazon..

[JDMDreams]

Then there's AliExpress you get the same Amazon shit but for 1/3 of the price but it comes in like 2 weeks. No tax. ??? Profit

[!LittleDragon]

Remember when Washington State tried to get Bezos to pay his fare share of taxes? Yaaaahhh.... he lives in Florida now... lol

[westopher]

Originally Posted by unit

i was in the opposite situation where i needed something faster than amazon could deliver it so i went to the mall and bought a kids card game at the board game store and paid $40 when it was only $20 on amazon. i understand the convenience factor but kinda hard to buy local when it's twice the price unless you are desperate. i dont mind if i have to pay like 10-20% more to support my neighbourhood store but 50% more is kinda tough to swallow.

I understand that and believe my stance against Amazon is a luxury, however it never would have gotten to this point if everyone didn't choose it when it was 1% cheaper cause they are lazy and too recluse to speak to a store employee back when it was growing.
I will stay on my high horse. Falling in line is the easy way. If it was the right way it would have always just been the way. I mean, you stood up for it and took an inconvenience because it was right. If more people did that we wouldn't all just be a bunch of fuckin wieners like JDMdreams complaining about everything on the planet while actively contributing to making it worse.

[underscore]

Their search is shit and the no-name stuff from China tends to be a lot more expensive than AliExpress but most people aren't picky about what they get and barely pay attention to price anyways.

[GS8]

Amazon fucks with their sellers pretty severely (I guess the social media equivalent would be 'shadowbanned' where the sellers still exist on Amazon but don't show up in search)

And more recently, Amazon wants to charge sellers for lost / damaged goods that Amazon's own logistics teams are responsible for.

I try to do as much shopping locally as I can (support local). I also like to have the mental drive to be self-reliant.

Fuck Doordash / Skip - Why is this cold burger and fry $52?

Fuck Amazon / Temu - Why is this 9v power supply electrocuting me?

Fuck Uber & Taxis - Stop putting your hazards on where ever you please. That's not a free pass to park on 12th near Clark.

[Hondaracer]

Honestly I don’t care about any of the transgressions Uber has made. The service they provide adds reliability, safety, and takes drunken drivers off the road compared to the fucking joke that was the taxi industry.

Women specifically uber is a god send that actually has accountability versus the sack of shit sexual predators that dominated the cab industry.

[yray]

https://youtu.be/gnmgL5CZqfs?si=8V2MkBHkuCyOGsl_

this was from 15 years ago lol

[BIC_BAWS]

LOL PP announced that he wants Canada to follow suit in the TikTok ban.. but isn't he Mr. Free Speech?

Anyway comments on social media is now anti-PP lol "well now he lost the election"

Sent from my SM-G781W using Tapatalk

[Manic!]

If pp has a minority goverment I don't think it will last and he will have to call another election.

[Traum]

I'm surprised a simple change with Carney has turned a Conservative landslide victory into only a minority gov victory.

And if Freeland wins the leadership race, I don't think the Libs will be able to win as many seats as suggested above.

[Harvey Specter]

I would also say the threat of Trump will play well for the Liberals and NDP. The election will be much closer than it was say 2 months ago.

[Vancouver240sx]

I'm not sure its that surprising, liberals polled two months were in limbo waiting for the party to elect a leader. I'm amazed how quiet the NDP is right now. They had a real chance to suck up the left leaning votes by pushing someone new forward like Wab Kinew and try to rebrand before the election. That party is a mess.

Rich

[Manic!]

[Harvey Specter]

President Trump is using the threat of imposing stiff tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico as soon as next week to pressure the two nations to start renegotiating a continental trade deal, according to people familiar with the matter. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement, which was crafted during Trump’s first term in office as a replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement, is up for statutory review in 2026—but Trump hopes to renegotiate it sooner, the people said.

Trump is particularly focused on using the threat of tariffs to change automotive rules under the continental trade pact, forcing car plants to move from Canada and Mexico back to the U.S., according to people familiar with his thinking. That has sent major automakers rushing to find ways to satisfy Trump without “blowing up the North American auto supply chain” that extends throughout the three nations, according to one auto-industry executive. Trump, according to people briefed on the matter, will turn to Howard Lutnick, his pick for Commerce secretary, and Jamieson Greer, his nominee to be the U.S. Trade Representative, to handle the renegotiation of the USMCA.

The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment. The USMCA governs roughly $2 trillion of trade between the U.S. and its continental neighbors. It was approved by Congress with the broadest support of any trade deal in U.S. history. More than 200 Democrats in the House and Senate joined Republicans in backing the agreement because of the stricter labor and environmental standards that Trump’s team added to broaden its appeal. Since its signing, Mexico and Canada have supplanted China as the leading U.S. trading partners, according to Census Bureau data.

“I don’t think there’s any question that there will be a reboot of USMCA,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer, (R., N.D.), a close Trump ally. Cramer said he has been in contact with Canadian officials about how they can assuage Trump’s demands, either by reforming the trade pact, addressing fentanyl smuggling, or contributing more military spending to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization—all longstanding Trump irritants. “Hopefully they’ll respond quickly and dramatically enough to avoid the tariffs altogether,” he said, adding “that’s certainly the goal.”

Other lawmakers close to Trump are warning Canada and Mexico not to take his tariff threats lightly. Sen. Bill Hagerty (R., Tenn.), a Trump ally who served as his ambassador to Japan during the first term, said it would be “woefully naive” to see Trump’s tariff threats as only a cudgel for renegotiating trade deals. “He will do it,” said Hagerty of imposing tariffs, adding that he has also recently been in contact with Canadian officials on how they can create a more “reciprocal” trading relationship with the U.S.

“I’m not going to talk him out of it,” said Sen. Ron Johnson, (R., Wis.). “He’s well aware of my misgivings and my concerns,” Johnson added, pointing to the effect Trump’s first-term tariffs had on Wisconsin-based Harley-Davidson. Trump told reporters on Monday, his first day in office, that he is aiming to place 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico on Feb. 1. He signed a wide-ranging trade memorandum that instructed USTR to take the lead on reviewing the effect of the USMCA on workers, farmers, and ranchers—and make recommendations on U.S. participation in the agreement.

Mexico and Canada are the U.S.’s two largest trade partners, respectively, and both countries are bracing for major economic disruption should Trump follow through. Mexico and Canada send about 80% of their exports to the U.S., and their manufacturing, agricultural, and commodities industries are tightly integrated. Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, said Tuesday that Canada is ready to hit back, promising that any response would be “robust, and rapid, and measured, and very strong.”

Canadian officials are weighing retaliatory tariffs on up to $150 billion of U.S. products such as Kentucky bourbon and Florida orange juice as a possible response, depending on what Trump actually does. Canada has also threatened to add an export tax on the 4 million barrels a day of oil it sends to U.S. refiners, which could ultimately boost the cost of gasoline to U.S. customers. “Everything is on the table,” Trudeau said. He acknowledged that tariffs on U.S. goods and services would also hurt Canadian consumers and businesses, and said the government is ready to provide financial support to households and businesses to cushion the blow.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum preached calm at her daily news conference. “Let’s keep a cool head,” Sheinbaum said. “We should always avoid confrontations.” Sheinbaum said last year that U.S. tariffs could bring retaliation from Mexico. In 2018, Mexico responded to U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum with tariffs of its own, which targeted U.S. products ranging from steel to pork, cheeses, and apples.

Trump wants to wait until he has his full trade team in place before potentially moving forward with tariffs, some of the people familiar with the matter said. His economic team, including Lutnick, Greer, and Scott Bessent, his pick for Treasury secretary, hasn’t yet been confirmed. Trump on Monday said he was still considering plans to impose across-the-board tariffs on virtually every trading partner, which some Republicans hope to use to generate revenue that will offset an extension of Trump’s tax cuts this year. Trump privately told Senate Republicans at a Jan. 8 lunch on Capitol Hill that he is convinced tariffs can raise around $1 trillion in revenue, according to a person present for the meeting.

The legal authority that Trump would use to impose the 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico remains uncertain, according to people with knowledge of policy discussions. Trump could use so-called Section 232 national security tariffs, or he could use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which his advisers have weighed as a tool to impose his across-the-board tariffs, but could also be applied to individual nations. Other options remain in play as well.

In Canada, the government had planned a two-day cabinet retreat, which began on Monday, to coincide with Trump’s inauguration and to prepare to fight a trade war. Ministers have been discussing possible retaliatory measures and getting presentations from trade negotiators and industry representatives about the possible economic impact. Economists warn that Trump’s plans could result in significant economic disruptions across the continent. A 25% tariff on all U.S.-bound Canadian exports could throw the Canadian economy into a recession, squeezing gross domestic product by as much as 3%. Retaliatory tariffs would only add to the pain.

Last month, Bank of Canada Gov. Tiff Macklem warned that the Trump tariff threat has likely damped business confidence and paused investment plans. A tariff would trigger widespread disruption in the Canadian economy, Macklem said. The tariff threat is already affecting Canadian businesses, according to a Bank of Canada survey conducted last month. Executives fear a pickup in inflation from U.S. tariffs. Some companies have lowered their sales forecasts and scaled back hiring and investment plans.

“Companies are going to make their decisions based on the concrete policies that emerge over the coming weeks and months,” said Jake Colvin, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, an industry trade group. “In the meantime, businesses are going to have to live with that uncertainty and prepare as best they can for a variety of tariff scenarios.”

Paul Vieira in Ottawa and Anthony Harrup in Mexico City contributed to this article.

..........

[Great68]

Unfortunately Amazon is a necessary evil sometimes. Many things I buy I have no idea where to even begin looking for locally. For example,.1/8" backer rod. The local home improvement stores only have as small as 3/8".

Amazon: found it in 30s.

[Hondaracer]

Originally Posted by Manic!

This just reads like regurgitated Trudeau bullshit.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

This just reads like regurgitated Trudeau bullshit.

At least he is not bending over like some.

[JD¹³]

Until Mark Carney is elected as an MP couldn't give a shit what he has to say. At this point he's just a businessman/bureaucrat spouting his opinion, no different than that other mouthpiece O'Leary. If Carney is voted leader of the Liberals to be the face of the party through the election, fine then he can speak during the campaign. But he absolutely SHOULD NOT replace Trudeau as PM before the election even if he replaces him as party leader. Having an unelected, non-MP as the Prime Minister is a complete subversion of our democracy and should not be allowed to happen.

Also, that poll posted above is by far the most optimistic for the Liberals of them all and does not reflect reality (shocking from Manic as usual). The average of them all still has the Conservative Party with a 98% chance of winning a majority taking over 200 seats. The Liberal Party is still an absolute dumpster fire, don't get it twisted based on a single graphic that polled a whole 1036 people. As I stated when Freeland stepped down there is a very real chance the BQ will be the official opposition (that in itself is wrong as well).

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elec...tracker/canada

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by JD¹³

Until Mark Carney is elected as an MP couldn't give a shit what he has to say. At this point he's just a businessman/bureaucrat spouting his opinion, no different than that other mouthpiece O'Leary. If Carney is voted leader of the Liberals to be the face of the party through the election, fine then he can speak during the campaign. But he absolutely SHOULD NOT replace Trudeau as PM before the election even if he replaces him as party leader. Having an unelected, non-MP as the Prime Minister is a complete subversion of our democracy and should not be allowed to happen.

In most parliamentary systems (including Canada and the UK) there is no requirement that the Prime Minster be part of the House of Commons (elected in a seat). The Prime Minister is the King's minister - it's for the King (so to speak) to decide. While no one has done so on a long term basis it has happened for short periods of time

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/can...ment-1.7430116

https://www.instituteforgovernment.o...neral-election

Twice, William Lyon King lost his seat DURING the election and he subsequently ran for another seat and won it but during that time he still was Prime Minister. John Turner became PM without a seat as well.

If anything, it's up to the party's constitution as to what they do - in the UK the two major parties both say the PM needs to be part of the House of Commons.

Further, citizens do not directly choose a Prime Minister - if Carney or a non-elected person is chosen leader by the ruling party then they are within norms and rights to be made Prime Minister.

[Vancouver240sx]

Originally Posted by supafamous

Citizens do not directly choose a Prime Minister - if Carney or a non-elected person is chosen leader by the ruling party then they are within norms and rights to be made Prime Minister.

YES! Thank you for making this point. You don't even have to look far back in time to see parties appointing the Prime Minister.

Paul Marin Liberal Appointment 2003
Kim Campbell Progressive Conservative Appointment 1993
John Turner Liberal Appointment 1984

You get the idea, more here.

Rich

[JD¹³]

Originally Posted by supafamous

In most parliamentary systems (including Canada and the UK) there is no requirement that the Prime Minster be part of the House of Commons (elected in a seat).....

I know it's been done in the past, but its disingenuous regardless. Political leadership should be chosen by the people, not appointed by political parties. The major UK parties have it right.

Originally Posted by supafamous

Further, the electorate doesn't choose a Prime Minister, they choose a party and a representative and that party chooses the Prime Minister (if they are the majority or can form a coalition). Citizens do not directly choose a Prime Minister - if Carney or a non-elected person is chosen leader by the ruling party then they are within norms and rights to be made Prime Minister.

While this is true in theory its not reality and you know it. With the partisan games all parties play no MP is truly independent unless running as such. If you're voting for Party X you know you're voting for their individual Prime Minister, that's why they campaign as such. The ballot looks different but in practice it's the same as the US, you're choosing the PM with your vote even if they're not specifically listed.

Given the staggering corruption and complete loss of mandate from Canadian citizens the Liberal Party should not be swearing-in someone off the street to be PM. With tensions as high as they are with the new US leadership having some unelected stand-in for three months would be exceptionally weak. Couldn't be a worse time for these partisan games, and we the people are going to suffer as a result. As usual.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by JD¹³

I know it's been done in the past, but its disingenuous regardless. Political leadership should be chosen by the people, not appointed by political parties. The major UK parties have it right.

In the UK they are chosen by the party.

In September 2022 Truss defeated Rishi Sunak in a leadership election to succeed Johnson, who had resigned because of an earlier government crisis, and was appointed as prime minister by Elizabeth II two days before the monarch's death; her government's business was subsequently suspended during a national mourning