And every time I mentioned how it was a bad idea to vote for Carney and how bad he is, I kept being downvoted and then people comment "yeah but we would've has Poilievre otherwise."

No we wouldn't. A lot of NDP ridings turned red because of this. But people should have voted for the NDP. With them as a strong opposition, we would still be in a better position in a minority big C Conservative government than we are right now with a majority small c conservative government.

Carney is a corporatist. He knows how to sweet talk investors to gain their trust like any CEO can bullshit people into buying their stock. And he's done that with all of Canada.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 1 points 22 hours ago

Carney is decidedly NOT a Corporatist. He is 100% a Banker, tried and true.

A Banker is what makes a Corporist possible.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Be careful what you wish for...

we would still be in a better position in a minority big C Conservative government than we are right now with a majority small c conservative governent.

You might not have been aware of the full stakes and nuances of the situation in late 2024, early 2025. At around December 2024, Trudeau was so unpopular that Poilievre was in clear majority territory, not minority if an election were held then.

This is more a matter of opinion, and I agree what we have is not a great situation, but do you really think that having Pierre in charge, with a cabinet of emboldened racists and a coalition of a group of conservative Liberals would be better than this? Metaphorically I see it as having Pierre in the driver's seat with Liberals with them in the front and the NDP backseat driving in the opposition, versus Mark in the front, with the NDP and the Cons together in the back with PP unable to find a compelling message.

Plus, getting Lewis to unapologetically push left-wing ideas for us I think is a better strategy than Singh's centre-left conciliatory approach that had exhausted its usefulness. The orange wipeout was, rightfully IMO, a wakeup call for the Canadian left.

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

...the Singh centre-left got lots of stuff done in Canada like a dental plan.

The left needs simpler ideas, like 'we'll just hire your kids right out of trade school, and give them a job building 500,000 social housing units' so they can make money and get experience'.
The left also needs to get tough on crime. Get rid of the violence in prisons by making them safe, but put lots more people behind bars.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Agreed with your first and second points, crime definitely is a separate discussion, I'm mixed on that.

Recall that I wrote "...had exhausted its usefulness", implying it was good, but unlikely to be as effective going forward.

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world -2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

The police forces are controlled by very right wing people, they don't put any energy into causes that they don't like, like loud and reckless driving cars.
It would be good to make the police forces more responsive to the communities they serve, but the left has no interest. Legalize drugs, make they only available through license sellers...and go after the unauthorized seller very very very hard, because those people don't care about you, or making Canada better.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

but the left has no interest.

You mean the centrist liberals right? Progressives are 100% on board with changing the way law enforcement is done, top to bottom. Its a core of their platform.

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world -1 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Progressives are 100% on board with changing the way law enforcement is done

The left can't communicate what it wants law enforcement to be.

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Actually they have. Many times. They mainly want to defund the police and use these funds for other social programs meant to reduce crime overall. Social housing is one of them. Legalizing drugs, sex work, increasing wages to allow people to afford their basic needs like shelter and food, providing better access to mental health services and social workers, etc.

Conservatives on the other hand want the opposite. They want to defund everything else and give it all to the cops who are just going to beat up and arrest people who are clearly in need of help. Can't afford shelter? Camp in a park. But that's illegal. Can't afford food? Steal it. But that's illegal. Can't get mental health? Go in full mental breakdown and use illegal drugs to try and self medicate. But that's illegal.

Get the point?

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Defunding the police and using that money legalize all drugs...is an idealist plan that won't end well. Police reform sure, legalized drugs sure. But some explanation between the two positions needs to be thought through.

About 10% of society is made up of people that are evil, like to pull wings of flies, kick dogs, laugh at handicapped people. The left has no way of dealing with them.

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 0 points 2 hours ago

That's not even the point I was making.

I didn't say abolish, I said defund.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world -1 points 18 hours ago

Ah I see, its all the out of power progressives fault. Darn those progressives. Powerless and maligned but completely at fault for the abuses of leadership.

Aslo you frame it as if it was simply a problem of progressives communicating what centrists and the right just somehow cant see, or the centrists and right being willing to listen.

Could it be the centrists and right know exactly what the problems are and choose not to address them?