Without the influence of Trump, we would likely now be instead contending with a Conservative majority government helmed by the party’s most right-wing leader ever.
In fact, the Conservatives made significant gains, despite failing to achieve the electoral outcome they desired. Across the country, the rightward drift is readily apparent, with Conservatives growing their seat count from 119 to 143 and their popular vote share from 33.7 to 41.3 per cent from 2021 to 2025. Moreover, the right secured growth as voter turnout rose by more than 6 percentage points.
In the last two weeks of the election campaign, several prominent Catholic news outlets, periodicals, Catholic internet blogs, and other Catholic publications, some officially endorsed by the Catholic Church (mostly available by subscription only and thus only came to the attention of Catholics, thus avoiding general public scrutiny and comment) came out strongly that it was the duty of ALL Catholics to NOT support the Liberals or other left-leaning parties; and completely condemned Carney for deserting his Catholic faith, even though Carney was a regularly practicing Catholic. They all did it collectively, in what was obviously a planned, coordinated, conspiratorial centrally directed process. It was driven by the highest levels of the Catholic Church, as was made clear in many of the official Catholic sites, as the OFFICIAL viewpoint of the Catholic Church ((i.e., the Vatican). This was, I posit, the main reason for the dramatic shift in the polls,raising the Conservatives up 5 or six points.
The media condemns the foreign influence on our elections, and we tell Trump to stay out of our elections, yet we say nothing about a foreign power and foreign entity - the Pope and the Vatican - meddling in our sovereign elections.
We will never have free and fair elections from a Canadian perspective, Canadian culture, Canadian values, Canadian history, Canadian identity, as long as we allow a foreign religion-based Empire to influence them.
This sounds pretty significant, but significant claims require significant evidence. I’d like to see some links or something about this.
Yeah, without evidence this sounds 100% like conspiracy lol
We are far from out of the woods on dealing with the rising far right movement. We need to see other parties divide the moderate conservatives from the far right conservatives on wedge issues like Alberta separatism and other crazier stuff from the far right.
At the same time, the Liberals and the NDP need to work on winning over the moderate voters who went with the CPC because of the economic & labour pains they’ve felt in recent years.
Also, killing off X in Canada would be great, but much more contentious.
Let’s not forget the sacrifices made to avoid splitting the vote, such as https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/green-party-list-of-candidates-debates-1.7510915
Liberals would’ve won a lot more votes if they enacted sensible firearms laws instead of banning guns outright.
For those who aren’t big into firearms to put into perspective majority of firearms banned were chambered in 22lr (.22 Long Rifle) which most people would call a “learning caliber”, something you would give to a 15yo to learn the sport or for plinking pop bottles/cans.
Only about 17% are saying current laws are too strict.
Nah, just like everywhere else in the world, liberals (both in the Canadian political party sense and general ideological sense) are losing ground because they refuse to address the root causes of things like the housing crisis and spiraling economic inequality. The working class is fed up, and with no real solutions being offered by the center to center-left, they’re turning in desperation to lying right-wing demagogues.
Npd is the only major party adressing to root problem yet people voted for liberals and conservatives
You are spreading disinformation, because it is not true that guns are banned “outright”. Specific classes of firearms are.
But How many more votes are really at stake thru your (apparently) favored pet issue? How many Canadians who would consider voting lib do you really think are single issue gun voters?
You are spreading disinformation, because it is not true that guns are banned “outright”.
But i’m not though?
- December 2024 Reclassification
- March 2025 Reclassification
- Canada re-classifies Crusader Arms Crypto Rifle to prohibited
Three different re-classifications issued by the Canadian Government. Long story short - You can no longer; purchase, sell or take these firearms out of your safe/lock-box so, yes, i would say calling them banned for recreational use is fair and justified.
But How many more votes are really at stake thru your (apparently) favored pet issue? How many Canadians who would consider voting lib do you really think are single issue gun voters?
I would refer you to my other comment made.
People who have a PAL/RPAL that weren’t too political before their license are more likely to be involved with politics after getting their license given all the regulations around firearms.
I would refer you to my other comment made.
I don’t see a comment that speaks to numbers. You said they are “banning guns outright”. If you mean “banning SOME guns outright”, then it would be correct, but of course almost everyone thinks some guns should be banned outright. But not all guns are banned outright, you can still own and buy guns.
While I agree their firearm ban is totally rushed and makes zero sense at all. I still don’t think they would’ve gotten a lot more seats/votes if they hadn’t passed this law.
If they is such a big deal for the general population, Carney’s platform could’ve try to either rewrite it or cancel it altogether like Capital Gain Tax.
Though I really wish Carney’s platform could address questionable decision by the previous catastrophic PM like Bill C-21, C-18, and C-75 among many others.
I hope he pulls the plug on C-18. It’s so stupid that they previous Liberal party pushed a law to literally benefit misinformation. I have no idea how they thought it was a good idea.
I still don’t think they would’ve gotten a lot more seats/votes if they hadn’t passed this law.
I believe I must disagree here! People who have a PAL/RPAL that weren’t too political before their license are more likely to be involved with politics after getting their license given all the regulations around firearms.
Though I really wish Carney’s platform could address questionable decision by the previous catastrophic PM like Bill C-21, C-18, and C-75 among many others.
You and me both.
Around 25% of Canadian households own some sort of firearm. Families with firearms tend to vote as a bloc, and they also tend to be single-issue voters. Firearms are that single-issue. When you’re bad on that single-issue, you lose them, when you’re good on it, you get them, when nobody’s offering much of anything, they go with who has helped them in the past, and that’s always been the Conservatives.
Excluding the MapleMAGA idiots, they also tend to be highly patriotic and consider defending this country a duty, which is why they have firearms. Many are ex-military. These are the people who could easily be swayed away from Conservative (speaking as one who did) to vote Liberal. But it would’ve been vastly easier for me if I hadn’t needed to do so while holding my nose to ignore the stinkiness of the Liberal gun policy… yet again. Many, I would say most, firearm owners in Canada, would not be and were not willing to make that sacrifice to their single-issue. Most of the people I talked to are so incensed about it I have to hide the fact that I voted for anything other than Conservative. But I know these people well, and I’m telling you, most of them, their support for the Conservatives has little to do with ANYTHING other than gun legislation. They are truly single-issue voters. They may follow talking points for the Conservatives but all they’re really trying to do is get everyone to vote Conservative so they can get better gun laws. All you need to do to get them to vote for another party is to present better gun legislation.
Note this doesn’t mean offering to give everyone tanks and allowing private ownership of nuclear weapons. Most of the responsible, law-abiding gun owners in Canada would be happy to just have the laws stop treating us like we’re the criminals, when it’s people with no license and unregistered illegal firearms responsible for the vast majority of gun crime. Fight illegal guns and unlicensed owners, not us. Ask us to help you do that, and we’ll help you. Assume good faith. We’ve jumped through all the hoops, we’ve done the background checks, we follow the laws, don’t make more hoops and more laws, don’t make the laws more complex and harder to follow, don’t limit us even further. Maybe do something to make it easier to open gun ranges (safely, indoors) instead of letting municipal NIMBYism ghettoize us into an ever shrinking number of authorized ranges with limited membership capacities in remote areas hours away from where we live. We’re simply asking for fewer legislative monkeys on our backs. We can only go through so much tedious bureaucracy before something we enjoy becomes no longer enjoyable. We shouldn’t need a separate permit to “transport” for every range day. We’re not asking for things that are unreasonable, we’re just asking for legislation that is not unreasonable. It would honestly not take much, and it would not have to negatively impact safety in any way.
Please show me a poll showing that 25% of Canadians are single issue gun voters. (I know gun owning families (avid hunters) who had no problem voting for a Liberal PM.)
I don’t know the exact number and if there was a poll I wouldn’t imagine it would be very accurate anyway. We are both sharing anecdotes and having a discussion, is that not allowed?
I know gun owning families (avid hunters) who had no problem voting for a Liberal PM
I wish I knew more of them, and like I said, I was only slightly reluctantly one of them. I’m not trying to say they don’t exist, I’m just saying I think there’s a lot of votes they’re throwing away on a relatively pointless anti-gun platform (which honestly I don’t think is even as bad as they made it sound like it was). It’s a matter of messaging, and even how it was phrased. Things like “I’m going to reinvigorate the federal gun buyback” sounds unnecessarily intimidating to gun owners. It plays directly into their fears of “the government will ban my guns” and drives them away from voting Liberal. I know it does, I saw it happen. What does such a policy actually accomplish, and why did they try to turn it into an election issue that felt like it could only hurt them? Who was cheering for this? If they wanted to appear “tough on crime” (again: legal gun owners are not criminals) there’s a dozen other ways they could’ve demonstrated that just as effectively if not more effectively.
only about 17% saying current laws are too strict. 56% of gun owners themselves say laws are too strict. 44% is surprisingly high to me for gun owners
We have had abysmal performance under the Liberals. Second last in the OECD next to Luxembourg since 2015, all while taking on a ton of debt, and fostering a massive housing bubble by buying half of all mortgage bonds federally and doing mass immigration. So what did we avoid?
How did we avoid Trump, hes the president of the USA right now, and we still have his tariffs on our exports to the US. If anything we made ourselves vulnerable by not exporting to Europe when they were begging for our energy a year or two ago. We said we are net zero, and decided we didnt need exports to maintain our social safety net, we could paper over it with ever larger amounts of debt.
Pierre seemingly had more sense when it came to our exports:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/poilievre-calgary-rally-1.6418474
This was Carney a year ago, talking about making us net zero and strengthening ties to the US:
By our next election trump will have had plenty of time to turn everyone off the right.
Tell us you don’t understand the world without telling us. Right wing propaganda dominates social media algos. The world has not stopped shifting right. In fact, it’s just starting.
I’m pretty sure Trump could eat maga’s babies in front of them and they’d still vote for him.
Like that anti-vaxxer lady whose kid died of measles and is still anti-vax.
No material effects will change them. Their identity and fragile ego is wrapped up in this.
That’s… uh… wishful thinking. Like literally just wishful thinking.
