Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Pierre Poilievre asked a devastatingly simple question: why are Canadians starving in one of the richest countries on Earth? He laid it out. Food prices—70 percent higher than the Bank of Canada’s target. Four million food bank visits. A 400 percent increase. Those are breadline numbers. That’s collapse stuff....

DanKnightMMA's profile picture

Dan Knight

69,761 subscribers

102,887 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политикаФинансы
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

OTTAWA — After staging an affordability photo op in a grocery store conveniently missing price tags, Prime Minister Mark Carney finally showed up in Question Period and immediately learned why he’d avoided it. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre opened by accusing the PM of scrubbing prices for the cameras, then reminded Canadians that groceries are rising faster here than anywhere else in the G7. The charge wasn’t subtle: if prices look bad, hide them; if questions look worse, skip Parliament. Carney’s response was familiar and evasive. He didn’t address the price tags. He didn’t address food inflation. He pivoted to meetings, cooperation, and a laundry list of talking points, jobs numbers, wage claims, tax cuts, a school food program, and the GST rebate he announced the day before. It was a recital, not an answer. When Poilievre pressed again, on deficits, fuel taxes on farmers, food bank lines, and a projects office that hasn’t approved a single new project, the Prime Minister countered with more slogans and a warning about Conservative legislation, carefully sidestepping the cost-of-living question he was asked. The exchange said everything. Poilievre stayed locked on prices, costs, and outcomes Canadians recognize at the checkout. Carney stayed locked on optics, process, and applause lines. The grocery store backdrop may have worked for a press conference. Under the lights of Question Period, with no price tags to remove and no script to hide behind, the performance fell apart. #cdnpoli
4:39

OTTAWA — After staging an affordability photo op in a grocery store conveniently missing price tags, Prime Minister Mark Carney finally showed up in Question Period and immediately learned why he’d avoided it. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre opened by accusing the PM of scrubbing prices for the cameras, then reminded Canadians that groceries are rising faster here than anywhere else in the G7. The charge wasn’t subtle: if prices look bad, hide them; if questions look worse, skip Parliament. Carney’s response was familiar and evasive. He didn’t address the price tags. He didn’t address food inflation. He pivoted to meetings, cooperation, and a laundry list of talking points, jobs numbers, wage claims, tax cuts, a school food program, and the GST rebate he announced the day before. It was a recital, not an answer. When Poilievre pressed again, on deficits, fuel taxes on farmers, food bank lines, and a projects office that hasn’t approved a single new project, the Prime Minister countered with more slogans and a warning about Conservative legislation, carefully sidestepping the cost-of-living question he was asked. The exchange said everything. Poilievre stayed locked on prices, costs, and outcomes Canadians recognize at the checkout. Carney stayed locked on optics, process, and applause lines. The grocery store backdrop may have worked for a press conference. Under the lights of Question Period, with no price tags to remove and no script to hide behind, the performance fell apart. #cdnpoli

Dan Knight

48,752 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Poilievre vs. Carney: “If He Knows Many Things, Maybe Start With the Deficit” The hottest exchange in Question Period yesterday came when Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre repeatedly asked Prime Minister Mark Carney the simplest of questions: How big is the deficit? Carney dodged, promising answers in his November 4 budget and boasting about “the strongest economy in the G7.” When pressed again, Carney quipped: “I know many things.” Poilievre pounced, mocking the line as proof of Liberal arrogance: “Surely if he was such an expert, he would know the size of his own deficit. Six months into the fiscal year, $40 billion in new spending, and still no number. The financial expert doesn’t even know what his own deficit is.” He then twisted the knife with a devastating closer: “To a government that doesn’t know how to count, there is nothing more terrifying than a man armed with a calculator.” Carney’s “I know many things” will go down as the clunkiest rebuttal of the session — a gift to Conservatives who framed it as proof the PM can recite talking points but can’t answer the only number Canadians care about.
5:11

Poilievre vs. Carney: “If He Knows Many Things, Maybe Start With the Deficit” The hottest exchange in Question Period yesterday came when Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre repeatedly asked Prime Minister Mark Carney the simplest of questions: How big is the deficit? Carney dodged, promising answers in his November 4 budget and boasting about “the strongest economy in the G7.” When pressed again, Carney quipped: “I know many things.” Poilievre pounced, mocking the line as proof of Liberal arrogance: “Surely if he was such an expert, he would know the size of his own deficit. Six months into the fiscal year, $40 billion in new spending, and still no number. The financial expert doesn’t even know what his own deficit is.” He then twisted the knife with a devastating closer: “To a government that doesn’t know how to count, there is nothing more terrifying than a man armed with a calculator.” Carney’s “I know many things” will go down as the clunkiest rebuttal of the session — a gift to Conservatives who framed it as proof the PM can recite talking points but can’t answer the only number Canadians care about.

Dan Knight

49,778 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

🚨 BREAKING: Canada’s Defence Minister found out our troops got bombed from a NEWSPAPER. 11 days after it happened. Then walked it back hours later claiming he was “actually briefed immediately.” So he either lied that morning or lied that afternoon. One of them is a lie. In any event, he tried to politicize it, and blame Pierre Poilievre for not getting his security clearance when he didn’t know about it himself. Meanwhile Carney was asked about the bombing and said “I’m not the only spokesperson for the government.” That’s the Prime Minister…. Talking about Canadian troops being bombed. Our allies share information openly. Canada treats it like a state secret. 200 Canadians are deployed in the Middle East and this government can’t even be honest about whether they got hit.
2:57

🚨 BREAKING: Canada’s Defence Minister found out our troops got bombed from a NEWSPAPER. 11 days after it happened. Then walked it back hours later claiming he was “actually briefed immediately.” So he either lied that morning or lied that afternoon. One of them is a lie. In any event, he tried to politicize it, and blame Pierre Poilievre for not getting his security clearance when he didn’t know about it himself. Meanwhile Carney was asked about the bombing and said “I’m not the only spokesperson for the government.” That’s the Prime Minister…. Talking about Canadian troops being bombed. Our allies share information openly. Canada treats it like a state secret. 200 Canadians are deployed in the Middle East and this government can’t even be honest about whether they got hit.

Mario Zelaya

36,320 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

So a reporter asks Pierre Poilievre about this leaked “fast-track” shortlist for a pipeline. And what does he do? He laughs. He literally laughs at the question. Why? Because the whole thing is ridiculous. “What is this list?” he says, chuckling. “It’s a dream list… it doesn’t exist anywhere in reality.” Exactly. Ottawa’s big, bold idea is… a list. Not a shovel in the ground, not a permit approved, not even a plan...just a piece of paper that says, “Maybe someday.” Meanwhile, the route for Northern Gateway has already been mapped. Eighty percent of First Nations supported it. Asia wants the oil and gas. It should have been built a decade ago. Instead, it was killed by Justin Trudeau... with Mark Carney applauding... while the same people invested in pipelines overseas. So yes, Poilievre laughed. Because it’s absurd. Only in Ottawa could politicians cancel a pipeline, wait ten years, and then congratulate themselves for putting the exact same pipeline back on a “shortlist.” It’s like canceling dinner and then bragging about writing a shopping list. Poilievre’s answer was simple: if he were Prime Minister today, construction would already be underway. That’s the difference. The Liberals draw up lists. Poilievre builds. And he can’t help but laugh at how stupid the alternative is.
1:55

So a reporter asks Pierre Poilievre about this leaked “fast-track” shortlist for a pipeline. And what does he do? He laughs. He literally laughs at the question. Why? Because the whole thing is ridiculous. “What is this list?” he says, chuckling. “It’s a dream list… it doesn’t exist anywhere in reality.” Exactly. Ottawa’s big, bold idea is… a list. Not a shovel in the ground, not a permit approved, not even a plan...just a piece of paper that says, “Maybe someday.” Meanwhile, the route for Northern Gateway has already been mapped. Eighty percent of First Nations supported it. Asia wants the oil and gas. It should have been built a decade ago. Instead, it was killed by Justin Trudeau... with Mark Carney applauding... while the same people invested in pipelines overseas. So yes, Poilievre laughed. Because it’s absurd. Only in Ottawa could politicians cancel a pipeline, wait ten years, and then congratulate themselves for putting the exact same pipeline back on a “shortlist.” It’s like canceling dinner and then bragging about writing a shopping list. Poilievre’s answer was simple: if he were Prime Minister today, construction would already be underway. That’s the difference. The Liberals draw up lists. Poilievre builds. And he can’t help but laugh at how stupid the alternative is.

Dan Knight

136,714 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Ezra Levant asks Pierre Poilievre "Back in May, Gregor Robertson, Mark Carney's housing minister, was asked if he wanted the price of housing to come down, and he said no." "How do you balance reducing the cost of housing for young families, but also protecting what may be the only nest egg for some seniors and boomers? Where do you draw the balance? How would you like to see pricing?" Poilievre "So, first of all, I just think we need to acknowledge that it is incredible that Mark Carney would pick Gregor Robertson as his housing minister." "After that, when he was the mayor, Vancouver's housing costs went up by 150%, driven almost entirely by municipal taxes." "So the guy who created the worst housing market in North America, forget Canada." "And what I'm saying is, let's cut the government cost out of housing." "Get rid of the sales tax, cut the development charges in half, speed up the permits, zero tax on reinvested gains." "If you get the government cost out of building homes, then the buyer, the seller, and the builder will all be winners at the same time." Pierre Poilievre Ezra Levant 🍁🚛
2:33

Ezra Levant asks Pierre Poilievre "Back in May, Gregor Robertson, Mark Carney's housing minister, was asked if he wanted the price of housing to come down, and he said no." "How do you balance reducing the cost of housing for young families, but also protecting what may be the only nest egg for some seniors and boomers? Where do you draw the balance? How would you like to see pricing?" Poilievre "So, first of all, I just think we need to acknowledge that it is incredible that Mark Carney would pick Gregor Robertson as his housing minister." "After that, when he was the mayor, Vancouver's housing costs went up by 150%, driven almost entirely by municipal taxes." "So the guy who created the worst housing market in North America, forget Canada." "And what I'm saying is, let's cut the government cost out of housing." "Get rid of the sales tax, cut the development charges in half, speed up the permits, zero tax on reinvested gains." "If you get the government cost out of building homes, then the buyer, the seller, and the builder will all be winners at the same time." Pierre Poilievre Ezra Levant 🍁🚛

cbcwatcher

33,315 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Why can’t politicians just answer simple questions about their job? Sophy Ridge asked Defence Secretary Wes Streeting a straightforward question he should have been ready for. You’d expect the person in charge of defence to have a clear position on the spending target for his own department, yet he repeatedly dodged it. She asked if he agreed with his predecessor John Healey, who said he was certain Britain should reach 3% of GDP on defence by 2030: “Are you also certain about 3% of GDP by 2030? Is that a target?” Streeting: “I endorsed John Healey’s resignation letter wholeheartedly at the time. What you will see from Andy Burnham and John Healey as prime minister and chancellor is a commitment to make sure the defence investment plan is fully funded.” That’s not an answer. Sophy cut in: “I’m going to have to come in again. You are the Defence Secretary, do you believe in the target of spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030?” He again referred back to agreeing with Healey and then talked at length about setting out “what we will fund and how we will fund it.” Still no direct answer. Clearly frustrated, Sophy tried once more: “I’m not asking you to set out how you’re going to fund it. I’m asking, do you believe in the target that we should be spending 3% by 2030?” His reply? He wouldn’t answer because the next question would be about how to fund it. That is a ridiculous reason to refuse a basic question about your own brief. Just answer it. Absolutely pathetic.
1:44

Why can’t politicians just answer simple questions about their job? Sophy Ridge asked Defence Secretary Wes Streeting a straightforward question he should have been ready for. You’d expect the person in charge of defence to have a clear position on the spending target for his own department, yet he repeatedly dodged it. She asked if he agreed with his predecessor John Healey, who said he was certain Britain should reach 3% of GDP on defence by 2030: “Are you also certain about 3% of GDP by 2030? Is that a target?” Streeting: “I endorsed John Healey’s resignation letter wholeheartedly at the time. What you will see from Andy Burnham and John Healey as prime minister and chancellor is a commitment to make sure the defence investment plan is fully funded.” That’s not an answer. Sophy cut in: “I’m going to have to come in again. You are the Defence Secretary, do you believe in the target of spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030?” He again referred back to agreeing with Healey and then talked at length about setting out “what we will fund and how we will fund it.” Still no direct answer. Clearly frustrated, Sophy tried once more: “I’m not asking you to set out how you’re going to fund it. I’m asking, do you believe in the target that we should be spending 3% by 2030?” His reply? He wouldn’t answer because the next question would be about how to fund it. That is a ridiculous reason to refuse a basic question about your own brief. Just answer it. Absolutely pathetic.

J Stewart

41,512 просмотров • 7 дней назад

EXCLUSIVE: Man Says Pierre Poilievre Was His Childhood Bully — But Still Plans to Vote for Him A Calgary man comes forward with allegations against Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, claiming he was physically and emotionally bullied by him as a teen. “Mr. Poilievre was one of my childhood bullies.” “He picked me up on my face and lift me up — which was not very good for the neck and the back.” “He gave me a beatdown on more than one occasion... he was quite the terror to most of the kids on the block.” The man says Pierre Poilievre disappeared from the neighborhood for several years: “One day, he up and vanished. And then he came back. But we didn't have any other interactions.” This raises the question whether there may be other reasons why Mr. Poilievre has not applied for a security clearance. Despite the lasting impact of the alleged abuse, he still says: “I haven't forgiven him. I haven't forgotten about it. But I do believe Pierre is the best choice of the candidates out there... I’m going to be voting for him.” The interviewee estimates Pierre Poilievre was 4–5 years older and had already left high school when he started. While they weren’t in school together, they lived on the same block — raising concern that Poilievre was targeting someone significantly younger during the alleged bullying. I reached out to Mr. Poilievre to ask whether he disputes these allegations and whether he plans to address them in a manner befitting someone seeking to be Prime Minister. As of publication, no response has been received. Consider supporting Media Bezirgan for more non-partisan news coverage.
7:00

EXCLUSIVE: Man Says Pierre Poilievre Was His Childhood Bully — But Still Plans to Vote for Him A Calgary man comes forward with allegations against Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, claiming he was physically and emotionally bullied by him as a teen. “Mr. Poilievre was one of my childhood bullies.” “He picked me up on my face and lift me up — which was not very good for the neck and the back.” “He gave me a beatdown on more than one occasion... he was quite the terror to most of the kids on the block.” The man says Pierre Poilievre disappeared from the neighborhood for several years: “One day, he up and vanished. And then he came back. But we didn't have any other interactions.” This raises the question whether there may be other reasons why Mr. Poilievre has not applied for a security clearance. Despite the lasting impact of the alleged abuse, he still says: “I haven't forgiven him. I haven't forgotten about it. But I do believe Pierre is the best choice of the candidates out there... I’m going to be voting for him.” The interviewee estimates Pierre Poilievre was 4–5 years older and had already left high school when he started. While they weren’t in school together, they lived on the same block — raising concern that Poilievre was targeting someone significantly younger during the alleged bullying. I reached out to Mr. Poilievre to ask whether he disputes these allegations and whether he plans to address them in a manner befitting someone seeking to be Prime Minister. As of publication, no response has been received. Consider supporting Media Bezirgan for more non-partisan news coverage.

Mocha Bezirgan 🇨🇦

288,673 просмотров • 1 год назад

Then came the mic drop from Secretary Kennedy. In plain terms, he laid out just how out of control SNAP spending has become—and who’s paying for the fallout. It was a NUKE. “We’re spending $405 million a day on SNAP,” he said. “About 10% is going to sugary drinks. If you add candies to that, it’s about 13 to 17%.” That means every day, over $40 million in taxpayer money is going to soda and sweets...often for children....under the guise of nutrition assistance. Kennedy was blunt: this isn’t about banning soda, it’s about ending government-funded harm. “If you want to buy a sugary soda, you ought to be able to do that, but the U.S. taxpayer should not pay for it,” he said. “The U.S. taxpayer should not be paying to feed kids… with foods that are going to give them diabetes.” He pointed out the double burden: we’re not just subsidizing the poison, we’re also paying to treat the damage. “My agency ends up through Medicaid and Medicare, paying those injuries,” he said. “We are going to put an end to that, and we are doing it step by step, state by state.”
0:55

Then came the mic drop from Secretary Kennedy. In plain terms, he laid out just how out of control SNAP spending has become—and who’s paying for the fallout. It was a NUKE. “We’re spending $405 million a day on SNAP,” he said. “About 10% is going to sugary drinks. If you add candies to that, it’s about 13 to 17%.” That means every day, over $40 million in taxpayer money is going to soda and sweets...often for children....under the guise of nutrition assistance. Kennedy was blunt: this isn’t about banning soda, it’s about ending government-funded harm. “If you want to buy a sugary soda, you ought to be able to do that, but the U.S. taxpayer should not pay for it,” he said. “The U.S. taxpayer should not be paying to feed kids… with foods that are going to give them diabetes.” He pointed out the double burden: we’re not just subsidizing the poison, we’re also paying to treat the damage. “My agency ends up through Medicaid and Medicare, paying those injuries,” he said. “We are going to put an end to that, and we are doing it step by step, state by state.”

Vigilant Fox 🦊

104,628 просмотров • 1 год назад

“I have not read what the World Bank recently said about Nigeria’s economy, but the fact remains that the reality is worse than what they are releasing online. The basic measures of inflation are food, housing, and transport. For instance, just yesterday, I went into a restaurant in Abuja. While my colleagues were busy ordering food, I decided to speak with one of the workers there. I asked him how he got to work, and he said he uses public transport. I then asked how much it cost him for transportation to and from work last year. He said it was about ₦700, but now it is almost ₦3,000. I also asked whether their salaries had been adjusted since the fuel price increase, and they said no. So, how do you explain to them that Nigeria’s inflation is improving according to reports online, while in reality they are the ones suffering?” — Mr. Peter Obi reacts to inflation in Nigeria.
4:47

“I have not read what the World Bank recently said about Nigeria’s economy, but the fact remains that the reality is worse than what they are releasing online. The basic measures of inflation are food, housing, and transport. For instance, just yesterday, I went into a restaurant in Abuja. While my colleagues were busy ordering food, I decided to speak with one of the workers there. I asked him how he got to work, and he said he uses public transport. I then asked how much it cost him for transportation to and from work last year. He said it was about ₦700, but now it is almost ₦3,000. I also asked whether their salaries had been adjusted since the fuel price increase, and they said no. So, how do you explain to them that Nigeria’s inflation is improving according to reports online, while in reality they are the ones suffering?” — Mr. Peter Obi reacts to inflation in Nigeria.

CHUKS 🍥

89,672 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Last night, in a massive warehouse just outside Edmonton, something extraordinary happened. Fifteen thousand Canadians showed up—not for a concert, not for a protest, but for a political rally. For one reason: to hear Pierre Poilievre speak. But the real shock? The man who introduced him. Stephen Harper—the most successful Conservative prime minister in a generation—took the stage to deliver a blistering endorsement of Poilievre, and a scathing indictment of the Liberal regime. He didn’t mince words. Harper said what every Canadian knows but no one in the press gallery will admit: this country needs change—desperately. And he didn’t hedge. He didn’t qualify. He didn’t say “both parties have made mistakes.” No. Harper made it clear: this crisis—soaring costs, collapsing standards, vanishing jobs, growing division—it wasn’t created by Donald Trump. It was made right here. In Ottawa. By three terms of Liberal government and the Prime Minister who wants a fourth. “These were not created by Donald Trump… They were created by the policies of three Liberal terms—policies the present Prime Minister supported.” That’s as blunt as Harper gets. And it should be a headline on every newspaper in the country. But it won’t be. Because it hits too close to home for the elite class that’s spent nearly a decade covering for Trudeau’s failures. Harper pointed out that the Liberals and their media allies are now trying to blame everything on geopolitics. Blame Trump. Blame supply chains. Blame COVID. Blame war. Blame anything but themselves. Because the truth? They can’t run on their record—so they’re running from it. What is that record? Exploding debt Collapsing GDP per capita A federal bureaucracy that punishes work and rewards compliance A housing market that’s locked out an entire generation And an energy sector that’s been handed over to the Americans while Canadians sit unemployed on world-class resources And now, as Mark Carney floats in with his $180 million CBC top-up and another round of green buzzwords, Harper reminded everyone: they’ve had their shot. Three terms. And they blew it. He warned Canadians not to fall for the same routine again. Not to fall for the same slogans. Not to fall for the polished elites promising “solutions” to the very problems they created. He reminded Canadians that while the Liberals talk about “fighting Trump,” they’re really just using the U.S. as a scapegoat for their own failures. And what did Harper offer instead? A rallying cry to seize this moment—not as an excuse—but as an opportunity to rebuild a truly independent Canada. “The challenge from the United States… should not be another excuse for Liberal failure. It should be a historic opportunity.” But the line that hit hardest? It was personal. Harper reminded everyone that he’s the only person alive who actually led Canada through the global financial crisis. That little swipe at Mark Carney—you could feel the building rumble. Carney wants credit for crisis leadership? Harper was running the country when the global economy was imploding. He knows what real leadership looks like—and he said flatly that Pierre Poilievre is the only one on the stage today who’s shown it. Stephen Harper stood up and told the country what it needs to hear: Pierre Poilievre is ready to lead. Not because of branding. Not because he’s a “fresh face.” Not because some elite committee in Ottawa thinks it’s his turn. No—because he earned it. Harper laid it out plainly. Poilievre started in the back row. He built his career not on media hype or party privilege, but on policy work, persistence, and a rock-solid conservative vision. He wasn’t parachuted in. He wasn’t picked by insiders. He clawed his way up with substance. “Pierre is not new to this. He’s been on the national scene for more than two decades. He has been in cabinet. He has been in opposition. He’s a serious policy-maker. A leader who has grown through experience.” That’s what Stephen Harper said. And you could hear the crowd erupt when he said it. Because Canadians are desperate—desperate—for someone who doesn’t just play politics, but actually understands the fight. Someone who knows how Parliament works. Someone who has taken on the gatekeepers—and won. And Harper wasn’t just praising Poilievre’s résumé. He called him what the man actually is: an ideas-driven, battle-tested leader who has spent his entire career pushing back against the smug, bloated, bureaucratic class that now defines Ottawa. “Pierre has always been guided by conservative values… smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and making this country work for those who do the work.” Imagine that. A politician who talks about work—and means it. Harper could’ve stayed silent. He’s done the job. He’s earned his peace. But he stepped into that warehouse in Nisku for one reason: to make it clear that this is Pierre’s moment—and Canada can’t afford to miss it. “He is our leader. And he is the next Prime Minister of Canada.” That wasn’t hyperbole. That was a warning shot to the Liberal machine. A message to the Laurentian elite, the smug consultants, the CBC newsrooms, and every Davos-friendly banker currently circling Ottawa like vultures: your time is up. Stephen Harper didn’t back Pierre out of nostalgia. He backed him because he sees a real, competent, fearless leader—someone who knows that you don’t fix this country by managing the decline. You stop the decline. Pierre Poilievre isn’t Trudeau with a different haircut. He’s the anti-Trudeau. He’s not trying to be liked by the press gallery. He’s trying to restore the country. And if you want a Prime Minister who understands the value of work, who believes in the dignity of the individual, who will cut the red tape, slash the taxes, fire the gatekeepers, and take Canada back from the bureaucratic swamp—Harper made it clear: There is only one choice. Pierre Poilievre.
9:21

Last night, in a massive warehouse just outside Edmonton, something extraordinary happened. Fifteen thousand Canadians showed up—not for a concert, not for a protest, but for a political rally. For one reason: to hear Pierre Poilievre speak. But the real shock? The man who introduced him. Stephen Harper—the most successful Conservative prime minister in a generation—took the stage to deliver a blistering endorsement of Poilievre, and a scathing indictment of the Liberal regime. He didn’t mince words. Harper said what every Canadian knows but no one in the press gallery will admit: this country needs change—desperately. And he didn’t hedge. He didn’t qualify. He didn’t say “both parties have made mistakes.” No. Harper made it clear: this crisis—soaring costs, collapsing standards, vanishing jobs, growing division—it wasn’t created by Donald Trump. It was made right here. In Ottawa. By three terms of Liberal government and the Prime Minister who wants a fourth. “These were not created by Donald Trump… They were created by the policies of three Liberal terms—policies the present Prime Minister supported.” That’s as blunt as Harper gets. And it should be a headline on every newspaper in the country. But it won’t be. Because it hits too close to home for the elite class that’s spent nearly a decade covering for Trudeau’s failures. Harper pointed out that the Liberals and their media allies are now trying to blame everything on geopolitics. Blame Trump. Blame supply chains. Blame COVID. Blame war. Blame anything but themselves. Because the truth? They can’t run on their record—so they’re running from it. What is that record? Exploding debt Collapsing GDP per capita A federal bureaucracy that punishes work and rewards compliance A housing market that’s locked out an entire generation And an energy sector that’s been handed over to the Americans while Canadians sit unemployed on world-class resources And now, as Mark Carney floats in with his $180 million CBC top-up and another round of green buzzwords, Harper reminded everyone: they’ve had their shot. Three terms. And they blew it. He warned Canadians not to fall for the same routine again. Not to fall for the same slogans. Not to fall for the polished elites promising “solutions” to the very problems they created. He reminded Canadians that while the Liberals talk about “fighting Trump,” they’re really just using the U.S. as a scapegoat for their own failures. And what did Harper offer instead? A rallying cry to seize this moment—not as an excuse—but as an opportunity to rebuild a truly independent Canada. “The challenge from the United States… should not be another excuse for Liberal failure. It should be a historic opportunity.” But the line that hit hardest? It was personal. Harper reminded everyone that he’s the only person alive who actually led Canada through the global financial crisis. That little swipe at Mark Carney—you could feel the building rumble. Carney wants credit for crisis leadership? Harper was running the country when the global economy was imploding. He knows what real leadership looks like—and he said flatly that Pierre Poilievre is the only one on the stage today who’s shown it. Stephen Harper stood up and told the country what it needs to hear: Pierre Poilievre is ready to lead. Not because of branding. Not because he’s a “fresh face.” Not because some elite committee in Ottawa thinks it’s his turn. No—because he earned it. Harper laid it out plainly. Poilievre started in the back row. He built his career not on media hype or party privilege, but on policy work, persistence, and a rock-solid conservative vision. He wasn’t parachuted in. He wasn’t picked by insiders. He clawed his way up with substance. “Pierre is not new to this. He’s been on the national scene for more than two decades. He has been in cabinet. He has been in opposition. He’s a serious policy-maker. A leader who has grown through experience.” That’s what Stephen Harper said. And you could hear the crowd erupt when he said it. Because Canadians are desperate—desperate—for someone who doesn’t just play politics, but actually understands the fight. Someone who knows how Parliament works. Someone who has taken on the gatekeepers—and won. And Harper wasn’t just praising Poilievre’s résumé. He called him what the man actually is: an ideas-driven, battle-tested leader who has spent his entire career pushing back against the smug, bloated, bureaucratic class that now defines Ottawa. “Pierre has always been guided by conservative values… smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and making this country work for those who do the work.” Imagine that. A politician who talks about work—and means it. Harper could’ve stayed silent. He’s done the job. He’s earned his peace. But he stepped into that warehouse in Nisku for one reason: to make it clear that this is Pierre’s moment—and Canada can’t afford to miss it. “He is our leader. And he is the next Prime Minister of Canada.” That wasn’t hyperbole. That was a warning shot to the Liberal machine. A message to the Laurentian elite, the smug consultants, the CBC newsrooms, and every Davos-friendly banker currently circling Ottawa like vultures: your time is up. Stephen Harper didn’t back Pierre out of nostalgia. He backed him because he sees a real, competent, fearless leader—someone who knows that you don’t fix this country by managing the decline. You stop the decline. Pierre Poilievre isn’t Trudeau with a different haircut. He’s the anti-Trudeau. He’s not trying to be liked by the press gallery. He’s trying to restore the country. And if you want a Prime Minister who understands the value of work, who believes in the dignity of the individual, who will cut the red tape, slash the taxes, fire the gatekeepers, and take Canada back from the bureaucratic swamp—Harper made it clear: There is only one choice. Pierre Poilievre.

Dan Knight

218,930 просмотров • 1 год назад

Ottawa — Well, that didn’t take long. In what can only be described as a public humiliation, Conservative MP Frank Caputo (Frank Caputo) dismantled Trudeau’s Public Safety Minister, Gary Anandasangaree, in a fiery parliamentary showdown that laid bare the rot at the heart of the Liberal government’s so-called border and public safety agenda. “The Globe and Mail reported 600 people are missing. You’re the minister. You’re expected to know this. The buck stops with you.” That was Caputo’s opening shot and the Minister never recovered. Now, for context: those 600 people are foreign nationals who were ordered deported from Canada — 70 percent of them violent criminals, including sex offenders. That’s not a rounding error. That’s a national disgrace. So Caputo asked the obvious question: Where are they? What did Minister Anandasangaree say? Nothing. He filibustered. He squirmed. He muttered something about “unprecedented removals.” Caputo cut through it instantly: “Do you know where they are — yes or no?” Still nothing. Then came the TikTok moment... literally. When Caputo pressed the Minister on the 1,000 border agents the Liberals promised but never hired, the Minister sneered, “I’m not here for your TikTok videos.” Excuse me? TikTok! The Chinese spyware app banned on government phones, is now a Liberal talking point? Caputo didn’t blink: “TikTok is banned. I don’t have an account. I’m here for Canadians. I’m here for answers.” It got worse. The Minister admitted, under pressure, that the RCMP haven’t hired a single one of the 1,000 officers they promised, despite a spike in violent crime across the country. Caputo’s response: “Okay, that’s a zero, I take it then.” Then Caputo dropped the hammer. He played the leaked audio... audio where Minister Anandasangaree admits the Liberal gun buyback scheme is a political stunt that won’t work. His words: “Don’t ask me to explain the logic to you. I’m not an expert on this.” And now he wants Canadians to believe the program is going “great” in Cape Breton, where, shocker, a Liberal MP’s brother-in-law just happens to be involved. When Caputo asked if the Minister spoke to that chief directly, Anandasangaree dodged again, reciting talking points from the Mass Casualty Commission like a robot. Caputo wasn’t having it: “He doesn’t get to talk out the clock… He has to speak to the questions he’s given. And I won’t stand for this.” And he didn’t. What happened in that committee room was simple: a government caught lying, stalling, and hiding, and one MP willing to call them out. Caputo exposed the truth: Carneys hand-picked “public safety” minister doesn’t know where violent criminals are, hasn’t hired a single new cop, and is overseeing a disarmament program he doesn’t even believe in — all while claiming it’s for “our safety.” This is the Liberal Party in 2025: globalist talking points, zero accountability, and a minister who can’t answer basic questions. But don’t worry — they’re watching your bank account and planning new laws to censor you online.
8:29

Ottawa — Well, that didn’t take long. In what can only be described as a public humiliation, Conservative MP Frank Caputo (Frank Caputo) dismantled Trudeau’s Public Safety Minister, Gary Anandasangaree, in a fiery parliamentary showdown that laid bare the rot at the heart of the Liberal government’s so-called border and public safety agenda. “The Globe and Mail reported 600 people are missing. You’re the minister. You’re expected to know this. The buck stops with you.” That was Caputo’s opening shot and the Minister never recovered. Now, for context: those 600 people are foreign nationals who were ordered deported from Canada — 70 percent of them violent criminals, including sex offenders. That’s not a rounding error. That’s a national disgrace. So Caputo asked the obvious question: Where are they? What did Minister Anandasangaree say? Nothing. He filibustered. He squirmed. He muttered something about “unprecedented removals.” Caputo cut through it instantly: “Do you know where they are — yes or no?” Still nothing. Then came the TikTok moment... literally. When Caputo pressed the Minister on the 1,000 border agents the Liberals promised but never hired, the Minister sneered, “I’m not here for your TikTok videos.” Excuse me? TikTok! The Chinese spyware app banned on government phones, is now a Liberal talking point? Caputo didn’t blink: “TikTok is banned. I don’t have an account. I’m here for Canadians. I’m here for answers.” It got worse. The Minister admitted, under pressure, that the RCMP haven’t hired a single one of the 1,000 officers they promised, despite a spike in violent crime across the country. Caputo’s response: “Okay, that’s a zero, I take it then.” Then Caputo dropped the hammer. He played the leaked audio... audio where Minister Anandasangaree admits the Liberal gun buyback scheme is a political stunt that won’t work. His words: “Don’t ask me to explain the logic to you. I’m not an expert on this.” And now he wants Canadians to believe the program is going “great” in Cape Breton, where, shocker, a Liberal MP’s brother-in-law just happens to be involved. When Caputo asked if the Minister spoke to that chief directly, Anandasangaree dodged again, reciting talking points from the Mass Casualty Commission like a robot. Caputo wasn’t having it: “He doesn’t get to talk out the clock… He has to speak to the questions he’s given. And I won’t stand for this.” And he didn’t. What happened in that committee room was simple: a government caught lying, stalling, and hiding, and one MP willing to call them out. Caputo exposed the truth: Carneys hand-picked “public safety” minister doesn’t know where violent criminals are, hasn’t hired a single new cop, and is overseeing a disarmament program he doesn’t even believe in — all while claiming it’s for “our safety.” This is the Liberal Party in 2025: globalist talking points, zero accountability, and a minister who can’t answer basic questions. But don’t worry — they’re watching your bank account and planning new laws to censor you online.

Dan Knight

59,758 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

In the House yesterday, Poilievre asked a number of valid questions of the Prime Minister that the press seems to have ignored. Despite being in Ottawa, the Prime Minister skipped Question Period "For all the Prime Minister's negotiating skills and State's craft, what really do we have to show a year after?" - "What do we really know about the Prime Minister's plan to get tariffs lifted with the U.S. what really do we know?" "Is it still his negotiating bottom line to have those tariffs removed? And if so, what is he planning to offer in exchange for getting them lifted? We don't know." - "If he does intend to renew CUSMA, does he intend to try and get it renewed exactly as it is, with small changes or a complete overhaul? "Has anybody heard him answer that question?" "When was the last serious negotiation?" "Has he or anyone in his cabinet actually been at the negotiating table in the last four months?" - "On the one hand, he says that the reason we have the only shrinking economy in the G7 is because the tariffs are so bad." "On the other, he says there's no need to rush into solving this problem because the deal is so good." - "Mr. Speaker, we all have to ask, how long will this Prime Minister use the trade dispute and other foreign matters as a convenient all purpose excuse for causing inflation, debt and joblessness here at home." Pierre Poilievre
5:07

In the House yesterday, Poilievre asked a number of valid questions of the Prime Minister that the press seems to have ignored. Despite being in Ottawa, the Prime Minister skipped Question Period "For all the Prime Minister's negotiating skills and State's craft, what really do we have to show a year after?" - "What do we really know about the Prime Minister's plan to get tariffs lifted with the U.S. what really do we know?" "Is it still his negotiating bottom line to have those tariffs removed? And if so, what is he planning to offer in exchange for getting them lifted? We don't know." - "If he does intend to renew CUSMA, does he intend to try and get it renewed exactly as it is, with small changes or a complete overhaul? "Has anybody heard him answer that question?" "When was the last serious negotiation?" "Has he or anyone in his cabinet actually been at the negotiating table in the last four months?" - "On the one hand, he says that the reason we have the only shrinking economy in the G7 is because the tariffs are so bad." "On the other, he says there's no need to rush into solving this problem because the deal is so good." - "Mr. Speaker, we all have to ask, how long will this Prime Minister use the trade dispute and other foreign matters as a convenient all purpose excuse for causing inflation, debt and joblessness here at home." Pierre Poilievre

cbcwatcher

33,131 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

This influencer asked this Texas bbq food truck in Japan to do a collab. Not only did he arrive two days early but he even brought another influencer friend unannounced. He then proceeded to be disrespectful, and spit out the food. His bad review is making the food truck now struggle. I never liked the idea of someone who is expecting free food in exchange for publicity and exposure. It seems rather one sided to me. Many times, the influencer isn’t familiar with the culture and style of food. I feel if he wasn’t used to the flavors and he didn’t like it, he didn’t have to be over dramatic about it and spit it out. He could have just said it wasn’t to his liking. For me he lost all credibility when he said the pork ribs weren’t even Wagyu when earlier it was clear he didn’t know what Wagyu tasted like when he ate the brisket. Wagyu is a breed of cow not pig, so in a sense he was right, the pork rib isn’t Wagyu. I feel he owes them an apology for his entitled behavior. It’s a shame their business is now suffering because of someone like this.
0:48

This influencer asked this Texas bbq food truck in Japan to do a collab. Not only did he arrive two days early but he even brought another influencer friend unannounced. He then proceeded to be disrespectful, and spit out the food. His bad review is making the food truck now struggle. I never liked the idea of someone who is expecting free food in exchange for publicity and exposure. It seems rather one sided to me. Many times, the influencer isn’t familiar with the culture and style of food. I feel if he wasn’t used to the flavors and he didn’t like it, he didn’t have to be over dramatic about it and spit it out. He could have just said it wasn’t to his liking. For me he lost all credibility when he said the pork ribs weren’t even Wagyu when earlier it was clear he didn’t know what Wagyu tasted like when he ate the brisket. Wagyu is a breed of cow not pig, so in a sense he was right, the pork rib isn’t Wagyu. I feel he owes them an apology for his entitled behavior. It’s a shame their business is now suffering because of someone like this.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

5,313,598 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

PF Champagne says the budget will be coming November 4th Watch how he doesn't bat an eye or push back against the $100 billion deficit figure question And when asked about worries over interest payments "Does the interest on the debt, is it starting to be a real concern to you?" He babbles "We have to lower our spending and invest more." Spending is spending. Enough with the endless spend less invest more baloney Carney is worse than Trudeau and he was supposed to be the prudent banker Stephanie Levitz "Maybe it's an odd set of coincidences, but the last time we had a fiscal update from this country was also day that Chrystia Freeland quit." "And then today Chrystia Freeland quit and you chose to announce the date today." "I wonder if there's a reason you've announced." Stephanie Levitz François-Philippe Champagne (FPC) 🇨🇦
5:05

PF Champagne says the budget will be coming November 4th Watch how he doesn't bat an eye or push back against the $100 billion deficit figure question And when asked about worries over interest payments "Does the interest on the debt, is it starting to be a real concern to you?" He babbles "We have to lower our spending and invest more." Spending is spending. Enough with the endless spend less invest more baloney Carney is worse than Trudeau and he was supposed to be the prudent banker Stephanie Levitz "Maybe it's an odd set of coincidences, but the last time we had a fiscal update from this country was also day that Chrystia Freeland quit." "And then today Chrystia Freeland quit and you chose to announce the date today." "I wonder if there's a reason you've announced." Stephanie Levitz François-Philippe Champagne (FPC) 🇨🇦

cbcwatcher

25,404 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO, on why top programmers won't be replaced by AI, they'll be amplified by it: He starts with an observation about the existing hierarchy in software: "The very top programmers were worth 10 times more than the ones right below. There's something special about the mathematical reasoning skills of programmers." Rather than flattening that gap, he argues AI will widen it: "Those people will become more valuable, not less valuable, because these systems need to be controlled by humans at the moment. Those people will be capable of grasping the parallelization and the activities of this." To show what this amplification actually looks like in practice, Eric shares a story from a startup he's involved with. He was talking to one of the programmers there, who works on UIs, about his daily workflow: "He said, 'I write the spec of what I want and then I write a test function, an evaluation function. And then I turn it on.' I said, 'What time?' And he goes, '7:00 in the evening.' And I go, 'Okay. What do you then do?' Well, he has dinner with his wife and he goes to sleep." Eric continues: "I said, 'Do you wake up?' Said, 'No, I sleep very well.' 'When does it finish?' 'Oh, 4:00 in the morning.' And then he gets up, has breakfast, you know, does whatever he does, and then he sees what's been good." Eric Schmidt calls the whole thing "mindboggling." The story captures what amplification really means. The programmer isn't writing less code. He's producing a night's worth of work while asleep, because the machine is running on his spec, his tests, his judgment of what "good" looks like. The leverage belongs to those who can define the problem precisely, write the tests that matter, and recognize good output when they see it.
1:02

Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO, on why top programmers won't be replaced by AI, they'll be amplified by it: He starts with an observation about the existing hierarchy in software: "The very top programmers were worth 10 times more than the ones right below. There's something special about the mathematical reasoning skills of programmers." Rather than flattening that gap, he argues AI will widen it: "Those people will become more valuable, not less valuable, because these systems need to be controlled by humans at the moment. Those people will be capable of grasping the parallelization and the activities of this." To show what this amplification actually looks like in practice, Eric shares a story from a startup he's involved with. He was talking to one of the programmers there, who works on UIs, about his daily workflow: "He said, 'I write the spec of what I want and then I write a test function, an evaluation function. And then I turn it on.' I said, 'What time?' And he goes, '7:00 in the evening.' And I go, 'Okay. What do you then do?' Well, he has dinner with his wife and he goes to sleep." Eric continues: "I said, 'Do you wake up?' Said, 'No, I sleep very well.' 'When does it finish?' 'Oh, 4:00 in the morning.' And then he gets up, has breakfast, you know, does whatever he does, and then he sees what's been good." Eric Schmidt calls the whole thing "mindboggling." The story captures what amplification really means. The programmer isn't writing less code. He's producing a night's worth of work while asleep, because the machine is running on his spec, his tests, his judgment of what "good" looks like. The leverage belongs to those who can define the problem precisely, write the tests that matter, and recognize good output when they see it.

Big Brain AI

15,319 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

🚨HOLY COW: Donald Trump actually said “affordability was a made-up term by Democrats”… while spending millions in taxpayer dollars golfing every weekend. Whip Katherine Clark was DONE with the lies. Her message to families was crystal clear 👇 “He can lie about it, he can call it a Democratic hoax, but he can't take away the experiences that we are hearing from people… They know that these tax credits are expiring. They are looking what they are going to have to pay for healthcare, and they simply can't afford it.” “They're looking at rent that's gone up 30% to 60%. And families are making choices. Do we pay the rent or do we put food on the table? Can we afford the basics?” Then she torched him: “Every single thing they have seen since he took office is about enriching Donald Trump and his very wealthy cronies rather than working for the American people.” “When we have 60% of families that feel like they cannot afford the basics… that has to be the priority issue of the work that we do here.” Affordability is REAL. Families are stretched to the breaking point. And Democrats are the ones actually fighting for them.
2:09

🚨HOLY COW: Donald Trump actually said “affordability was a made-up term by Democrats”… while spending millions in taxpayer dollars golfing every weekend. Whip Katherine Clark was DONE with the lies. Her message to families was crystal clear 👇 “He can lie about it, he can call it a Democratic hoax, but he can't take away the experiences that we are hearing from people… They know that these tax credits are expiring. They are looking what they are going to have to pay for healthcare, and they simply can't afford it.” “They're looking at rent that's gone up 30% to 60%. And families are making choices. Do we pay the rent or do we put food on the table? Can we afford the basics?” Then she torched him: “Every single thing they have seen since he took office is about enriching Donald Trump and his very wealthy cronies rather than working for the American people.” “When we have 60% of families that feel like they cannot afford the basics… that has to be the priority issue of the work that we do here.” Affordability is REAL. Families are stretched to the breaking point. And Democrats are the ones actually fighting for them.

CALL TO ACTIVISM

97,805 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

🚨 Canadians are NOT okay. This guy in the truck just said what millions are feeling right now: “I think we’re all just exhausted from having nothing.” Two bags of groceries = $72. Tank of gas = $60… and he filled up two days ago. No matter how hard you work, how early you get up, or how much you make… you still end up with nothing. Can’t afford a house. Can’t afford food. Can’t afford to live. And the question he asks at the end is the one every Canadian should be asking: Why is everyone in government getting richer while the rest of us are getting crushed? Eleven years of Liberal rule destroyed the middle class. We thought it couldn’t get worse than Trudeau. Then Carney showed up and said: “Hold my champagne 🥂” This is what managed decline looks like in real time. Drop a 🤕 if you’re at the end of your rope too. #LiberalFail #CarneyEconomy #CostOfLivingCrisis #cdnpoli #CanadaIsBroken #11YearsOfLiberalism
2:28

🚨 Canadians are NOT okay. This guy in the truck just said what millions are feeling right now: “I think we’re all just exhausted from having nothing.” Two bags of groceries = $72. Tank of gas = $60… and he filled up two days ago. No matter how hard you work, how early you get up, or how much you make… you still end up with nothing. Can’t afford a house. Can’t afford food. Can’t afford to live. And the question he asks at the end is the one every Canadian should be asking: Why is everyone in government getting richer while the rest of us are getting crushed? Eleven years of Liberal rule destroyed the middle class. We thought it couldn’t get worse than Trudeau. Then Carney showed up and said: “Hold my champagne 🥂” This is what managed decline looks like in real time. Drop a 🤕 if you’re at the end of your rope too. #LiberalFail #CarneyEconomy #CostOfLivingCrisis #cdnpoli #CanadaIsBroken #11YearsOfLiberalism

JayGen 𝕏 er🇨🇦

125,180 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Ready For Your Jaw Hit The Floor? This woman heard Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan, the largest bank in America on the Wall Street Journal’s podcast What she heard was so “f*cking out of touch” with America she had to stop what she was doing & make this video He said this about America: Question asked to him, “As the chief exec of America's biggest bank, you have an unrivaled insight into the financial health of the US consumer. What are people doing with their money right now?” Jamie Dimon’s response “Yeah, you have to look a little bit in context. The consumer's in pretty good shape right now. The consumer has, you know, unemployment under 4% has been there for two years. They still have excess money from COVID. — They're still spending it down. Housing prices are up, stock prices are up, jobs are plentiful.” Creator: “I'm sorry, what? The stimulus checks, the ones that went out in 2020 and 2021, three and four years ago, we're still spending it down? Who is he talking about? People are not doing well. This country is literally unaffordable. Child care, groceries, you've got colleagues out here telling us to eat fucking cereal for dinner. Everything is up in price. Even for those who are making ends meet and are able to still save, we have to be conscious as fuck to where you're putting your money because nothing is at a good price. What does he mean the consumer is doing well? Like these are the biggest decision makers in our financial systems. These are the people who work with Congress and who are talking about how do we create like a soft landing of inflation and He thinks we're doing okay. Like, guys, this is scary. I mean, it's been f*cking scary. Let's be real. No one's surprised” The CEO of the largest bank in America still thinks you have money from your Covid checks…. It’s almost unfathomable how out of touch with reality these people are.
1:58

Ready For Your Jaw Hit The Floor? This woman heard Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan, the largest bank in America on the Wall Street Journal’s podcast What she heard was so “f*cking out of touch” with America she had to stop what she was doing & make this video He said this about America: Question asked to him, “As the chief exec of America's biggest bank, you have an unrivaled insight into the financial health of the US consumer. What are people doing with their money right now?” Jamie Dimon’s response “Yeah, you have to look a little bit in context. The consumer's in pretty good shape right now. The consumer has, you know, unemployment under 4% has been there for two years. They still have excess money from COVID. — They're still spending it down. Housing prices are up, stock prices are up, jobs are plentiful.” Creator: “I'm sorry, what? The stimulus checks, the ones that went out in 2020 and 2021, three and four years ago, we're still spending it down? Who is he talking about? People are not doing well. This country is literally unaffordable. Child care, groceries, you've got colleagues out here telling us to eat fucking cereal for dinner. Everything is up in price. Even for those who are making ends meet and are able to still save, we have to be conscious as fuck to where you're putting your money because nothing is at a good price. What does he mean the consumer is doing well? Like these are the biggest decision makers in our financial systems. These are the people who work with Congress and who are talking about how do we create like a soft landing of inflation and He thinks we're doing okay. Like, guys, this is scary. I mean, it's been f*cking scary. Let's be real. No one's surprised” The CEO of the largest bank in America still thinks you have money from your Covid checks…. It’s almost unfathomable how out of touch with reality these people are.

Wall Street Apes

2,281,222 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Carney stood there today and said: “We are an agricultural superpower, yet for most Canadians, it doesn’t feel like that at the checkout.” No shit. Grocery prices are up nearly 35% since 2019. The average Canadian family is now forced to spend **$10,000 a year** — **$800 a month** — just to eat. Today this arrogant elitist unveiled a shiny new $3 BILLION “national food security strategy” to fix the exact crisis he helped create. This is the same guy who can drop more on desserts during **one single flight** than most working families spend on groceries in an entire year… or even a decade. The man who crushed Canadians with carbon taxes, reckless deficits, and out-of-touch global agendas now wants you to believe he’s the one who’s going to save you — with even more of your money. Who the hell believes this? He didn’t break the country by accident. He’s not going to fix it with another $3 billion photo op. This isn’t a plan. This is an insult. #CarneyFail #FoodPrices #CostOfLiving #cdnpoli #CanadaFirst
1:09

Carney stood there today and said: “We are an agricultural superpower, yet for most Canadians, it doesn’t feel like that at the checkout.” No shit. Grocery prices are up nearly 35% since 2019. The average Canadian family is now forced to spend **$10,000 a year** — **$800 a month** — just to eat. Today this arrogant elitist unveiled a shiny new $3 BILLION “national food security strategy” to fix the exact crisis he helped create. This is the same guy who can drop more on desserts during **one single flight** than most working families spend on groceries in an entire year… or even a decade. The man who crushed Canadians with carbon taxes, reckless deficits, and out-of-touch global agendas now wants you to believe he’s the one who’s going to save you — with even more of your money. Who the hell believes this? He didn’t break the country by accident. He’s not going to fix it with another $3 billion photo op. This isn’t a plan. This is an insult. #CarneyFail #FoodPrices #CostOfLiving #cdnpoli #CanadaFirst

JayGen 𝕏 er🇨🇦

13,276 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

CBC holding the opposition to account... extraterritorially! CBC reporter, Jorge Barrera, uses his precious time with the Mexican President to ask about something Pierre Poilievre said "The leader of the Canadian opposition this past week, Pierre Poilievre, who was almost prime minister, ah, we're very close, he had a press conference and he used Mexico to contrast with the situation in Canada, which he thinks is very ugly. He said he was at the airport and had run into a lady who said she had moved to Mexico because she felt safer in Mexico than in Vancouver. And he said, imagine, he said in English, "Let that sink in." That someone thinks that it is safer in Mexico than in Vancouver, saying that things must be super ugly in Canada if they feel safer in Mexico. What do you think of that? Using Mexico, an important politician in Canada, using Mexico for that contrast, to say things are wrong here. What do you think about that?" Pierre Poilievre Brodie Fenlon
3:15

CBC holding the opposition to account... extraterritorially! CBC reporter, Jorge Barrera, uses his precious time with the Mexican President to ask about something Pierre Poilievre said "The leader of the Canadian opposition this past week, Pierre Poilievre, who was almost prime minister, ah, we're very close, he had a press conference and he used Mexico to contrast with the situation in Canada, which he thinks is very ugly. He said he was at the airport and had run into a lady who said she had moved to Mexico because she felt safer in Mexico than in Vancouver. And he said, imagine, he said in English, "Let that sink in." That someone thinks that it is safer in Mexico than in Vancouver, saying that things must be super ugly in Canada if they feel safer in Mexico. What do you think of that? Using Mexico, an important politician in Canada, using Mexico for that contrast, to say things are wrong here. What do you think about that?" Pierre Poilievre Brodie Fenlon

cbcwatcher

66,007 просмотров • 1 месяц назад