Two In 10 NDP Voters Would Defect To Kevin O'Leary Led Conservative Party

57 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mighty Middle
Two In 10 NDP Voters Would Defect To Kevin O'Leary Led Conservative Party

====

Regions: 
Mighty Middle

From Ipsos Reid

Here are the polling results among decided voters who were presented with the three hypotheticals:

  • With O’Leary as leader, the Conservatives would sit at 37 per cent, the Liberals at 38 per cent and the NDP at 17 per cent.
  • With Bernier at the helm, the Conservatives would earn only 28 per cent of the vote, moving the Liberals up to 42 per cent and the NDP up to 20 per cent.
  • And if Kellie Leitch was elected leader, her party’s support would shrink to 26 per cent, while the Liberals sat at 42 per cent and the NDP would have 21 per cent.

In the hypotheticals with Bernier or Leitch as leader, the results suggested the Conservatives wouldn’t fare much better than at present. Current voter preference (if there was an election tomorrow) shows 41 per cent favour the Liberals, 30 per cent favour the Conservatives and 19 per cent for the NDP, according to Ipsos.

In the above scenarios, O’Leary’s popularity appeared to come at the expense of the NDP among the decided voters polled.

Though the vast majority of decided voters indicated they’d vote their party regardless of who’s leading the Conservatives, more than two in 10 NDP voters appeared ready to jump ship to the Conservatives if O’Leary was leader.

“We’ve seen this trend elsewhere. The idea that it’s exclusively people from the right that are attracted to the populist message is incorrect,” Bricker said, pointing to former Toronto mayor Rob Ford, the successful Brexit referendum in the U.K. and America’s election of President Donald Trump as examples.

“People on the left who are tired of the status quo are listening, too.”

Full article at link

http://globalnews.ca/news/3207501/kevin-oleary-justin-trudeau-conservati...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

After the NDP spending a couple of elections focused on getting the center and center right vote it's not surprising that some of its support would go to him.

SeekingAPolitic...

Where is the left wing populism?  Surely we can better than 25 cents off your banking transactions.  Do we have Sanders like candidate with compassion, intergity, and acts sounds like they mean when they talk about populist issues.  My green membership runs out in may and I want to buy back into the NDP so I can support someone that believes in left wing populism.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

O'Leary is to the right of Atilla the Hun. I can't see why anyone who identifies themselves as progressive would support that shithead. I also believe that his pathetic non-existant command of French will be a big handicap.

As for a left wing populist Canadian Bernie Sanders,I can't think of one.

Remember,Trudeau was elected because of his left leaning populism which shows Canadians have an appetite for progressive change.

O'Leary is going to have a hard time with his Trumpist message.

bekayne

alan smithee wrote:

O'Leary is to the right of Atilla the Hun. I can't see why anyone who identifies themselves as progressive would support that shithead. I also believe that his pathetic non-existant command of French will be a big handicap.

As for a left wing populist Canadian Bernie Sanders,I can't think of one.

Remember,Trudeau was elected because of his left leaning populism which shows Canadians have an appetite for progressive change.

O'Leary is going to have a hard time with his Trumpist message.

The press will tear Mr. Boston to shreds

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Any kind of left-wing populist would be torn to shreds by NDP insiders who can't keep their mouths shut.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Another garbage anti-NDP trolling thread started by the same troll. Please people, don't validate this. If we ignore him maybe he will go away or change his handle again.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
After the NDP spending a couple of elections focused on getting the center and center right vote it's not surprising that some of its support would go to him.

How does that even make sense?

So... the NDP moves to the right.  The general consensus seems to be that this was driven top-down, and that NDP members and supporters didn't want this.

So now it's just natural that some of them are prepared to move EVEN FURTHER to the right?  Have they been conditioned to want this?  Or what's the theory here?

How did an unpopular move make an even more drastic move popular?  Why aren't 2 in ten NDP supporters planning to give their support to someone more LEFT than the current NDP??

Mighty Middle

Misfit wrote:
Another garbage anti-NDP trolling thread started by the same troll. Please people, don't validate this. If we ignore him maybe he will go away or change his handle again.

I'm sorry. If you have a problem with this thread, please tag this to the admins with your complaint. I'm sure if they feel the same way you do, they will delete this thread with cause.

And if anyone feels this thread is inappropriate, just don't participate and let the thread die a natural death if the admins won't delete it.

Again my apologizes.

 

Stockholm

This poll actually has federal NDP support higher than we have seen in a very long time. Being in the 17% to 21% range sure beats the 12-13% we had seen last year...and this is despite not having a leader and not even having a leadership contest underway yet. I'll take it.

Where does the "two-in-ten" come from if NDP support is 19% on the generic how would you vote questions but 17% when you introduce O'Leary's name? That is more like 1-10 - though clearly well within the margin of error.

Of course that poll takjen at face value also indicates that if Leitch or Bernier were leader - the Tories would be a in struggle with the NDP to see who would be official opposition! Maybe the Tories shore up more of their own base with O'Leary because he is not French and he is not a woman!

Any polls that ask "how would you vote if so-and-so was leader of party x?" always have to be taken with a boulder of salt. Its totally hypothetical to say the least.

We all have to remind ourselves that most voters are very very low information and probably the only thing they know about O'Leary is that he is famous.

 

Stockholm

Mighty Middle wrote:

From Ipsos Reid

“We’ve seen this trend elsewhere. The idea that it’s exclusively people from the right that are attracted to the populist message is incorrect,” Bricker said, pointing to former Toronto mayor Rob Ford, the successful Brexit referendum in the U.K. and America’s election of President Donald Trump as examples.

“People on the left who are tired of the status quo are listening, too.”

Its a nice theory except that Kevin O'Leary may be a loit of things but "populist" isn't one of them. He is pro-immigration, refuses to vilify Muslims, is very liberal on social issues, thinks Canadians troops should only work as peacekeepers and his economic policy is basically just cut taxes on the rich and businesses and he comes across as a sort of Thurston Howell III stuffy billionaire. In what way is that remotely "populist"?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
After the NDP spending a couple of elections focused on getting the center and center right vote it's not surprising that some of its support would go to him.

How does that even make sense?

So... the NDP moves to the right.  The general consensus seems to be that this was driven top-down, and that NDP members and supporters didn't want this.

So now it's just natural that some of them are prepared to move EVEN FURTHER to the right?  Have they been conditioned to want this?  Or what's the theory here?

The poll is a bad joke all in all but if any people who said they supported the NDP in the past and would support Kevin this time would have to come from the group of right leaning voters who came to the party because they wanted balanced budgets and they hate Liberals. 

josh

Stockholm wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

From Ipsos Reid

“We’ve seen this trend elsewhere. The idea that it’s exclusively people from the right that are attracted to the populist message is incorrect,” Bricker said, pointing to former Toronto mayor Rob Ford, the successful Brexit referendum in the U.K. and America’s election of President Donald Trump as examples.

“People on the left who are tired of the status quo are listening, too.”

Its a nice theory except that Kevin O'Leary may be a loit of things but "populist" isn't one of them. He is pro-immigration, refuses to vilify Muslims, is very liberal on social issues, thinks Canadians troops should only work as peacekeepers and his economic policy is basically just cut taxes on the rich and businesses and he comes across as a sort of Thurston Howell III stuffy billionaire. In what way is that remotely "populist"?

Yeah Trump at least had the anti-trade agreement thing.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

And the "not married to Bill Clinton" thing.

josh

Mr. Magoo wrote:

And the "not married to Bill Clinton" thing.

Yeah, because Mr. grab her by the pussy and then pee on me was a saint.

Misfit Misfit's picture

MM, you're not sorry for anything. You are a Liberal troll on this board and nothing more.

Mighty Middle

Misfit wrote:
MM, you're not sorry for anything. You are a Liberal troll on this board and nothing more.

So have you tagged this thread to the moderators for deletion. Or would you like me to do it?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

josh wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

And the "not married to Bill Clinton" thing.

Yeah, because Mr. grab her by the pussy and then pee on me was a saint.

So you don't think they are both misogynist pigs. Bill claims he only got a blowjob in the Oval office from a young woman but he didn't grap her pussy. Yeah thats way fucking better for women. You do know that because of the power of his Office Clinton was in a position that he abused and because of that power imbalance it would be considered rape in many jurisdictions.  

Quote:

A Definition of Consent to Sexual Activity

Section 273.1 provides a definition of consent for the purposes of the sexual assault offences and for greater certainty, sets out specific situations that do not constitute consent at law.

Subsection 273.1(1) defines consent as the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question. Conduct short of a voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity does not constitute consent as a matter of law.

For greater certainty, subsection 273.1(2) sets out specific situations where there is no consent in law; no consent is obtained:

  • where the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant
  • where the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity
  • where the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority
  • where the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity, or
  • where the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/victims-victimes/def.html

Sean in Ottawa

Sorry but what a crock of shit that conclusion is.

It assumes the net movement is the only movement. Anyone who is at all competent when it comes to reading polls knows how absolutely stupid this is.

So let's look at this explanation entirely possible from these numbers -- and a lot more likely:

Lib 41 + 2 GR and BQ to stop O'Leary + 2 NDP top stop O'Leary - 7 to O'Leary = 38

CPC 30 plus the above 7 from the LPC = 37

NDP 19-2 to LPC =17

Other parties 10%-2=8

The writer of the conclusion that this means direct NDP to Liberal migration should not be working in this business.

Sean in Ottawa

You have to watch not only for crappy methodology but also compeltely incompetent analysis. Any person who knows anythign about polls knows there is movement in all directions as well as margin of error.

Clearly it makes sense some NDP and GR would move to Liberals to stop an idiot like O'Leary. That there is a net loss as more LPC move to CPC does not mean there was not a gain to the LPC from the other parties in the context of their greater loss to the CPC.

This was Ipsos. Question is did the idiot who came up with this conclusion work for Ipsos or the media?

josh

kropotkin1951 wrote:

josh wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

And the "not married to Bill Clinton" thing.

Yeah, because Mr. grab her by the pussy and then pee on me was a saint.

So you don't think they are both misogynist pigs

Where did I say that? I was merely responding to the implicit claim that one candidate was disadvantaged by a sleazy spouse while she was running against someone at least equally sleazy.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

josh wrote:

I was merely responding to the implicit claim that one candidate was disadvantaged by a sleazy spouse while she was running against someone at least equally sleazy.

So you don't think Hillary's campaign suffered from Bill's sexual assault history and her berating other women who dared to confront him? 

I certainly think it was a factor.

josh

I think it was a non-factor. She had her own problems.

Stockholm

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Clearly it makes sense some NDP and GR would move to Liberals to stop an idiot like O'Leary. That there is a net loss as more LPC move to CPC does not mean there was not a gain to the LPC from the other parties in the context of their greater loss to the CPC.

This was Ipsos. Question is did the idiot who came up with this conclusion work for Ipsos or the media?

But why would NDP and Green voters move to the Liberals to stop O'Leary but apparently would NOT move to the Liberals to stop Kellie Leitch who by any objective standard is wayyy more scary and distasteful? With Leitch as CPC leader NDP support rises to 21% - just 5 points behind the CPC at 26%

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I say bring on Letch. She's a complete idiot. The election would become a race between the Liberals and NDP.

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Clearly it makes sense some NDP and GR would move to Liberals to stop an idiot like O'Leary. That there is a net loss as more LPC move to CPC does not mean there was not a gain to the LPC from the other parties in the context of their greater loss to the CPC.

This was Ipsos. Question is did the idiot who came up with this conclusion work for Ipsos or the media?

But why would NDP and Green voters move to the Liberals to stop O'Leary but apparently would NOT move to the Liberals to stop Kellie Leitch who by any objective standard is wayyy more scary and distasteful? With Leitch as CPC leader NDP support rises to 21% - just 5 points behind the CPC at 26%

It may be a matter of image.

O'Leary is perceived as "Canada's Trump" and that makes him more scary to some people.

They may not be as aware of Leitch.

MegB

Misfit wrote:
Another garbage anti-NDP trolling thread started by the same troll. Please people, don't validate this. If we ignore him maybe he will go away or change his handle again.
Quoting a pollster is not trolling. Please don't call people trolls because you disagree with what they post. If you have numbers that indicate differently, by all means post them.

Mighty Middle

MegB wrote:

Quoting a pollster is not trolling. Please don't call people trolls because you disagree with what they post. If you have numbers that indicate differently, by all means post them.

Thank you MegB for the clarification. Hopefully this puts to rest any qualms Misfit has about posting threads about polls.

quizzical

lolol your poll was already debunked above....lololol

Mighty Middle

quizzical wrote:

lolol your poll was already debunked above....lololol

It is not my poll, I was just sharing what Ipsos released yesterday.

Sean in Ottawa

MegB wrote:

Misfit wrote:
Another garbage anti-NDP trolling thread started by the same troll. Please people, don't validate this. If we ignore him maybe he will go away or change his handle again.
Quoting a pollster is not trolling. Please don't call people trolls because you disagree with what they post. If you have numbers that indicate differently, by all means post them.

On the poll itself I think the problem is not so much the numbers in the poll but the interpretation of it that is a problem. It is worth noting that this interpretation was in the article and could be a mistake of the journalist bu it appears to be the pollster. What is wierd is this is stuff Ipsos shoudl understand -- that you do not interpret a net result as a one-way move and this is what they did.

The thread title is a problem because it focuses not on the poll but the ludicrious conclusion which I showed mathematically how it is not possible to substantiate.

Mighty Middle

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You focused on a single -- and extremely faulty -- conclusion out of context and elevated that to a thread title. That would be the criticism.

The headline could have been that the Liberals bleed 5-7 points to O'Leary. But you selected out of context the one that suited your message. Sure you can do that but you will also get people hauling you over the coals for such cherry-picking.

So you agree with Misfit that this was a "trolling" post?

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

quizzical wrote:

lolol your poll was already debunked above....lololol

It is not my poll, I was just sharing what Ipsos released yesterday.

You focused on a single -- and extremely faulty -- conclusion out of context and elevated that to a thread title. That would be the criticism.

The headline could have been that the Liberals bleed 5-7 points to O'Leary. But you selected out of context the one that suited your message. Sure you can do that but you will also get people hauling you over the coals for such cherry-picking.

ETA -- you could also have picked the point about the sharp uptick in NDP support but that does not suit your agenda either right?

If you dish it out then expect at least a few returns k?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

On this board calling someone a troll is not allowed except if you call them a Russian troll. That was just fine in relation to Iksomos. 

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You focused on a single -- and extremely faulty -- conclusion out of context and elevated that to a thread title. That would be the criticism.

The headline could have been that the Liberals bleed 5-7 points to O'Leary. But you selected out of context the one that suited your message. Sure you can do that but you will also get people hauling you over the coals for such cherry-picking.

So you agree with Misfit that this was a "trolling" post?

Let me put this really carefully since you asked. I don't think that the post was trolling. I do not have a problem with the post itself. It says:

"In the above scenarios, O’Leary’s popularity appeared to come at the expense of the NDP among the decided voters polled."

This is accurate and a result of a net changes as measured by the poll.

My problem is the thread title which is based on a BS assumption of a one-way movement of support rather than multiple ones. The thread title is out of context (context is that the Liberals would lose even more support to O'Leary). I think selecting it as a thread title was self-serving, misleading, biased and provocative but below what I would call trolling although bordering on trolling. The focus of the story was not what you picked as the thread title and you picked it to provoke, which is what some, fairly, will call trolling.

We could call it click-bait. Click-bait is the parent of false news. So, since you asked, I am not a fan.

It is a tradition here that thread titles frequently border on trolling -- click-bait. When North Report was NDP he did this, biased on the NDP side, almost daily. So did others.

I would not single you out for this because reading other thread titles I think half could be seen as inaccurate and trying to provoke. While it may be the common thing here, you should not pretend that this was not you provoking and, therefore, you should accept the price of this behaviour, which is that some people will call it out.

In your case you wrote the post in a reasonable manner so I went after the article and the BS conclusion (not written by you) itself and the conclusion while accusing you of nothing. I was not impressed by your choice of title and understood why you did this.

***

I think  we are in an era of lies, false news, and clickbait. We are here becuase most people accept these as reasonable weapons and oppose only the lies from the other side. The answer is that you have to stand up to the lies that are designed to serve your own side unless we are to descend into this further. I think this was less of a problem in the past becuase there were enough people who opposed all lies not just the ones inconvenient to them. This is a core part of my outlook and why I frequently run into problems with NDP supporters when I require a higher standard for "my side" as well. I am still so unhappy with this from those "on my side" that I find myself as an independent not willing to completely align with any organization or party becuase I do not trust their willingness to lie or distort. The means are not just unjustifiable, they are destroying the ends.

***

I know this is more you asked, but since you did, I hope this clarifies what I think.

Mighty Middle

OK Sean thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. I'll follow your advice in the future when composing thread titles.

CuriousAboutEve...

Trump is not right or left. He is more like inteligent practical populist liberterian ,Anti NWOGlobalist ,anti Farmmafia(Glyphosate) ,anti Pharmamafia .

Do a search for "CDC Knowwingly Lied About Mercury in Vaccines" Proof has surfaced and "FBI raid CDC"

also Moms Against Mercury and Moms at Home (with autistic children who are now adults).

What will Happen when this Horror becomes obvious to everyone.

In the US and in Canada by association hidden in the bottom the swamp is big pharma and Big Farm(Glyphosate and GMO's)

Did you Know Trumps youngest son is autistic.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

CuriousAboutEveryThing wrote:

Trump is not right or left. He is more like inteligent practical populist liberterian ,Anti NWOGlobalist ,anti Farmmafia(Glyphosate) ,anti Pharmamafia .

Do a search for "CDC Knowwingly Lied About Mercury in Vaccines" Proof has surfaced and "FBI raid CDC"

also Moms Against Mercury and Moms at Home (with autistic children who are now adults).

What will Happen when this Horror becomes obvious to everyone.

In the US and in Canada by association hidden in the bottom the swamp is big pharma and Big Farm(Glyphosate and GMO's)

Did you Know Trumps youngest son is autistic.

 

Troll. Trump makes his decisions based on Fox News and talk radio. He's totally unprincipled and I would venture to say he's completely insane. Who cares about his son?

He's certainly unhinged.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl53JI3MF3c

Sean in Ottawa

CuriousAboutEveryThing wrote:

Trump is not right or left. He is more like inteligent practical populist liberterian ,Anti NWOGlobalist ,anti Farmmafia(Glyphosate) ,anti Pharmamafia .

Do a search for "CDC Knowwingly Lied About Mercury in Vaccines" Proof has surfaced and "FBI raid CDC"

also Moms Against Mercury and Moms at Home (with autistic children who are now adults).

What will Happen when this Horror becomes obvious to everyone.

In the US and in Canada by association hidden in the bottom the swamp is big pharma and Big Farm(Glyphosate and GMO's)

Did you Know Trumps youngest son is autistic.

Trump is a lot more than that -- he is also in bed with those invested in Pharma:

http://time.com/4636351/tom-price-drug-companies-investments/

Science of vaccines

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/straight-talk-about-vaccination/

https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/Patient-Caregiver-Education/Fact-She...

Myths

http://www.publichealth.org/public-awareness/understanding-vaccines/vacc...

Trump is right wing. You kid yourself to think otherwise. He is nationalist, protectionist and right wing. His agenda is a business agenda. The poeple he surrounds himself with are all very hard right.

Is Trump a fascist?

Well this article says no but he is right wing:

http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/3/14154300/fascist-populist-trump...

The reason we have this notion that Trump is not right wing comes down to a limited binary view so many hold. Conservatives are split -- some like him some hate him. Some are pro trade some protectionist. The protectionists are a minority. So some right wingers look at Trump and decide he is not right becuase they disagree.

He is right wing becuase that is his world view (see all his positions) but he is also a populist and anti SOME parts of the establishment. He is also quite content to engage and agree with quite extreme right and even far right positions and people (look at the cabinet).

Misfit Misfit's picture

Oh, I get reprimanded by Meg again over trivia. Surprise! Surprise!

Mighty Middle

Nanos polling in Ontario for FEDERAL Parties (Just released today) show Conservatives have taken the lead with 43% while Trudeau led Liberals are in second with 40%

 

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Nanos polling in Ontario for FEDERAL Parties (Just released today) show Conservatives have taken the lead with 43% while Trudeau led Liberals are in second with 40%

 

Ontario

Given the politics provincially this is less of a surprise.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Might Middle, Sean spoke to you very eloquently. Your thread titles have a common pattern to throw a very negative NDP spin in them, and it is getting tiring. And what Sean said with this poll is true, your thread title does not match the content of the article you referenced. This is an all too common pattern with you. In the past, I have suggested to you more appropriate thread titles, but you get your jollies by twisting your negative NDP spin into your threads you start. And crying to the mods like you did was beneath you. When you set up a negative thread title pattern like you have since you came on board, you are trolling. The moderators are very busy. Most people flag the moderators for major violations in babble policy or for very rude and disruptive behaviour. You seem to flag the mods for minor slights against you, and it's such a pity.

Mighty Middle

Misfit wrote:
Might Middle, Sean spoke to you very eloquently. Your thread titles have a common pattern to throw a very negative NDP spin in them, and it is getting tiring. And what Sean said with this poll is true, your thread title does not match the content of the article you referenced. This is an all too common pattern with you. In the past, I have suggested to you more appropriate thread titles, but you get your jollies by twisting your negative NDP spin into your threads you start. And crying to the mods like you did was beneath you. When you set up a negative thread title pattern like you have since you came on board, you are trolling. The moderators are very busy. Most people flag the moderators for major violations in babble policy or for very rude and disruptive behaviour. You seem to flag the mods for minor slights against you, and it's such a pity.

I don't recall you giving me any advice about titles, but I will take your & Sean advice about thread titles in future thread creations. Thanks for the advice!

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The day he threatened Chicago with Martial law (coincidentally within a couple of hours after Bill O'Reilly openly mused about 'carnage'in Chicago) he revealed himself as a fascist.

I can't think of another term for a President or any leader of a country that threatens his own country with Martial law.

The only thing he's missing is a mock military attire and small moustache.

He's also surrounded himself with far right cretins and reacts to criticism with 'alternative facts' I.E. LIES.

He's the furthest thing from libertarian. He's a kook who shapes his opinions and policies from what he sees on Fox News and hears on right wing talk radio. He's a genuine buffoon.

He's certainly surrounded himself with fascistic sewage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOLApOQEf_k

Just a little more proof that Trump is an authoritarian dictator.

Misfit Misfit's picture

THREAD: Former NDP MPP QUITS the Party over Their Opposition to Road Tolls. POST: #44

Mighty Middle

Misfit wrote:
THREAD: Former NDP MPP QUITS the Party over Their Opposition to Road Tolls. POST: #44

I honestly didn't remember, sorry.

 

Sean in Ottawa

CuriousAboutEveryThing wrote:

Trump is not right or left. He is more like inteligent practical populist liberterian ,Anti NWOGlobalist ,anti Farmmafia(Glyphosate) ,anti Pharmamafia .

Do a search for "CDC Knowwingly Lied About Mercury in Vaccines" Proof has surfaced and "FBI raid CDC"

also Moms Against Mercury and Moms at Home (with autistic children who are now adults).

What will Happen when this Horror becomes obvious to everyone.

In the US and in Canada by association hidden in the bottom the swamp is big pharma and Big Farm(Glyphosate and GMO's)

Did you Know Trumps youngest son is autistic.

 

I see this appears to be your first post.

You are praising Trump as an "intelligent populist libertarian" and clearly you subscribe to the Trump view of "the swamp."

Then you move on to ignoring science to push debunked theories about autism and vaccines.

This is not an auspicious start.

Misfit Misfit's picture

When did libertarian get declassified as being right wing? Or am I wrong? I see fiscal libertarianism as being about as right-wing as you can get.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Trump is not right or left. He is more like inteligent practical populist liberterian ,Anti NWOGlobalist ,anti Farmmafia(Glyphosate) ,anti Pharmamafia .

One (ironic) typo, three K00kisms.  Welcome to babble.

Quote:
Did you Know Trumps youngest son is autistic.

No.  He just has no interest in talking to them.

Pages