TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Canadians may feel relief with Justin Trudeau's departure, but the Liberal MPs who supported his policies remain in power. They endorsed the inflationary carbon tax, excessive spending, and housing policies that doubled home costs, while also contributing to rising crime rates. Their sudden desire for change is not due to guilt over these issues, but rather a fear of losing their positions in the upcoming election. As the country faces a housing crisis, migrant challenges, and a significant deficit, the Liberals are preoccupied with internal power struggles. A carbon tax election is needed to choose between the costly NDP-Liberal coalition and common-sense conservatives who promise to cut taxes, control spending, and restore safety. The goal is to ensure every hardworking Canadian can afford a decent life in a united Canada.

Mister Trudeau's leadership is precarious, with significant dissent within his party. A fifth of Liberal MPs have called for his resignation, and his deputy prime minister has left, along with his housing minister and several female ministers who have expressed dissatisfaction with his treatment and dishonesty. Currently, 80% of Canadians lack confidence in Trudeau. The pressing question is why Jagmeet Singh is delaying action while awaiting his pension, despite the growing unrest in the country.

This election is about the heart and soul of the country's economy. Canada's economy only grew 1.4% in a decade, which is unprecedented. Gerald Butts was instrumental in helping Trudeau win and is now helping Carney's campaign. Butts was the policymaker behind Trudeau, who was an "empty suit." Butts is determined to turn Canada into a green utopia with no energy, pipelines, or resource development. He wants to take carbon taxes off the consumer and double down on business, making Canada the most uncompetitive place to invest. It is claimed that Canada cannot survive economically with these policies.

It's alarming that a candidate running for leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, potentially our next prime minister, learned of her disqualification via an email received by the media outlet interviewing her. While shocking, it's not surprising. Our internal polls showed my campaign was neck and neck with the front runner. They didn't want me on the debate stage or on the ballot. The Liberal Party wanted to ensure Mark Carney's coronation. The allegations against me are completely false.

Political Polling Liaison Strategies has been releasing polls daily for the past week after never appearing on the 338Canada website before 03/12/2025. This began right after Mark Carney won the Liberal leadership race. Liaison Strategies, a Toronto-based firm, has received over $7 million in government grants from Canadian Heritage since 2020. The firm's recent surge in polling data on 338Canada coincides with the Liberals gaining a slight lead. The sudden influx of polls could be a strategy to inflate Liberal support and create the illusion of momentum. This could backfire by motivating Conservative voters, who may believe their party could lose if they don't turn out. The situation is described as not normal, and viewers are encouraged to stay skeptical and vote.

All leaders performed relatively well in the debate, the first opportunity for Canadians to see them head-to-head. It was of particular interest how Mark Carney and Pierre Poliev would perform. Election debates typically only influence an election if someone does exceptionally well or terribly, which didn't happen. Mark Carney presented himself as the negotiator to handle Canada's crisis, appealing to concerns about Trump's threats and presenting himself as an economist. Pierre Poliev was a friendlier version of himself, after polls showed Quebecers were uncomfortable with his rhetoric. He focused on presenting a more personable version of himself. Jagmeet Singh had his best performance so far, appealing to Canadians to form a minority government. Yves-Francois Blanchet was in his comfort zone and less aggressive than expected, trying to win back voters looking at the Liberals.

Watching Canadian propaganda from outside Canada is eye-opening. We're bombarded with government-owned media, making it hard to see the truth. It's wild to see Canadians, even conservatives, rallying behind Justin Trudeau after his ethics violations and the unconstitutional Emergencies Act. Now he's pushing for Canadians to unite under Canadian products and boycott the US, but it's failing. Nobody in the US cares about invading Canada; they see us as pathetic. Trudeau was supposed to resign but shut down the government instead. Mark Carney, who has a questionable background, is now the Liberal Party leader. They're already foreshadowing a Liberal win, signaling a potentially stolen election or Carney staying in power until 2026. In 2021, when we exposed the fifteen-minute cities agenda, the government labeled everyone Russian bots. Canada is being infiltrated by globalists, and people are voting against their own interests. Wake up and recognize the propaganda, or Canada will collapse within two years.

The discussion centers on the Venezuelan political crisis, U.S. involvement, and historical precedents of regime change in the region. The speakers contrast current military buildup around Venezuela with past Latin American coups, and they assess domestic support, international dynamics, and potential outcomes. - Venezuela under Maduro: Speaker 0 notes a broader deployment of military infrastructure than in recent Latin American coups, implying heightened risk or intensity of any intervention. Speaker 1 counters that domestically there is a “rally around the flag” effect in response to U.S. threats, with about 20% of Venezuelans supporting U.S. military intervention and over 55% opposing it. - Regime-change calculus: The conversation asks for the value of regime change when Maduro is willing to open the Venezuelan market to the U.S. Speaker 1 responds that there is no clear political or economic value to regime change; the predicted consequences would include a massive migration wave, civil war, and higher oil prices. They discuss the implications of implementing a regime-change strategy in the Venezuelan context. - Cartel of the Suns: The Cartel of the Suns is discussed as a U.S.-designated terrorist group. Speaker 1 explains that the designation emerged from a DOJ/intelligence collaboration during the Trump era, with William Barr involved in pursuing Maduro. The term traces back to the Reagan era, when the CIA and DEA allegedly allowed drug trafficking through Venezuela to monitor routes, revealing a long history of U.S. involvement in narco-trafficking networks as a tool of influence. Ramon Guillen Davia is named as a Venezuelan National Guard contact, with broader exposure through media such as a 60 Minutes segment and a New York Times expose by Tim Weiner. The cartel’s earlier existence and its resurfacing in U.S. legal actions are tied to broader U.S. efforts to delegitimize Maduro’s government. - Venezuelan political history since Chavez: Speaker 1 outlines Chavez’s rise and popularity (e.g., reducing extreme poverty by 60% before sanctions), the 2002 coup attempt led by opposition figures including Leopoldo Lopez, and the subsequent public support for Chavez when the people protested to restore him. They describe “La Salida” in 2004–2014 as an opposition strategy funded by U.S. entities (NED, USAID) to depose Chavez, with various protests and riots that damaged the economy. After Chavez, Maduro faced U.S. sanctions and a narrative of illegitimacy framed by the opposition’s efforts to install Guaidó as a parallel government in 2019, enabling asset seizures and embargos on Venezuela’s Sitco assets. - 2019 events and aftermath: The 2019 U.S.-backed attempt to install Juan Guaido as interim president is described, including the staged “humanitarian aid” convoy at the Colombia border which failed; Guaidó’s association with Las Bratas (the Las Frastrojos cartel members) is cited as a public-relations embarrassment, corroborated by major outlets. Leopoldo Lopez is described as a persistent organizer of opposition efforts, connected to a broader U.S.-funded framework through the CIA’s ecosystem (Canvas, Einstein Institute), and by extension to regime-change policy. The possibility of Maduro arresting Guaido is discussed as strategically unwise for Maduro to avoid bolstering U.S. claims of repression. - Opposition fragmentation and polling: The panel debates whether the opposition has broad support. Speaker 1 says a November poll by Datanalysis shows Maria Carina Machado at roughly 14–15% and Maduro around 20%, with most voters undecided and younger voters leaning toward external media narratives. Older, rural, and poor Venezuelans—Chavista base—remain a significant portion of the population. Young people are described as more influenced by social media and potentially more susceptible to pro-U.S. messaging but not broadly supportive of the radical opposition. - External actors and drug-trafficking links: The dialogue links narco-trafficking networks to geopolitical strategy, arguing that the U.S. has used or tolerates narcotics channels to fund political aims in Latin America. The discussion covers broader examples, including Ecuador and the Balkans, and references to U.S. figures and policies (e.g., regime-change agendas, naval movements, sanctions, and strategic partnerships) to illustrate how narcotics intersects with geopolitics. - Geopolitical trajectory and outcomes: The speakers speculate on possible futures: (1) a negotiated deal between Trump and Maduro or U.S. diplomacy (with the oil sector’s re-entry and debt relief) being preferable to open intervention; (2) a decapitation strike leading to destabilization and civil war with severe humanitarian and migration consequences; (3) ongoing sanctions and coercive measures as a long-term strategy. They caution that a direct, large-scale military invasion seems unlikely due to political and logistical risks, including American public opinion and potential backlash if U.S. troops are lost. - Global context and strategy: The broader international framework is discussed, including the U.S. strategic doctrine shifting toward a multipolar world and hemispheric dominance concerns. The conversation touches on how U.S. policy toward Venezuela fits into wider ambitions regarding Russia, China, and regional partners, as well as potential domestic political changes in the U.S. that could influence future approaches to Venezuela and Latin America. - Concluding note: The discussion closes with reflections on the complexity of regime-change ambitions, the difficulty of predicting outcomes, and the possibility that diplomacy or limited, targeted pressure may emerge as more viable paths than broad invasion or decapitation strategies. The participants acknowledge the influence of regional personalities and U.S. domestic politics on policy direction.

Canadians operate within a British parliamentary system, leading to rapid political changes. The Liberals, once holding a majority under Trudeau, are facing significant losses and will have 60 days to choose a new leader. Pierre is likely to become the new majority leader and will need to navigate relations with Trump. Despite Trudeau's long tenure, he lacked effective leadership skills, resulting in widespread dissatisfaction. Metrics such as GDP per capita, capital outflow, and debt per capita have all declined during his time in office. The Canadian dollar's significant drop has further impacted citizens, with many losing 41% of their net worth. Trudeau's legacy is likely to be viewed unfavorably, with harsh assessments of his leadership.

The speaker alleges that recent polls showing a surge in Liberal support are manipulated. They focus on several polling firms, starting with Liaison, noting it began polling shortly after Mark Carney's leadership selection. Corporate documents reveal Alex Nanoff is involved, and his past website shows he worked as a political assistant for a Liberal MPP. Another individual connected to Liaison, Raymond Edwards, is a chief of equity and inclusion officer and was director general for Corporation Canada. The speaker then examines Main Street, highlighting a small sample size in their polls. Quito Maggi, associated with Main Street, has a history of helping candidates win campaigns. The speaker references a Twitter dispute between pollsters, including Nick Kovaslis from Campaign Research, who claims his polls show the Conservatives ahead, contrary to other polls. The speaker suggests Frank Graves from EKOS Research is biased against Pierre Poilievre. Despite Nick's past Liberal support, his current tweets express support for Pierre Poilievre. The speaker concludes that the polls are manipulated due to the alleged biases and conflicts of interest of the pollsters.

The speaker alleges that recent polls showing a surge in Liberal support are manipulated. They focus on several polling firms, highlighting alleged biases. The speaker claims Alex Nandoff, associated with Liaison polling, previously worked as an executive assistant for a Liberal MPP. They also point to Raymond Edwards, linked to Nandoff's corporation and working as chief of equity and inclusion officer, with a past role at Corporation Canada during the corporation's formation. The speaker then examines Main Street, noting their small sample sizes and the background of Quito Maggi, who has a history of helping candidates win elections. The speaker references a Twitter dispute among pollsters, highlighting Nick Kovaslis from Campaign Research, who claims his polls show the Conservative Party ahead, despite previously being a Liberal supporter. The speaker suggests Kovaslis was removed from CRIC due to tweets supporting Pierre Pauliev. The speaker concludes that the polls are manipulated due to pressure on the Liberals.

Pierre Pauliev's recent loss is suspicious because his riding of Carlton, held for 20 years, was altered before the election. The riding was expanded to include a heavily liberal region, increasing its size by nearly 50% due to immigration. Nearly 93% of immigrants move into Canada's 44 census metropolitan areas and tend to vote liberal due to social assistance programs. Canada added a record one million people through immigration in under nine months. The naturalization rate has dropped by 30% due to the country's unaffordability under liberal policies, leading more immigrants to the Maritimes. The Liberal party is allegedly importing voters, with Atlantic Canada having disproportionately more federal seats (32) compared to Alberta, despite having almost half the population. Mark Carney launched his bid to become prime minister in Edmonton, while his riding was beside Pierre Pauliev's in Nepean, a liberal area. Carney obtained his seat by removing a sitting member of parliament.

Canada is currently being controlled by Albertans, which is not working for our community and social democratic agenda. Some believe that having more Quebecois in power is better for Canada. The speaker, who is liberal, agrees with this view. They mention that the most successful prime ministers of the 20th century were from Quebec, such as Trudeau, Moroni, Chrétien, and Paul Martin. They believe that if Quebec has a role in this country, then Canada belongs to them.

I haven't received official word from the Liberal Party about my disqualification. It's shocking that I learned about it from a news headline before receiving any direct communication. This is alarming. It speaks to the state of the Liberal Party that I'm finding out about my disqualification on air. It's not surprising, though. Our internal polls showed we were neck and neck with the frontrunner. They didn't want me on the debate stage or on the ballot because the Liberal Party of Canada wanted to complete the coronation of Mark Carney. All allegations are completely false and fabricated. I won't allow the Liberal Party of Canada or anyone to smear my name or the name of thousands of volunteers in our campaign.

All of the leaders performed relatively well in the debate, the first opportunity for Canadians to see them head to head. It was of particular interest how Mark Carney and Pierre Poliev would perform in this scenario. Election debates typically only influence an election if somebody really knocks it out of the park or does terribly, which didn't happen. Mark Carney presented himself as the negotiator to handle Canada's crisis, appealing to concerns about Trump's threats. He presented himself as the economist who knows how to navigate difficult times and had a relatively good French presentation. Pierre Poliev was a much friendlier version of himself, after polls showed Quebecers were uncomfortable with his rhetoric. He focused on presenting a more personable version of himself. Jagmeet Singh had his best performance so far, appealing to Canadians to form a minority government. Yves Francois Blachat was in his comfort zone and was less aggressive than expected, trying to win back voters looking at going to the Liberals.

Canada chose hope over hate and unity over division. Mark Kearney is the leader Canada needs right now, someone ready to stand strong against Trump and defend democracy. Canada sent a message that tyranny, fear, and division don't win. Canada proved it chose strength, unity, and each other. They are proud, hopeful, and just getting started.

Before starting the debate, one participant humorously states their stance on grooming. The first question addresses Carbon Tax Carney's French fluency, to which he responds affirmatively. The next question asks Christia about her priorities between Canada and Ukraine, and she expresses support for Ukraine. Mark is questioned about his climate consulting profits and his long absence from Canada, to which he gives vague answers. He is also asked about being labeled the "unreliable boyfriend" and criticized by a former British prime minister, which he dismisses as disinformation. Christia is challenged on her anti-establishment claims despite her long tenure with Trudeau and her support for higher taxes. She admits to the necessity of honesty in politics. The debate concludes with Carney expressing his dual motives for running: personal gain and helping Canadians. The debate ends with a heated exchange.

I have mixed thoughts on Pierre Poliev and the conservative party. Pierre is the current leader and a skilled communicator, but his main focus seems to be gaining power rather than having genuine convictions. I believe the conservative party is morally and intellectually corrupt. For instance, when I made a controversial tweet, Andrew Scheer, another conservative member, called me and advised me to consult their PR team before posting anything. This shows that everything they say has been tested through polling and focus groups.

Justin Trudeau is not a liberal. He believes in government control over money, kids, the economy, speech, and more. This goes against the traditional liberal belief in liberty and limited government involvement in people's lives. A true liberal government should focus on doing a few things well and letting people live freely.

The speaker attended Mark Carney's rally in Richmond, BC, after attending Pierre Poilievre's rally. The crowd at Carney's rally consisted mostly of older people, Gen X, boomers, and people from the Punjabi community, with a noticeable absence of Chinese and Asian attendees. The speaker felt the rally resembled a retirement home. Carney's speech lacked substance, with no policy discussion or solutions to key issues like the cost of living or housing crisis. The speaker claims the message focused on the idea that America and Trump are bad, and that voting Liberal would solve that crisis. Carney read from a teleprompter, unlike Poilievre, who used bullet points and spoke with passion. The speaker believes the polls are inaccurate, as the support for Poilievre seems much stronger. The speaker alleges that Liberals are supported by boomers who benefit from rising home values and the Punjabi community who benefit from lax policies and the temporary foreign worker program.

Many Canadians want a federal election this year instead of waiting until 2025. In Alberta, there is a desire for an immediate change in the environment minister, Stephen Gebow. The speaker has good relationships with some federal ministers, including Chrystia Freeland, whom they consider a champion for their province.

The speaker claims that recent polls showing a surge in Liberal support are a "scam." They focus on two polling firms, Liaison and Main Street. Liaison allegedly has ties to the Liberal party through an individual named Alex, described as a Liberal operative. Corporate searches revealed Alex's past work with the Ontario Liberal Party and connections to a government DEI officer. Regarding Main Street, the speaker questions the methodology of using text messages for online surveys, citing a small sample size. They allege the president and CEO, Quito Maggi, was a former campaign manager for a Liberal MP. The speaker references a Twitter exchange where Quito Maggi disputes another pollster's findings, who claims the Conservative party was ahead. The speaker highlights that the Canadian Research and Insights Council imposed sanctions against the other pollster for unresolved complaints. They express distrust in polls due to conflicts and bias, and skepticism of polymarket data that relies on these polls.