Real Talk | “Libtard” Is What You Say When You’ve Run Out of Facts

I’ve kept my political opinion off this blog—not because I don’t care, but because I wanted this space to breathe, to hold joy, lightness, the stuff of real life. But lately, real life is political. It’s seeping into everything—friendships, dinner discussions, newsfeeds, and sleepless nights, silence becomes its own kind of privilege.

So yeah. I’m a Liberal. If that instantly shuts you down, feel free to close the tab. But if you’re still here—maybe you’re curious, maybe you’re pissed, maybe you’re just waiting to yell in the comments—let me explain why I believe what I believe. And why I’m not Team Poilievre, and no, it’s not because I’m “brainwashed” or “soft.” I have eyes. I read. I vote based on reason, not rage.

Last night during a night out with friends, the conversation quickly segued into a political debate. It ended with one of my friends calling me a “libtard” because I refused to believe Pierre Poilievre is the man to lead Canada.

I guess if you run out of logic, slurs will do.

---

“The Liberals Tanked the Economy!”

Let’s look at the numbers—because feelings aren’t facts.

No disagreement there—cost of living is brutal. But let’s stop acting like that’s a uniquely Canadian problem or some Liberal invention.

Inflation? It spiked. Try 11.1% in the U.K. (ONS), 9.1% in the U.S. (BLS), and 8.1% in Canada (StatCan) at their messy-ass peaks. Because global pandemic + war + supply chain breakdowns equals inflation. That’s not ideology, that’s math.

Truth: inflation is a global issue, not a made-in-Canada one. The U.S., the U.K., and the EU have all struggled with inflation at the same time. So, blaming one party for global economic instability is like blaming your local weatherman for a hurricane in the Pacific.

Also: the Liberals introduced $10-a-day child care and increased the Canada Child Benefit. They also created the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) which was supported across party lines. This kept millions afloat during the pandemic—people from all political stripes. And Carney publicly supported those moves—because he's a pragmatist, not a performative ranter.

The idea that Pierre Poilievre—whose economic solutions include firing the Bank of Canada governor and embracing crypto—would've done better is not just laughable, it’s reckless.

---

“You Seriously Think Mark Carney Could Lead This Country?”

Yes. Yes, I do.

While Poilievre yells at central bankers on YouTube, Mark Carney is one. And not just any banker. He’s the former Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England—the first person in history to run the central banks of two G7 nations. If that doesn’t scream “global leadership,” I don’t know what does.

Let’s compare: Carney was steering economies through the 2008 financial crisis while Pierre Poilievre was doing photo ops with fake glasses and blaming inflation on “Justinflation.” Carney understands monetary policy at a surgical level. Poilievre yells about it at gas stations.

Carney helped Canada recover from the global collapse faster than most G7 countries, earning the nickname “the Rockstar Banker” by international media. Meanwhile, Poilievre is pushing Bitcoin and pretending that’s serious economic policy.

Let that sink in.

---

“Pierre Will Stand Up to Trump!”

This was my favourite moment of the debate. My friend (hi, still love you) argued that Poilievre is the best person to “stand up to Trump”.

But here’s the problem: Pierre talks a big game—but he’s dangerously shallow when it comes to foreign policy. And in 2025, you can’t bluff your way through a trade war with a sociopathic superpower next door.

Here’s another problem: Pierre Poilievre doesn’t stand up to bullies—he courts them.

He openly aligned with convoy protesters, praised their “freedom,” and cozied up to far-right figures when it served him. Trumpism isn’t something he resists; it’s something he mirrors. His communication style—slogans over solutions, outrage over policy—is the Canadian knock-off of MAGA politics.

Oh, and another problem: Poilievre has zero diplomatic experience. Zero.

His track record is one of smug Twitter soundbites, inflammatory rhetoric, and smug videos in front of gas stations. He’s never negotiated a trade deal, never held a foreign affairs portfolio, never navigated international crises.

Mark Carney, on the other hand, has spent the last decade working with the UN, the G20, and climate finance coalitions—actually negotiating on Canada’s behalf on the world stage. He’s known in international circles. Trusted. Respected. And most importantly: strategic.

You want someone who can stare down a trade war with Trump 2.0? It’s not the guy shouting about axing the CBC on TikTok.

---

“Pierre Just Tells It Like It Is”

No. He tells it like it sounds good to his base. There's a difference.

Pierre’s entire brand is built on three things: anger, nostalgia, and repetition. His speeches are loaded with vague accusations (“gatekeepers!”, “elites!”, “defund the CBC!”), but short on actual policy. Ask him how he’ll fix housing, and it’s “build homes, not bureaucracy.” Ask him about healthcare, and it’s crickets. Unless, of course, he’s talking about giving provinces more power—which is code for privatization.

And let me repeat, Poilievre openly courted anti-vaxxers, anti-lockdown protests, and convoy chaos to grow his base. If you're okay with that, fine. But don't gaslight Liberal voters for not being onboard with that energy leading the country.

---

“You’re Dumb for Voting Liberal”

Listen. I’m not here to worship politicians. I’m not blind to the flaws in Liberal leadership. I’m Indigenous, a woman, and a working parent—I have receipts for every broken promise surrounding indigenous issues and every performative gesture.

But voting isn’t about choosing the perfect candidate. It’s about choosing the most capable leader in a given moment. Someone with vision, credibility, and the experience to navigate the chaos we’re already in—not just throw gasoline on it and call it “freedom.”

So when the moment comes—and it’s coming fast—and Carney steps into the ring, you better believe I’m paying attention. And no, I’m not going to be shamed for choosing someone who knows how to hold a line without torching the country just to win a headline.

Because here’s the thing: Mark Carney doesn’t need to prove he can lead. He already has.

---

Final Thoughts...

You don’t have to agree with me. But don’t confuse volume with intelligence. And please—don’t confuse political engagement with cult loyalty. You want to vote for Poilievre? That’s your right. But let’s not pretend he’s the adult in the room.

And if all you've got is calling Liberal voters “libtards”? You’ve already lost the argument.

~smy