January 15, 2016

Kevin O’Leary muses about Tory leadership: Will Trump “outsider” phenomenon come to Canada?

Brian LilleyRebel Co-Founder
 

The Media Party is so excited about Kevin O’Leary (Dragon’s Den, Shark Tank) speculating about entering the Conservative Party leadership race.

Like Trump, he’s a brash, outspoken outsider who by his own admission, has been politically agnostic.

Also like Trump, O’Leary will likely suck up all the oxygen in the room.

Of course the Media Party loves it because they’ll say he’s great or denounce him by turns, just as long as he continues to give them reasons to talk about him.

There’s no doubt he’s right on many fiscal matters, like recently when he identified Rachel Notley’s NDP as a big part of the problem in Alberta.

He can and should continue to make his voice heard from outside of party politics.

In these times of Liberal “Sunny Ways” that are just so much recycled 1970’s socialism, Canada could definitely use his voice of experience.

But Conservative Party members would prefer someone more reliably Conservative to lead the party.

 

JOIN TheRebel.media for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

READ Brian Lilley's book CBC Exposed -- It's been called "the political book of the year."

The CBC actively campaigns for Justin Trudeau and the Liberals, so why should we subsidize them?
SIGN THE PETITION to SellTheCBC.ca -- The time has come!

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-01-19 22:57:03 -0500
Common sense would dictate that Kevin O’Leary is more qualified for the job then any of the politicians representing any political party in Canada right now…
he is a successful businessman so he knows how to balance budgets.
he is a successful businessman so he knows how to work out and away from deficits.
he knows how to save money.
he has real world experience so he knows what will work and what won’t economically.
he is not tied to any fantasy ideologies while grossly over spending other People’s Money on things that we don’t want or don’t need or won’t work.
he does not need taxpayer money to float his campaign or take campaign contributions from special interest groups who would demand favor later.
he is outspoken and not afraid to stand up on and for sensitive political issues where politicians today are in capable of doing.
as a successful businessman he would know how to attract investment and employment into the country benefiting all Canadians instead of only a few.
the established citizens share many of his points of view and he hasn’t committed to a campaigning platform yet.
as a successful businessman he knows that the country would profit from being run like a successful business because when the citizens are employed and country or provinces attracting are business it’s snowballs into economic gain both provincially and nationally.
commented 2016-01-17 22:55:30 -0500
I think we should except O’Leary without question. If the 2019 election was tomorrow, we would come in 3rd, behind the NDP. Kevin doesn’t know French, but Harper won a Majority without Quebec.
commented 2016-01-17 22:10:42 -0500
I think you nailed it Randy.. So every time we vote it seems we are trying to choose the lesser of three or four evils..
If an honest man ever step forward to take control over the country similar to what you have stated in your comment below the globalists would have him Schwacked and then blamed on a commoner and then they would ratchet down our freedoms harder.
commented 2016-01-17 15:35:11 -0500
Running for the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the NDP Party, – what do they all have in common? They are political Party’s. The left and the right wings are made up paradigms designed to give the people the illusion of having a choice. When I see someone stand up and say they will ban Party Politics, they will kick the Central Bankers out (money changers), the U.N. Commie\Socialists out, the Corporatist slavers out. When they proclaim they will return to Fiscal responsibility with the legitimate Bank of Canada in control of our money supply, that is when you will see someone who is really concerned about the Nation of Canada. Until than the Oleary’s, Trudeau’s and Notely’s etc.etc. and all the Party Politicians in power now are just talking heads and their Globalist puppet masters are the ones that are really in control. Find out who they (Globalists) are and you will find out the real direction our beloved Nation of Canada is headed, and it ain’t GOOD.
commented 2016-01-16 22:12:04 -0500
He hasn’t made any blunders Johnny… He’s just following the direction that his handlers give him and his agenda no where’s near represents the good and God-fearing people of this country..
commented 2016-01-16 21:23:06 -0500
Henry Reardon, I think you just nailed it by saying that the results of the survey can very much be manipulated based on how the sample was obtained If the sample was obtained by Liberal supporters, it is no doubt that it shows a percentage higher than 50% in favor of the new Prime Minister, according to the statistics classes I took at University. I am very much far away from the trust and the capabilities of this government based on the history of the Ad scandal of previous years in power and the advice Justin is receiving from “The old boys club” as well as some of the blunders he has made so far within his 2-3 months in power. I would also agree with the comments made by Greg Ficek made below with regard to O’Leary
commented 2016-01-16 16:06:37 -0500
Common sense would dictate that Kevin O’Leary is more qualified for the job then any of the politicians representing any political party in Canada right now…
  1. he is a successful businessman so he knows how to balance budgets.
  2. he is a successful businessman so he knows how to work out and away from deficits.
  3. he knows how to save money.
  4. he has real world experience so he knows what will work and what won’t economically.
  5. he is not tied to any fantasy ideologies while grossly over spending other People’s Money on things that we don’t want or don’t need or won’t work.
  6. he does not need taxpayer money to float his campaign or take campaign contributions from special interest groups who would demand favor later.
  7. he is outspoken and not afraid to stand up on and for sensitive political issues where politicians today are in capable of doing.
  8. as a successful businessman he would know how to attract investment and employment into the country benefiting all Canadians instead of only a few.
  9. the established citizens share many of his points of view and he hasn’t committed to a campaigning platform yet.
  10. as a successful businessman he knows that the country would profit from being run like a successful business because when the citizens are employed and country or provinces attracting are business it’s snowballs into economic gain both provincially and nationally.
commented 2016-01-16 08:43:09 -0500
Michael McDowell. thanks for clearing that up for me Michael
commented 2016-01-16 06:58:25 -0500
“Statistically speaking, yes, you can actually do that. The math behind it isn’t particularly difficult, but ratios will not vary much between 3000 people and 30 million.”

Not disagreeing with the premise but with the validity Andrew because statistically one can prove or disprove almost anything that one wants. However, statistically versus [the] actuality are two entirely different concepts (or realities) and as Henry also pointed out many variables are usually at play. The largest factor, in my opinion, is who wants the poll done and for what purpose.

“Simple yes/no question, you can get a pretty good idea if you ask even a hundred people (margin of error = 9.8% at a 95% confidence interval).”

How many people questioned actually respond truthfully? Countless times I have read of people boasting how they intentionally fabricated their answers during a telephone or online survey. Hence if truth would be told, pardon the pun, the margin for error realistically would be much higher than that usually stated.

“Neat, isn’t it? Math is fun!”

Math is intertwined in every facet of life as is politics. Neat and fun? Some would argue that is a matter of semantics and/or of personal preference.

“Well as long as you hold those same standards when it comes to positive conservative polls and The Rebel polls.”

That’s a given Michael, I take every poll/survey with a fist full of salt be it political or non-political in nature. Age teaches many things, the young have to learn it for themselves: 1) nothing is as it first appears 2) question everything 3) nothing is “free” in life there is always a catch of some sort.

“I love the fact that conservatives don’t seem to understand the concept that past administrations overflow into any new administration. It will take at least a year before Trudeau’s doings have any real impact in Canada. In a sense, we are still riding the Harper years.”

I am glad to see that you made that comment Michael though not for the reason you may think. I agree that “past administrations overflow into any new administration”. Much can be traced back to Pierre Trudeau during his first term, i.e.: Canadian immigration laws were changed, Canadian Multiculturalism Policy enacted, economical mishandlings, as well as other policies that are to date still in effect, and so on. Any and all prior enacted policies have a direct impact on how each successive administration would/could function. Interesting though how you only go back as far as Harper and no further.
commented 2016-01-16 02:00:36 -0500
Decreasing immigration and limited Canadian status with immediate deportation upon any broken laws Decrease the size of government and less government intervention in private lives and he has my vote..
commented 2016-01-16 01:29:31 -0500
If he campaigned on substantially decreasing immigration, I’d support his leadership, conservative or not.
commented 2016-01-16 01:20:22 -0500
William McDonnell
Re; Yahweh.
I read the Bible a bit and I’ve never seen that name mentioned in the good book anywhere so upon further investigation I find it to be and I believe it is a Judeo Christian term. Basically new age religion and mysticism. (dangerous stuff)
Gods only name in the Bible that he was ever referred to as was
“I am that I am” when he was speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai through a Burning bush. Moses asked God his name so he could tell the people to whom he spoke and again God’s response,
“I am that I am” exodus 3:13.
I have no doubt that you believe in the Bible and believe your Yahweh as you see it is the eternal God and the God of Jacob, Isaac and Abraham.
If I have missed something or I have been remiss please point out in the Bible where I can find Gods name as Yahweh.
commented 2016-01-16 00:52:41 -0500
Michael man… I am neither hateful and bigoted Nor am I homophobic..
I am not afraid of fags as a homophobic term would imply I am only sickened by them to the point of nausea.
And I am not bigoted and hateful because I am in full support of bonded, loving heterosexual, Family orientated lifestyle… Just as God has intended for us. Man shall not lie with man as he would lie with a woman.
commented 2016-01-16 00:30:55 -0500
Michael Mann commented 1 hour ago
Greg,

God and The Bible are fairy tales for the weak, but thank you for confirming that you are a hateful bigot and homophobic.

Mikey, be careful what you say about the true God (Yahweh) and The Holy Bible. God knows everything about everybody and if you are not a true believer your chances of going to hell are very high. The Holy Bible is the Word of God so if you do not believe in this book your chances of going to hell are now extremely high.
commented 2016-01-15 23:31:31 -0500
I would certainly welcome a non-establishment conservative to lead the party but not Mr. O’Leary. I agree with you, Mr. Lilley. If O’Leary wishes to challenge our present, entrenched representatives perhaps he could be tapped for some knowledge regarding his business acumen. The current, ordained Liberal party is not up to the task to be engaged with global and domestic issues we face today.
commented 2016-01-15 23:03:05 -0500
William,

Yes, because the couple of months that Trudeau has been in power is enough to actually make an impact.

I love the fact that conservatives don’t seem to understand the concept that past administrations overflow into any new administration. It will take at least a year before Trudeau’s doings have any real impact in Canada. In a sense, we are still riding the Harper years.
commented 2016-01-15 23:00:27 -0500
To take a majority win Trudeau only needed 36% of the votes..
Or something like that that that number is close… so if 53% of the people still support him 53% of the original 36 is around 19 in reality. So only 19% or so of the Canadian population still supports him… And Muslims are not Canadians so that number gets lower again if they used any of Islam for liberal support.… He is the most unpopular man in Canada but somehow the statistic spinners can make him look like the second coming.
commented 2016-01-15 22:58:59 -0500
Greg,

God and The Bible are fairy tales for the weak, but thank you for confirming that you are a hateful bigot and homophobic.
commented 2016-01-15 22:57:18 -0500
Hyacinth,

Well as long as you hold those same standards when it comes to positive conservative polls and The Rebel polls.
commented 2016-01-15 22:47:34 -0500
@ Andrew Stephenson
I won’t dispute the mathematics of what you’re saying. My math days are long behind me and my knowledge of statistics is superficial at best. However, I do want to comment on one assumption that you are making which may not be valid.

In arguing that a survey of 1000-3000 people can be reasonably taken as an indication of what a much larger group thinks about something, you are making an implicit assumption that those people have been randomly chosen from that larger population. I’ll stipulate that this may well be true. But how do you know that the survey in question really did talk to a random selection of the Canadian populace? You have the pollster’s insistence that this was the case and precious little else to go on given that the details of who was called is never published. How do we know that the this 53% of Trudeau supporters wasn’t obtained by talking exclusively to people who are card-carrying members of the Liberal Party? Or even of the upper reaches of the Liberal Party where they might well be even more loyal than the average Liberal?

Of course other groups might be just as loyal to Trudeau as Liberal Party members. The media, for instance. Or those seniors who have forgotten all the bad things about Trudeau Sr. and remember only the Trudeaumania of 1968 and nothing that happened after that.

I’m sure it’s tempting to trust the pollster. They may well be trustworthy and never consider gaming their own survey. But how do we know that? Most business people follow the Golden Rule – he who has the gold, makes the rules – and if their client wants a survey result that says Trudeau is greatly loved, you can bet they will phrase the questions to make that outcome more likely. (This wonderful excerpt from Yes Minister illustrates the technique.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA.) They might also be very “careful” about choosing who gets asked these questions to skew the question in the direction favoured by the client.

All the brilliant math in the world is no match for the wily tricks of the politicians.
commented 2016-01-15 22:07:44 -0500
Canada’s Trump? A better comparison might be to Mitt Romney, who was a true business candidate (but not a die hard conservative) who would have turned that country around. Instead, they turned him down and have endured four more lost years. Shame. I’d hope that there’s more to being Conservative than being a life-long member. “It’s about the economy, stupid.”
commented 2016-01-15 21:50:33 -0500
“Let’s return to reality shall we, surveys/polls are not representative of a “large or vast number of people” but rather is indicative of a very small sampling, i.e.: 1000 – 3000 on average. So that would make it only 53% of perhaps 3000 polled for a total of maybe 1,590 people. There is an estimated population of 35,749,600 Canadians (2015). There is no way you can say, and with a straight face I might add, that 1,590 represents 35,749,600 Canadians (or to be more accurate 18,947,288 which is “53%” of 35,749,600). Only in a socialist’s wet dream does an approx. 1,590 represent an entire country.”

Statistically speaking, yes, you can actually do that. The math behind it isn’t particularly difficult, but ratios will not vary much between 3000 people and 30 million. If you ask 3000 people, your poll results will be within 2% of the true value over 95% of the time, and will virtually never exceed 4% margin of error. The margin of error approaches zero asympotically as sample size approaches infinity, but the majority of the decline is very early (inverse exponential function). Simple yes/no question, you can get a pretty good idea if you ask even a hundred people (margin of error = 9.8% at a 95% confidence interval).

There are some really good simulators out there that demonstrate the mathematical principles behind this, but it’s entirely valid. You can in fact ask 3000 people and extrapolate that to the entire population, and you have a 99% chance of being within 4% of the actual value. We can thus conclusively claim, with extremely high confidence, that between 49% and 56% of Canadians approve of Trudeau.

Neat, isn’t it? Math is fun!
commented 2016-01-15 20:22:27 -0500
Michael Mann;
You commented something about ,more than half of Canadians approve of Trudeau’. Yea, well just deduct the Muslims from that and see what you get. Muslim is not Canadian.

You later said something about Conservatives being Homophobic. This is not true. We just don’t like Arseholes.
commented 2016-01-15 19:51:18 -0500
So Diane… You would vote for a bigger mouth instead and one that thinks that Albertans have endless depth to their pockets Personally I think somewhere deep down in the center of your brain you may have in your genealogy since the days of Adam and Eve a hatred for men… Especially powerful men that won’t listen to whiners or cryers or any special interest group that serves no purpose to the greater good but only to their own agenda which you might be part of .I think this man would also be a voice to be heard against the Muslim invasion raping our women….
Maybe you like that kind of thing… Maybe you’re a carryover from one of the feminist fringe groups and it seems to me since we started listening to them nothing good has ever become of it.
The man has enough money to support his own campaign and not bleed into the taxpayers money or accept political contributions from powerful special interest groups that either have the good of our nation or the good of our people in mind.
So strap yourself to the leg of our current prime minister look up and hang onto whatever you can find and be prepared for the ride of your life.
commented 2016-01-15 19:42:02 -0500
There is only one person that can fix Canada, and that person’s name is Brad Wall. Unfortunately, he is too smart to want the job of prime minister.
commented 2016-01-15 18:54:23 -0500
No I wouldn’t vote for this big mouth (Canada’s version of Trump) with his over inflated ego. I haven’t heard anything worth voting for come out of his mouth with the exception of his arrogance & criticisms . . . . . not one solution. Why?? inhttp://careers.workopolis.com/advice/how-reality-tv-has-created-a-bunch-of-jerks-at-work-and-how-to-fix-them/
commented 2016-01-15 18:23:57 -0500
I’d support an outsider. I’d support someone not bought and paid for by the donor class……..