'A tragic time': Pierre Poilievre takes brutal jab at Edmonton Oilers' back-to-back Finals losses
Pierre Poilievre gives his honest opinion about Edmonton Oilers' recent Stanley Cup Final disappointments (Image via AP)
Pierre Poilievre gives his honest opinion about Edmonton Oilers' recent Stanley Cup Final disappointments (Image via AP)
Pierre Poilievre gives his honest opinion about Edmonton Oilers' recent Stanley Cup Final disappointments (Image via AP)
Pierre Poilievre gives his honest opinion about Edmonton Oilers' recent Stanley Cup Final disappointments (Image via AP)
1
2
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre shared his perspective on the Edmonton Oilers' consecutive Stanley Cup Final losses. Reflecting on his Calgary rearing, Poilievre praised the team's playoff efforts.
He reminisced about the 1980s Oilers-Flames rivalry, noting the Oilers' dynasty and Calgary's lone championship, which he celebrated as a young fan.
Pierre Poilievre turns Oilers' Stanley Cup failures into political hockey theatre
In a recent podcast appearance, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre shared his personal reflections on the Edmonton Oilers' consecutive Stanley Cup Final losses. His insights, born from his deep love for hockey, provided a unique blend of political and sports commentary.
Poilievre, who grew up in Calgary, conceded to a "tragic time" for a Flames fan during the 1980s, a decade dominated by the Oilers' dynasty. He reminisced about that unforgettable 1989 season when the Flames finally broke through.
"I remember that. I was at Lloyd's Rollercade in Calgary in the south end of town the night they won the Stanley Cup, and that was an incredible year," he uttered.
He specifically cited Flames legends like Lanny McDonald and Theo Fleury from that championship team, before admitting that the decade "really belonged to the Oilers," with stars like Gretzky and Messier.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025
Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List
Undo
Bob Stauffer says Flames are catching up, warns Oilers of new 'Battle for Alberta'
Poilievre's sentiments were echoed by host Bob Stauffer, who agreed that the Flames were a formidable opponent, even if they were always second to the Oilers.
Stauffer called the Flames a "really good team, the second-best team in the league for a number of years was great." The conversation took a galvanizing twist as Stauffer predicted a return to the glory days of the 1980s.
He stated, "We're going to be in a spot again like the 1980s, where Edmonton and Calgary are two of the best teams.
I think Calgary is very close to making the playoffs, and this is a big part of sort of a Battle of Alberta, but it's also the battle for Alberta."
Also Read:
Trey Lance's comeback may derail Chargers' QB hierarchy—and Jim Harbaugh isn't thrilled
This revival of the rivalry, fueled by both teams' recent successes and the Flames' new arena, promises an exhilarating era for hockey in the province. As the dust settles on this event, the focus now shifts to what comes next, with many watching to see how the situation will evolve.
For real-time updates, scores, and highlights, follow our live coverage of the
India vs England Test match
here.
Catch Rani Rampal's inspiring story on Game On, Episode 4. Watch Here!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
2 hours ago
- First Post
Bangladesh under Yunus: Mob rule and mayhem see over 600 lynching deaths in year since Hasina's fall
In the one year since the ouster of Sheikh Hasina and the appointment of Muhammad Yunus as the country's interim ruler, Bangladesh has descended into a state of lawlessness helmed by Islamists, with mob justice becoming the norm. A report has said that more than 600 lynchings have taken place over the past year. read more Men run past a shopping center which was set on fire by protesters during a rally against then-Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her government in Dhaka, Bangladesh, on Sunday, August 4, 2024. (Photo: Rajib Dhar/AP) Over the past one year since the ouster of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, Bangladesh has slipped into a state of lawlessness under the interim government of Muhammad Yunus, the octogenarian propped by the agitators and the military as the country's unelected ruler. Amid cyclic attacks on the country's religious minorities, particularly Hindus, mob violence has increasingly become the norm in Bangladesh that has not even spared the country's police personnel. Since August 5, 2024, at least 637 people, including 41 police personnel, have been lynched in Bangladesh, according to Canada-based Global Centre for Democratic Governance's (GCDG) data carried by The Economic Times. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD For comparison, there were just 51 cases of lynchings in 2023 when Hasina was in power. ALSO READ: With Sheikh Hasina out of Bangladesh, anti-India forces rise in Bangladesh & pose major challenges Pakistan-backed groups, many of whom pursue outright Islamist extremism, have run amok in Bangladesh since the ouster of Hasina. They have waged a campaign of retribution against political opponents, particularly the workers, activists, and leaders of Hasina's Bangladesh Awami League (BAL). They have also attacked the country's minorities, particularly Hindus, whom they accused of siding with Hasina. In the past year, Hindus have been attacked in their houses, their houses have been burnt, and their temples have been attacked. Instead of making the protection of minorities' protection a priority, Yunus has presided over the state patronage of extremists, which has included acts like the release of jihadist leaders from jail. Most lynching victims were from Hasina's party Of those lynched, around 70 per cent of victims were from Hasina's BAL, local human rights bodies have said. These victims have largely been from Hindu and Ahmadiya Muslim communities, which have been a favourite target of Islamists in the country. Even though agitating groups said they were fighting for democracy, they have propped an unelected regime of Yunus with little accountability. The regime has not yet announced a date for elections and continues to run the country without any mandate from the people. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Moreover, in yet another case of democratic backsliding, Yunus has banned BAL and has presided over a campaign to remove BAL, BAL's leader Sheikh Mujibur Rehman —the father of the nation— from public consciousness.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Ukraine's Zelensky says mercenaries from China, Pakistan fighting for Russia
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that mercenaries from China, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and African countries are fighting alongside Russian forces in the ongoing conflict. Zelenskyy expressed his deepest gratitude for his soldiers' unwavering bravery.(AP) This announcement comes as Ukraine continues to grapple with the brutal war that has claimed countless lives and displaced millions. During a visit to the front-line troops in the Kharkiv region on Monday, Volodymyr Zelensky met with the brave warriors of the 17th Separate Motorised Infantry Battalion of the 57th Brigade. As he assessed the situation, he learned that foreign mercenaries were on the ground, fighting against Ukrainian forces. "Our warriors in this sector are reporting the participation of mercenaries from China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and African countries in the war. We will respond," Zelensky stated firmly on X. "We spoke with commanders about the frontline situation, the defence of Vovchansk, and the dynamics of the battles. We also specifically addressed the issues of drone supply and deployment, recruitment, and direct funding for the brigades," he added. Zelensky expressed his deepest gratitude for his soldiers' unwavering bravery and stated. "I presented our defenders with state awards. It is an honour for me to be here. Thank you for fighting, serving your state and the Ukrainian people, and for supporting one another." As fighting has continued, Russian and Ukrainian officials have held several meetings in recent months in Istanbul, Turkiye, Al Jazeera reported. The latest meeting secured an agreement to exchange 1,200 prisoners, Zelensky announced on Sunday. Earlier, Trump had threatened to impose "very severe tariffs" on Russia if it failed to reach a ceasefire deal with Ukraine soon, recently shortening his initial deadline of 50 days to within 10-12 days. On Tuesday, three people were killed in a Russian attack on the Stepnohirsk community in Ukraine's Zaporizhia region, the local military administration said on Telegram. Russia launched 405 attacks on 10 settlements in the region in the past day, the administration said on Monday.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
3 hours ago
- First Post
Tariffs on India: Why Donald Trump's foolishness betrays Ronald Reagan's wisdom
(File) President Ronald Reagan shows his boot following the signing of his tax bill at his California vacation home, Rancho del Cielo, near Santa Barbara, Ca., Aug. 13, 1981. AP When Ronald Reagan spoke about tariffs, he didn't just offer a policy position — he delivered a warning grounded in history, principle and a genuine understanding of economics. His words, echoing the painful memory of the Great Depression, were not just aimed at short-term political applause. Reagan believed in protecting American prosperity not through isolation, but through responsible engagement with the global economy. In stark contrast, Donald Trump's threat to impose 'substantially' higher tariffs on Indian goods — driven by accusations that India profits off Russian oil — is not only economically unsound but strategically shortsighted. This approach reveals Trump as a president wielding power without the wisdom or foresight of his Republican predecessor. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD President Donald Trump talks with reporters as he meets with members of the Juventus soccer club in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025, in Washington. AP Reagan's pragmatism: Lessons from history Reagan's views on tariffs were shaped by the catastrophe of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which raised US tariffs on thousands of imported goods. Rather than protect American jobs, it triggered a trade war, deepening the Great Depression. Reagan explained: 'High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition.' He took protectionism, while politically tempting, as economically destructive. He warned that businesses would grow complacent, relying on government protection rather than innovation. The result, he said, would be collapsing markets, shuttered industries and 'millions of people losing their jobs.' What made Reagan's approach wise was not just that he opposed tariffs — he understood the domino effect. Retaliatory tariffs would hurt American exporters and sabotage global supply chains. He also viewed trade as more than economics: it was a tool of diplomacy, soft power and mutual prosperity. Trump's reactionary tariff threats Trump's proposed 25 per cent tariff on Indian imports is not based on an economic assessment — it is a geopolitical tantrum. His rationale is tied to India's purchase and re-export of Russian oil, a practice he characterises as profiteering from human suffering in Ukraine: 'They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine… Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA.' In this, Trump demonstrates neither a consistent principle nor a strategic objective. His argument disregards the broader global context — India began purchasing discounted Russian oil not to turn a profit, but because Western markets redirected their own imports. India stepped in to stabilise its energy needs, something the US itself encouraged in 2022 to prevent global price shocks. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Furthermore, Trump's characterisation of India as part of a 'dead economy' and his threat of an unspecified 'penalty' betrays his tendency to use trade as a weapon of personal grievance. But unlike Reagan — who considered the long-term ripple effects of protectionist measures — Trump reduces complex geopolitical dynamics to a simplistic punishment-reward framework. India: A partner, not a pawn India is not a geopolitical lightweight or a trade manipulator. It is the world's most populous country and a major economic force, and its neutrality in the Ukraine conflict reflects its strategic autonomy. As India's Ministry of External Affairs in its official response, 'India's imports are meant to ensure predictable and affordable energy costs to the Indian consumer. They are a necessity compelled by global market situation.' The statement further notes that the US and EU themselves continue significant trade with Russia. Europe's imports of LNG from Russia hit a record high in 2024, and US continues importing Russian uranium and palladium. Yet Trump singles out India, ignoring these facts — a move that reeks of political theatre rather than coherent policy. More importantly, India is a crucial partner in counterbalancing Chinese influence in Asia. Damaging India-US trade relations undermines America's strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific. Reagan, a staunch believer in US alliances and coalitions, would have seen this. Trump, in contrast, alienates allies to serve his own political narratives. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Reagan: Leadership based on economic responsibility Reagan was not afraid of confronting unfair trade practices, but he did so with surgical precision, not a sledgehammer. He resisted the political pressure to erect broad tariffs, even when it was unpopular: 'There are those in the Congress… who want to go for the quick political advantage, who risk America's prosperity for the sake of a short-term appeal to some special interest group…' He understood that more than five million American jobs were tied directly to exports and that even more were linked to imports — a reality Trump often disregards in his unilateral declarations. While Reagan was strategic, Trump is scattershot. While Reagan sought prosperity through global engagement, Trump seems to use trade policy as an extension of personal vendetta. Tariffs as political theatre Trump's tariff threats appear to be more about showmanship than strategy. His attacks on India coincide with his political campaign, where populist posturing and nationalist rhetoric score quick applause. Yet, as Reagan warned: 'Sometimes, for a short while, [tariffs] work, but only for a short time.' Any short-term political gain from appearing 'tough on India' comes at the cost of long-term economic damage. Higher tariffs on Indian imports will likely trigger reciprocal measures from New Delhi, harm American exporters, raise consumer prices and strain a vital bilateral relationship. If Reagan believed tariffs should be a last resort, Trump uses them as a first instinct. This reveals not just a difference in policy, but a difference in temperament — one guided by history and humility, the other by impulsiveness and antagonism. A question of wisdom What separates a president from a statesman is the ability to look beyond the next election cycle. Reagan governed with the memory of the Depression and with an eye toward global stability. Trump, by contrast, seems governed by instinct and anger. Reagan warned against 'subsidising inefficiency and poor management' through tariffs. Trump, ironically, now wants to penalise an efficient Indian oil trade that is legally supplying refined fuels to Western markets — including US — because it offends his view of the Ukraine war. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Such contradictions show that Trump is not applying a coherent policy but reacting emotionally. That makes him, at best, just a president — someone who wields the office, but without the measured leadership or wisdom of another Republican who once sat in the Oval Office. Pragmatism vs populism The difference between Reagan and Trump is not simply a matter of ideology — both were Republicans, both campaigned on strong leadership and both sought to protect American interests. But Reagan did so with prudence and perspective. Trump, on the other hand, does so with provocation and unpredictability. Reagan stood firm against protectionism not because it was easy but because it was right. He knew that tariffs could destroy prosperity. Trump, by contrast, seems content to use tariffs as weapons — often pointed not just at adversaries, but at allies like India. It's one thing to be a president. It's another to be a leader with the maturity and vision to steer a superpower through complex global realities. In that comparison, Trump falls well short of Reagan.
