Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
And again that would be a stupid argument. Trudeau’s a plastic politician, a smiley face to enact policy that helps out cronies. There is real news needing reporting. It’s just such garbage designed for clicks of people who already don’t like him. Then the other side gets to say look at those idiots complaining about travel don’t politicians have to travel. Then when the other party is in power it’s reversed and the exact same stories get published. Why would a fiscal conservative expense gum or eat at the hotel.
It’s not journalism, it does nothing for discourse, it’s not relevant to anything but people who egage in click bait journalism. 10 places Trudeau travelled on your carbon emissions, number 7 will surprise you.
It just doesn’t matter.
How about a story on how the proposed US climate policy will impact Canada and what Canada will do about. Or how current and past regulation limited LNG investment and whose at fault. How about a revisit if WE and SNC and what we have learned and where are the unanswered questions. What’s going on today at the Irving Shipyards? How is Trudeau continue to fail to bring clean water to reserves. How is the current carbon tax system in each province doing at reducing Carbon. Something about productivity vs supply chain vs inflation.
Or if you want to get mad about travel at least show the amount of travel compared to other politicians and discuss and critique the value of each trip and how it should be eliminated, moved, or made virtual and what the benefit and costs would have been. Then compare that travel in terms of days and kms with other states. Put some real effort in instead of a list of where he travelled.
For example he flew to Calgary for Stampede. If he hadn’t there would be a perception that the government doesn’t care about Alberta, that perception fuels nationalism in Alberta which is damaging to Canada. So Id argue the in person visit for 6 hrs of stampede makes sense even if it’s Tokenism. Same with the visit with the Pope is required for diplomacy and for the goals of reconciliation. So if someone spent the time actually doing journalism it would be a tolerable waste time instead of just being stupid.
That concludes my monthly rant on how bad current media is and how people suck at consuming news
|
No I don’t think that’s quite true though. I think it is very relevant what our leaders do, they are Canadian leaders after all and represent the country on a global / national level. They are to enact policy reflecting the desires and wishes of the majority, and I think the majority of Canadians do genuinely care about climate change, which I personally find to be quite a confusing topic and one with which I am highly uncertain as to what is necessarily right or wrong. This is why I have a tough time answering Pepsifree straight up about my own actions vs. those of Trudeaus because my actions are entirely irrelevant to the conversation and contextually wildly different than the actions of Trudeaus has established a position and has enacted policy to the detriment of millions of people. I also honestly don’t know where I stand on the issue of what policy to take or what actions to do.
If you make a decision as leader of a country, your actions of course are relevant to the national discourse and should be reported on in the news. Because of what you’re doing is the opposite of what you’re saying, what are you trying to lead people to do or why are you doing it? It doesn’t make any sense. So to equate Mr Coffee to Trudeaus actions are irrelevant noise to my point. And you don’t get to just blithely say what people should or shouldn’t care about with regard to what they want to see in a leader.
In fact I think you’re quite wrong on this entirely. It does quite a bit for discourse and thought exercise because a) it correctly points out quite obtusely just how difficult reducing emissions is B) correctly points out that those supposed leaders that “care” about it obviously truly don’t which is hugely relevant actually (what else are they saying they care about that they don’t??) and c) maybe can get other Canadians who DO care about climate change to consider how much THEY travel. All of these points are relevant, and not “stupid” or even just “click bait”. Scandals and the like are not “click bait”. People need transparency in government.
I agree to your point about US LNG policy though.