Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Hypothetically if this were to happen bizaro, is there any hard evidence that we would see lower prices for us here if the market price that consumers are willing to pay has already been established?

Early on you get dumping from the US as they try to eliminate the Canadian dairy industry so you would probably see lower prices for a few years. But the Canadian government would need to out subsidize the US government to keep our industry alive. So either way you pay for it or you eliminate industry.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

Early on you get dumping from the US as they try to eliminate the Canadian dairy industry so you would probably see lower prices for a few years. But the Canadian government would need to out subsidize the US government to keep our industry alive. So either way you pay for it or you eliminate industry.

If I was in charge I'd eliminate supply management before the tariffs. The current Canadian industry wouldn't be competitive because producers are sub-scale and carrying too much debt from quota purchases. If you had a period of years with full internal competition you'd end up with a much stronger domestic industry, that I think would be competitive with the US. We're competitive on all other agricultural products that we have the climate to produce (beef, chicken, pork, wheat, canola, greenhouse tomatoes, etc). It seems really unlikely to me that dairy would be a magical exception to that.

There would be a period of adjustment and some of the current producers would shut down, but making things more efficient is a big benefit. I do think you'd see declines in the wholesale price of milk from increased competition and lower producer costs. Even just not having to purchase quota would be a big savings.

Whether lower wholesale costs would make it to the retail consumer is a separate question. Given the history of grocery price fixing I'm uncertain about that. I think the best solution to that problem would actually be Aldi/Lidl.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ctv...335509?cmp=rss

Good on CTV for that, we definitely don't need one of our few reliable news sources going rogue. Now it's time for PP to apologize to CEO Mirko Bibic for his slander.

CTV doesn't deserve any kudos though they eventually arrived to the right resolution after the backlash.

CTV should have acted swiftly at the time the broadcast was revealed to be doctored and made a proper statement. Instead they tried to brush it under the carpet and claimed it to be an out of context misunderstanding and hid the video. It was a malicious act, and the blowback from that action and to claim it was a misunderstanding rather than to state an investigation is ongoing was worse then the incident.

In effect, had Poilievre not spoken out this strongly (or "cried" as some non-partisan progressive folks eloquently stated) to get it to the news likely those 2 would have stayed onboard and continued doctoring news coverage. It also took other media like National Post to call it out for what it is.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ter...poilievre-bias

So now that we have this literal fake news incident which only fuels the belief that media / journalists are narrative driven in their reporting, are we to believe this is a one time incident? The 2 staff members have not been identified, but they clearly had an agenda and used their positions to fabricate a narrative to Canadians and would have taken part in editing clips in the past. This one just happened to be caught as it was so blatant and got called out publicly. Why they would go to such lengths to create a new sentence out of 3 separate sentences to present a made up narrative to Canadians? How often have they done this in the past that this was actually something they thought they could do without repercussions?

Note the reactions from some other journalists, who don't seem to think that fabricating news and doctoring clips to push a narrative is a fireable offence. This leads to believe there is a systemic issue within the industry that journalists have steered away from principles to report news as is and instead have focused on driving narratives where selective reporting and distorting the truth is acceptable as long as the narrative is just.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1839420154666471890

[Looch City]

This is basically the end of CTV and maybe even Canada as we know it.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

CTV doesn't deserve any kudos though they eventually arrived to the right resolution after the backlash.

CTV should have acted swiftly at the time the broadcast was revealed to be doctored and made a proper statement. Instead they tried to brush it under the carpet and claimed it to be an out of context misunderstanding and hid the video. It was a malicious act, and the blowback from that action and to claim it was a misunderstanding rather than to state an investigation is ongoing was worse then the incident.

In effect, had Poilievre not spoken out this strongly (or "cried" as some non-partisan progressive folks eloquently stated) to get it to the news likely those 2 would have stayed onboard and continued doctoring news coverage. It also took other media like National Post to call it out for what it is.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ter...poilievre-bias

So now that we have this literal fake news incident which only fuels the belief that media / journalists are narrative driven in their reporting, are we to believe this is a one time incident? The 2 staff members have not been identified, but they clearly had an agenda and used their positions to fabricate a narrative to Canadians and would have taken part in editing clips in the past. This one just happened to be caught as it was so blatant and got called out publicly. Why they would go to such lengths to create a new sentence out of 3 separate sentences to present a made up narrative to Canadians? How often have they done this in the past that this was actually something they thought they could do without repercussions?

Note the reactions from some other journalists, who don't seem to think that fabricating news and doctoring clips to push a narrative is a fireable offence. This leads to believe there is a systemic issue within the industry that journalists have steered away from principles to report news as is and instead have focused on driving narratives where selective reporting and distorting the truth is acceptable as long as the narrative is just.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1839420154666471890

Oh good lord. I’m not a big fan of CTV for reasons I won’t get into but your expectations are a little bit much here. They admitted to the error right away, released a statement saying is was their fault and even fired people over it. All within what, 2 days?

Your insinuation that they have people actively working to doctor videos to push a narrative is bordering on conspiracy theory level nonsense. “How often have they done this in the past?” Well how many times have the CPC or any other party called them out on it? Your victimization of Poilievre here comes off the same as that leave Brittany alone video from years ago.

Of course CTV haven’t named the people who got fired at this stage, there’s all sorts of potential liability on their end because they may or may not actually have just cause to terminate these employees and probably just packaged them out to get rid of them. In which case there would almost certainly be an NDA involved. Start living in reality.

The real irony here is that despite having no real inside information regarding their investigation and what those employees said to defend their actions you’re suggesting that CTV should be publicly shaming them because you want them to look bad in the media.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Early on you get dumping from the US as they try to eliminate the Canadian dairy industry so you would probably see lower prices for a few years. But the Canadian government would need to out subsidize the US government to keep our industry alive. So either way you pay for it or you eliminate industry.

The US gained greater access to our dairy market a few years back and prices didn’t drop. In theory prices could drop, but that’s not a very strong argument for why they would.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Looch City

This is basically the end of CTV and maybe even Canada as we know it.

Ugh....FINALLY!

Its been a slog.

We had a pretty good run for a while there though.

Alright everyone! Thats a wrap! Get some craft services on the way out...

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

One thing the future PM of Canada can do to inspire confidence for those that have to go along with his administration is . . . Do what every other party leader in Canada does and get top-secret security clearance. I think Elizabeth May does a good job addressing the concerns in the video below.

For a guy who is all business and tough on crime, he sure is quiet on foreign interference, which is becoming a very high profile problem in western democracies. Something has to be up because this shouldn't be that difficult for a career politician who knows the procedural side of things and is frothing for the top chair in the country.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1837132775259787732

It could be something else too that he's concerned about being uncovered and unrelated to foreign interference. I've been cleared before, so I went through it. He will be asked EVERYTHING. His entire past will be looked into very closely, including financials, debts, etc.

Regarding the current situation in Canada, I'd say about 85% of my close friends are completely done with Trudeau and will not under any circumstance vote for him in the upcoming election. Of this group, everyone except for one will also not vote for PP though. I think it's in the bag for PP and the Conservatives unless they do something really, really dumb...

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by activeStick

It could be something else too that he's concerned about being uncovered and unrelated to foreign interference. I've been cleared before, so I went through it. He will be asked EVERYTHING. His entire past will be looked into very closely, including financials, debts, etc.

Regarding the current situation in Canada, I'd say about 85% of my close friends are completely done with Trudeau and will not under any circumstance vote for him in the upcoming election. Of this group, everyone except for one will also not vote for PP though. I think it's in the bag for PP and the Conservatives unless they do something really, really dumb...

2024 Rightwingers are dumb. and same with their voters. I hope they know if you vote for PP you are pretty much Cdn Maga... lol

[activeStick]

Probably a bit more nuance than person that votes for PP = "Cdn Maga", but you do you.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Probably a bit more nuance than person that votes for PP = "Cdn Maga", but you do you.

Well what are you when you vote for that reform testtube baby that's anti-vax and anti-science and pro-feedumb trucker?

You actually fell for the makeover? lol No switching to contacts does not make you less of a deplorable! hahah

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Well what are you when you vote for that reform testtube baby that's anti-vax and anti-science and pro-feedumb trucker?

You actually fell for the makeover? lol No switching to contacts does not make you less of a deplorable! hahah

From this:





to this:



Big changes.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ctv...335509?cmp=rss

Good on CTV for that, we definitely don't need one of our few reliable news sources going rogue. Now it's time for PP to apologize to CEO Mirko Bibic for his slander.

We apologise for the fault in the editing. Those responsible have been sacked.

We apologise again for the fault in the editing. Those responsible for sacking the people who have been sacked, have been sacked.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Oh good lord. I’m not a big fan of CTV for reasons I won’t get into but your expectations are a little bit much here. They admitted to the error right away, released a statement saying is was their fault and even fired people over it. All within what, 2 days?

Your insinuation that they have people actively working to doctor videos to push a narrative is bordering on conspiracy theory level nonsense. “How often have they done this in the past?” Well how many times have the CPC or any other party called them out on it? Your victimization of Poilievre here comes off the same as that leave Brittany alone video from years ago.

Of course CTV haven’t named the people who got fired at this stage, there’s all sorts of potential liability on their end because they may or may not actually have just cause to terminate these employees and probably just packaged them out to get rid of them. In which case there would almost certainly be an NDA involved. Start living in reality.

The real irony here is that despite having no real inside information regarding their investigation and what those employees said to defend their actions you’re suggesting that CTV should be publicly shaming them because you want them to look bad in the media.

Clearly you didn't read what I wrote and went off on a tangent, and seem to have just got wind of it because I posted, versus reading up on the incident ahead of time.

I didn't state to publicly shame the bad actors or even insinuating they should be named. I am saying this is likely not a one time occurrence and likely have done this before, and CTV only acted because they got themselves in a corner over this fiasco.

Did you see the clip? Can you explain why it would be spliced in that manner with any reasonable technical explanation? Do you think this was a thought that just occurred on a whim to edit it in this manner? Do you think they should have been fired or do you think they are victims of far right hysteria?

My issue with CTV is their initial statement. That is the issue most folks have and where the backlash went out of control. You have completely ignored their initial statement as if it never happened in your post.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1838351149734244453

Let's hear your take on it. Considering the end result, do you think this was an appropriate statement? Do you think the 2 staff members were fired after an investigation if it was an honest mistake or as CTV first presented it, a misunderstanding? The words in the 2nd statement were "alterating a video clip" and "manipulating it for a particular story". That doesn't sound like an error now does it? Considering how their first statement was worded, how do you explain the words in this 2nd one, which have legal ramifications?

You have at least 2 staff members conspiring to fabricate sentences that never happened, to feed an anti-Conservative narrative using national news broadcast as their platform, in a heated political scene where we may be heading to an election and elect a new government soon. The news company found to have aired the piece initially brushes it off and makes a statement that it was all a misunderstanding and taken out of context (while deleting the evidence).

It's not a conspiracy theory if the conspiracy actually occurred. These are also not new employees if they have access to edit and release live national news broadcast content. I am saying if they were audacious enough to do such a blatantly poor splice to negatively harm a political party and fabricate news, I am saying this is likely not their first attempt or that it was reserved to only 2 staff members. That is not a farfetched thought process.

I'm right and you know it. But it happened, and it needs to be accepted it happened. Now you get to see Brian Lilley articles talking about it.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...b-on-poilievre

[TheIronMaiden]

I would be more outraged by CTV misrepresenting and editing clips if there weren't thousands of right wing truth seekers * rebel media* spamming the same stuff for Trudeau over social media the last 9 years.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I would be more outraged by CTV misrepresenting and editing clips if there weren't thousands of right wing truth seekers * rebel media* spamming the same stuff for Trudeau over social media the last 9 years.

If anything this is why a mainstream media outlet like CTV must take these events seriously.

I don't things are as nefarious as Firebot, I think the first release was just a kneejerk reaction to an obvious problem. They needed to acknowledge the issue immediately, but couldn't go much further until they had investigated, and then after they did that they released the second one.

I think it was more of a timing issue of working out the problem than needing to deal with outrage. They could have worded that first release better, but I can see where they needed to hedge their wording initially. I don't really see this as a coverup and finally relent under public pressure situation as much as a limit liability by saying little until more is known.

But something seriously failed in the editorial and vetting process that let that go live. And a mistake like this makes it so much easier to push them down to a level of Rebel News - and the people who eat that up that garbage as a "news source" won't even see the irony of complaining about CTV doing it.

[Jason14h]

Don’t attribute to malice what can be explained by incompitence

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Don’t attribute to malice what can be explained by incompitence

...

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Cappy

...

See there was no malice in my spelling mistake

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Clearly you didn't read what I wrote and went off on a tangent, and seem to have just got wind of it because I posted, versus reading up on the incident ahead of time.

Well that’s a nice job of blowing smoke to try and preemptively discredit someone before offering anything of substance. Good job?

I didn't state to publicly shame the bad actors or even insinuating they should be named.

Yeah I’m sure you bringing up the fact that they hadn’t been identified and then accusing(of at the very least insinuating) them of having done this in the past(but for some reason not being called out on it by PP or the CPC in those instances) meant you didn’t think they should have been named.

I am saying this is likely not a one time occurrence and likely have done this before, and CTV only acted because they got themselves in a corner over this fiasco.

Yeah and one time I heard that COVID vaccines change your DNA, problem is Firebot in the real world you need a little thing called proof before you make accusations like that.

Did you see the clip?

Nope.

Can you explain why it would be spliced in that manner with any reasonable technical explanation? Do you think this was a thought that just occurred on a whim to edit it in this manner? Do you think they should have been fired or do you think they are victims of far right hysteria?

As I said I haven’t seen the video but it’s kind of irrelevant, as is their intentions, with or without just cause under these circumstances CTV was going to be firing someone for this.

For the record I don’t think they’re the victims of hysteria, you on the other hand…

My issue with CTV is their initial statement. That is the issue most folks have and where the backlash went out of control. You have completely ignored their initial statement as if it never happened in your post.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1838351149734244453

Let's hear your take on it. Considering the end result, do you think this was an appropriate statement?

I’m not sure what’s leading you to accuse me of ignoring or pretending that this statement never happened. I really don’t understand your issue with their initial statement. I understand you don’t like how they worded it by saying “misunderstanding” but I don’t think that’s a rational gripe. At that stage of their investigation into it that’s probably the only safe word for them to use because they know the spliced video is not something they wanted to have put out there but they likely didn’t know exactly who did it or why. They can’t go out and publicly accuse anyone of malicious intent without knowing for sure.

Do you think the 2 staff members were fired after an investigation if it was an honest mistake or as CTV first presented it, a misunderstanding?

I think under the circumstances they would have been fired no matter what.

The words in the 2nd statement were "alterating a video clip" and "manipulating it for a particular story". That doesn't sound like an error now does it? Considering how their first statement was worded, how do you explain the words in this 2nd one, which have legal ramifications?

Man are you serious? You’re asking why they would have a more detailed explanation after they’ve had time to actually investigate what happened.

You have at least 2 staff members conspiring to fabricate sentences that never happened, to feed an anti-Conservative narrative using national news broadcast as their platform, in a heated political scene where we may be heading to an election and elect a new government soon. The news company found to have aired the piece initially brushes it off and makes a statement that it was all a misunderstanding and taken out of context (while deleting the evidence).

I don’t think a major news network publicly admitting they made a serious error in their reporting and issuing an apology to the person most impacted by the error is brushing it off. How is it unfair for them to say the comments were taken out of context when that’s literally what they did? The irony here is that you’re splicing their statement to try and make it look worse than it was.

I’m kind of curious as to why you appear to be upset that they took they video down, whether it’s intentional or accidental shouldn’t we want fake news to be taken down?

It's not a conspiracy theory if the conspiracy actually occurred.

Claiming the video was altered isn’t where your conspiracy nonsense comes into play, no one is debating that it was altered. Heck I haven’t even seen it and I’m not debating that. It’s when you make statements like they’ve probably done this lots of times before, etc, where I’m saying you’re getting into conspiracy theory territory. It’s pretty simple, put your tinfoil hat down and provide some proof or stop spewing nonsense.

These are also not new employees if they have access to edit and release live national news broadcast content. I am saying if they were audacious enough to do such a blatantly poor splice to negatively harm a political party and fabricate news, I am saying this is likely not their first attempt or that it was reserved to only 2 staff members. That is not a farfetched thought process.

It’s a little far fetched seeing as you can’t even prove that they weren’t newer employees. I mean I don’t know either way but if they were as seasoned of covert operatives as you’re trying to make them out to be one could argue that it wouldn’t be very far fetched to expect that they would have done a better job at splicing the video.

I'm right and you know it.

Wrong on both there champ.

But it happened, and it needs to be accepted it happened. Now you get to see Brian Lilley articles talking about it.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...b-on-poilievre

Credit where it’s due, “I’m right and you know it, look even Brian Lilly agrees with me” is probably one of the funniest arguments I’ve ever heard in my life.