I’m sure it’s all made up, he had so much to personally gain from it.
I'm sure it's good for book sales.
The foundation of his career is built on investigating and writing about these topics. He certainly stands to personally benefit from having it be the center of national conversation.
Him leaving Global, and Global asserting in their defense that the article never made any factual claims about what Han Dong did or didn't do, isn't a great look. Not exactly confidence-inspiring in terms of his reporting.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
Also, does it matter? Canadians don’t seem to really think so, unless you’re conservative.
In the list of questions I think people should as before voting in order of Priority Trudeau is worse.
Number 1) Is the person a threat to democracy.
Turdeaus obstruction of Justice in the SNC Lavalin affair is disqualifying. Regardless of options you can’t vote for someone who stomps all over these Norms and then use’s parliamentary procedure to prevent the proper investigation of said norm breaking. We can keep going through all of the Norm breaking but just this one is and has to be disqualifying. The Trump era and beyond of US politics and the current Trudeau rule has shown that Norms are so important in making a democracy function.
Pierre doesn’t appear to be a threat to democratic norms yet.
Number 2) Is the do you follow some sort of data driven decision process or are you a populist.
Here is where Pierre fails. The entire platform is based on what sounds good rather than any kind of evidence. This is also disqualifying so I don’t think you can vote for him either. Like comments around the central banks are dangerous and not evidence based. You can’t elect someone like that.
So neither are acceptable to vote for but Trudeau is worse.
As I have said before I’m glad I don’t have a vote that matters this federal election and can just vote for a palowski because it’s funny.
I also don’t think anyone who was saying you can’t vote for Smith because of the ethical obstruction of Justice issues as a primary reason can credibly vote for Trudeau and anyone who voted for Smith can’t use Trudeau’s ethical lapses as a reason to vote against them. They are surprisingly equally terrible on ethical and democratic norms grounds.
I'm not sure I fully agree on either point. I mean, yes, I'm with you on Trudeau and SNC, among other things. But there is an argument that PP is a threat to democratic norms based on some of his populist rhetoric.
On the flip side, though, I don't know that I agree that the entire platform is just superficial. A lot of the policy proposals are really about reversing liberal measures. This is from today, and nothing he suggests here really sounds all that different from anyone else who might have lead the CPC or might lead them in future (leaving aside the question about whether any of it is actually a good idea in the present moment, obviously):
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I'm not sure I fully agree on either point. I mean, yes, I'm with you on Trudeau and SNC, among other things. But there is an argument that PP is a threat to democratic norms based on some of his populist rhetoric.
On the flip side, though, I don't know that I agree that the entire platform is just superficial. A lot of the policy proposals are really about reversing liberal measures. This is from today, and nothing he suggests here really sounds all that different from anyone else who might have lead the CPC or might lead them in future (leaving aside the question about whether any of it is actually a good idea in the present moment, obviously):
If you want to add PP to the threat to democracy disqualification that would be fine with me as there certainly are elements of his rhetoric that fall into the breaking norms world. I think it’s important to note the difference between actually breaking those norms and obstructing Justice to being at risk of breaking norms. Which makes Trudeau more unelectable than PP.
If you want to add PP to the threat to democracy disqualification that would be fine with me as there certainly are elements of his rhetoric that fall into the breaking norms world. I think it’s important to note the difference between actually breaking those norms and obstructing Justice to being at risk of breaking norms. Which makes Trudeau more unelectable than PP.
Though PP wasn’t an active participant in them, his support for the “freedom” convoy’s illegal occupation of Ottawa and border blockades will likely make him unelectable to a large number of Canadians.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to iggy_oi For This Useful Post:
If you want to add PP to the threat to democracy disqualification that would be fine with me as there certainly are elements of his rhetoric that fall into the breaking norms world. I think it’s important to note the difference between actually breaking those norms and obstructing Justice to being at risk of breaking norms. Which makes Trudeau more unelectable than PP.
I definitely understand where you're coming from, but when you're electing a politician to an office you have to assess what you really think is the likely outcome of them getting that office - becoming PM. The fact that PP hasn't had the chance to break those norms yet doesn't mean he won't - you have to look at his rhetoric and assess whether he will or not.
There were plenty of warning signs about the crazy stuff Smith was going to do before she ever took office and did crazy stuff. It's a bit different because she gained power without being elected, but I don't think you can just automatically assume the person who has done the crime is, by virtue of that, more likely to commit future crimes than a guy who is effectively telling you "give me a chance and I'll do the crime".
At any rate, I don't see the two things you identified as the source of the real tension for voters. It seems to me that it's more what your echo chamber is like. If you only read this thread, you'd assume PP has nothing to say but populist nonsense and sleazy hackery. If you're instead a Sun reader you have an entirely different impression of what he's doing and saying on a day to day basis - in other words whether the guy looks like a hack wingnut who no one should listen to or a scathing yet effective critic of a corrupt PMO depends on what's being presented to you. I think that's far more the case with PP than it was with O'Toole, as far as I can tell.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Though PP wasn’t an active participant in them, his support for the “freedom” convoy’s illegal occupation of Ottawa and border blockades will likely make him unelectable to a large number of Canadians.
<---------------Canadians like this guy
You couldn't pay me to vote CPC, or for a repulsive toadie like Pierre Poilievre. He's a career politician who has carefully crafted a populist veneer; nothing more.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to timun For This Useful Post:
The foundation of his career is built on investigating and writing about these topics. He certainly stands to personally benefit from having it be the center of national conversation.
Him leaving Global, and Global asserting in their defense that the article never made any factual claims about what Han Dong did or didn't do, isn't a great look. Not exactly confidence-inspiring in terms of his reporting.
The old Tucker Carlson defence “people don’t come to Global looking for facts”
The Following User Says Thank You to Aarongavey For This Useful Post:
I definitely understand where you're coming from, but when you're electing a politician to an office you have to assess what you really think is the likely outcome of them getting that office - becoming PM. The fact that PP hasn't had the chance to break those norms yet doesn't mean he won't - you have to look at his rhetoric and assess whether he will or not.
There were plenty of warning signs about the crazy stuff Smith was going to do before she ever took office and did crazy stuff. It's a bit different because she gained power without being elected, but I don't think you can just automatically assume the person who has done the crime is, by virtue of that, more likely to commit future crimes than a guy who is effectively telling you "give me a chance and I'll do the crime".
At any rate, I don't see the two things you identified as the source of the real tension for voters. It seems to me that it's more what your echo chamber is like. If you only read this thread, you'd assume PP has nothing to say but populist nonsense and sleazy hackery. If you're instead a Sun reader you have an entirely different impression of what he's doing and saying on a day to day basis - in other words whether the guy looks like a hack wingnut who no one should listen to or a scathing yet effective critic of a corrupt PMO depends on what's being presented to you. I think that's far more the case with PP than it was with O'Toole, as far as I can tell.
I don’t disagree with you that PP has similar anti norm tendencies. The question was who was worse though.
To your last paragraph I agree that most people don’t care. It’s why we get the leaders we have. As for PP I think he is both a hack wingnut and an effective critic of the PMO. There is no reason to choose between both.
I don’t disagree with you that PP has similar anti norm tendencies. The question was who was worse though.
To your last paragraph I agree that most people don’t care. It’s why we get the leaders we have. As for PP I think he is both a hack wingnut and an effective critic of the PMO. There is no reason to choose between both.
How can he be both? They are mutually exclusive to a large degree. His rant against 'Trudeau's' interest rate hike today is another example.
If he were a good critic of the government, he wouldn't be echoing populist nonsense. He wouldn't be making the immoral/irrational choice to score points with the base. He would be making critiques from a platform of integrity, and offering a logical rational better plan.
Sent from my SM-N986U1 using Tapatalk
The Following User Says Thank You to starseed For This Useful Post:
How can he be both? They are mutually exclusive to a large degree. His rant against 'Trudeau's' interest rate hike today is another example.
He can definitely be both. PP is actually pretty effective in the HOC as a critic, especially during question period, which is why he was always good in the "attack dog" role. The problem is that that doesn't translate well to "party leader".
He literally talked for four hours about interest rates, housing and fiscal policy last night... I'm not sure if there was anyone present from any other party at the time.
This kind of reads like shouting into the void, but I still think if the CPC wanted to convince people they'd be making a lot more ads out of clips from the house. The LPC always looks uniformly terrible in these things and PP looks like a parliamentarian rather than coming off as a crackpot, which he does frequently in other contexts.
Maybe it's just me but when I actively dislike all three party leaders and there's no impending election the only thing that's interesting about Canadian politics is the strategy.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
That filibuster crap was petty, a waste of taxpayer money and time, and didn't achieve anything since it just delays the inevitable. PP was just rambling on about nonsense, although that seems to be par for the course for today's populist conservatives.
Leave it to a snide, hyper-partisan career politician who hasn't had a normal job in most of his adult life to work the political system and the only outcome is self-aggrandizing releases of policy wonk endorphins.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
Well the topic was interest rates and inflation, which do in fact matter, and aren't just populist nonsense - I don't think saying "well he's just ranting and raving", and trying to hand-wave away those topics, is going to work for the LPC or its supporters, and while I don't think polls in non-election cycles have anything to do with how many seats a party will win in X years, they are a decent barometer for how the electorate is feeling about the current government. And it ain't good.
The stuff he's primarily been talking about this week is CPC meat and potatoes - the economy, government spending hitting average Canadians in the pocketbook, people can't pay their bills, etc etc. That's the stuff every CPC leader talks about and when PP talks about that stuff he doesn't sound conspiratorial or fringe at all, to me anyway... he should probably pivot to do more of that and hope as many people as possible forget about the convoy stuff and the vaguely anti-semitic "globalist agenda" stuff.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Wasn't he just dogwhistling to conspiracy theorists this week about why Justin stopped teaching? And when called on it in the media he realized he ####ed up and got soft like a puffball because what comes out of his mouth can have severe legal implications for him?
Sounds like a normal guy.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
Wasn't he just dogwhistling to conspiracy theorists this week about why Justin stopped teaching? And when called on it in the media he realized he ####ed up and got soft like a puffball because what comes out of his mouth can have severe legal implications for him?
Sounds like a normal guy.
That was intentional. Due to parliamentary privilege, he's not liable civilly if he defames someone while talking during Question Period, but when being interviewed afterwards he is. So he's happy to lie to score political points, but he'll only do it when he's protected against the consequences.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Wasn't he just dogwhistling to conspiracy theorists this week about why Justin stopped teaching? And when called on it in the media he realized he ####ed up and got soft like a puffball because what comes out of his mouth can have severe legal implications for him?
Sounds like a normal guy.
I don't think it was the media that made him realize he ####ed up. I think PP is a much better politician than that. He did exactly what he wanted in the way he wanted. He didn't lay any inferences in the House, he explicitly just said that JT left in the middle of the semester. He let the masses do the interpretation itself and when the media went at him, he was very correct in that any innuendo towards JT's past wasn't actually said by him.
People took the meaning that they wanted, and yes I feel it was a jab at the unfounded rumours, but he never directed them at all. Very much a political point to say something without substance but knowing how your base will bite into it.
Really its why I have a hard time when people call any of them out for being a "career politician". Like if I wanted surgery done, I would probably prefer a "career doctor" to do it. Or have a "career accountant" do my taxes. Being a politician takes skills, experience and specialized knowledge as much as any other career path. And as much as I don't like him, PP is a good opposition politician.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
Being a career politician means he's been involved in partisan circles for so long it's hard to imagine he actually knows the plight of regular people - especially when he's in the wealthy class as a result of taxpayer money. I equate it to businessmen who want to come into government and "run it like a business". Same excrement vibe.
And now this morning he says he can't attend the raising of the Pride Flag for Pride month because he "worked until midnight".
Being a politician takes skills, experience and specialized knowledge as much as any other career path. And as much as I don't like him, PP is a good opposition politician.
If that’s the case how did he get into politics in the first place with so little life and work experience?
IMO people who are good grifters are the last people we should want as our representatives.
Being a career politician means he's been involved in partisan circles for so long it's hard to imagine he actually knows the plight of regular people - especially when he's in the wealthy class as a result of taxpayer money. I equate it to businessmen who want to come into government and "run it like a business". Same excrement vibe.
Clearly Trudeau and Singh are everyday blue collared working men who knows the plight of regular people since they seem to have escaped your criticism.
Quote:
And now this morning he says he can't attend the raising of the Pride Flag for Pride month because he "worked until midnight".
Sounds like an official opposition leader who has his priorities straight and truly represents everyone across the voting base.
Well I guess you won't be voting Conservative now
Unfortunately, when criticism is consistently 100% one sided while offering zero criticism to other parties including against the current sitting government, especially when using a line of criticism that could easily be done for other parties, it's hard to take some posts credibly.
I think criticism of him not attending the pride flag raising is justified if he doesn't attend any pride parades, for what its worth. I am sure as a non-biased, non-partisan poster, we can find similar criticism from you in historical posts regarding Trudeau missing out on the first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation to go surfing in Tofino.
Last edited by Firebot; 06-08-2023 at 01:49 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
