Canadian Politics Redux

HughFreakingDillon

I am white and male, but I most certainly do get offended by things. 

Darth didn't say "it doesn't offend me so it shouldn't offend anyone". He actually said the opposite; "it doesn't offend me but I understand there is a balancing act". 

The will smith thing I think is a different animal. I 1) don't believe Chris Rock knew Jada had alopecia, 2) which means it was a fashion choice, 3) which means it's fair game. It is an expectation at those award shows that hosts and presenters, especially comedians, are going to make fun of you for the choices you make; whether it's your career, your dress, etc. Especially if you're in the front row. that's part of the gig. 

anyway, I don't think any of has any of the right answers to this. Of course if you are impersonating JT, how do you do that? he's just like any other white guy on the planet. A mask? A name tag? I don't know. But obviously, Singh has very distinguishable physical attributes that are easy to emulate to get one's point across. Is it racist? not necessarily. is it inappropriate in today's climate, and probably meant to start a larger conversation and/or as a dog whistle? yes. 

Parksy

It is fascinating for a lot of reasons...  and a good discussion    I looked up the Garry Shandling thing  and  yes it's bang on.  If I was reading the same thing you're thinking...  he asks Gervais why his material is mostly based on what makes other people uncomfortable.  And Gervais tries to defend that by saying that he's not trying to mock those things but bring it to light so that it's not uncomfortable.  And Shandling retorts: "And why does that have to be you doing it?"  To which Gervais admits... "Because it makes people laugh."   Which to me... is self serving. Not only self serving but he essentially gets caught trying to sound righteous when all he really is interested in is making people laugh. I personally get where Shandling is coming from. 

In terms of this balancing act.. as we are trying to constantly push the limits to what is acceptable to each other and what cross the lines, etc.  I think what we ought to include in that discussion is how necessary are these things?  Whether it's Don Cherry, Dave Chappelle, Ricky Gervais... whoever.  When these folks say things that are 'potentially' offensive... and then we all get talking about whether or not it should be offensive...  we never seem to ask... what would the world have been like if none of those things were said? Did any joke about a gay person for example do any good for the world?  

To me it begs the question...  with comedians and politicians alike.  If nothing should be off limits...  why?  If the argument is the following:

"Comedians should be able to make fun of anyone."   and / or
"We should be able to physically represent any politician no matter of race or religion."  

My question is... why? And I'm very open to any opinion here... I think this is good learning. 

HughFreakingDillon

I think it's interesting you put Don Cherry in the same line as Chapelle and Gervais. Cherry is a racist scumbag. He didn't say those things to be funny or provocative. 

But to your point....I have to apologize as I'm once again answering with "I don't know" lol. Because after 9/11 happened, I could never in a million years imagined people would be making a joke that even mentioned it, not necessarily making fun of the event, but even mentioning it in a bit indirectly. But now comedians use it as a launching pad all the time. And in many instances, it's not only not cringe worthy; it's funny. Of course it's going to be triggering to the people who were directly traumatized by that event. We were all traumatized to some extent, but obviously none more than those present/affected. But should we be exercising restraint because a very small minority might get bothered by it? I don't think so. Now, there's obviously caveats to this (as there is to everything). Like Michael Richards' racist rant against black people in his audience. But I think it's the audience and society at large (not the mob) that decides these things. kramer might be the first example, actually, of someone getting "cancelled". Because it wasn't funny, and it was offensive to the majority. 

I realize we've gotten a bit off course here, as I had to look up and realize what thread I was in. lol. 

I do think pushing the limits is necessary, actually. I think that's what encourages progress, and sets us on the path that we, as a majority, want to forge. It tells people what is acceptable and what isn't, what to keep and what to leave behind. If you just hide these things, like closet racism, they bubble up when someone like Donald Trump comes along and tells millions it's ok. And then all of a sudden we're all tasked with the idea that 75 million people voted for a racist genital grabber. After having a black man in the white house for 8 years. 

And to Gervais' point, of course part of his motivation is going to be self serving. He's a comedian. If he was a cook, he's going to make things that make people happy. But I do agree with him that in some small way he's helping people explore uncomfortable conversations by first breaking the ice. If you can laugh about something, you can surely talk about it. His joke at the Golden Globes about celebrities "you know nothing about the real world, so come up here, thank your god, and your agent, and get off the stage" was something that we all knew, but him putting it out there made it a collective discomfort that we could all laugh our asses off at. I think a lot of his type of comedy is cathartic in some way; he says things that other comedians just don't say. I can identify with that; at work I'm known as the funny guy that says things to management and executive that most people only think about saying. But I get away with it because it's funny. People know what I'm saying is true, but because it gets a laugh, it's less corrosive. 

DarthMaeglin

Parksy said:

It is fascinating for a lot of reasons...  and a good discussion    I looked up the Garry Shandling thing  and  yes it's bang on.  If I was reading the same thing you're thinking...  he asks Gervais why his material is mostly based on what makes other people uncomfortable.  And Gervais tries to defend that by saying that he's not trying to mock those things but bring it to light so that it's not uncomfortable.  And Shandling retorts: "And why does that have to be you doing it?"  To which Gervais admits... "Because it makes people laugh."   Which to me... is self serving. Not only self serving but he essentially gets caught trying to sound righteous when all he really is interested in is making people laugh. I personally get where Shandling is coming from. 

In terms of this balancing act.. as we are trying to constantly push the limits to what is acceptable to each other and what cross the lines, etc.  I think what we ought to include in that discussion is how necessary are these things?  Whether it's Don Cherry, Dave Chappelle, Ricky Gervais... whoever.  When these folks say things that are 'potentially' offensive... and then we all get talking about whether or not it should be offensive...  we never seem to ask... what would the world have been like if none of those things were said? Did any joke about a gay person for example do any good for the world?  

To me it begs the question...  with comedians and politicians alike.  If nothing should be off limits...  why?  If the argument is the following:

"Comedians should be able to make fun of anyone."   and / or
"We should be able to physically represent any politician no matter of race or religion."  

My question is... why? And I'm very open to any opinion here... I think this is good learning. 

Sorry for my delay in replying, first I wanted to figure out my reply, then I puffed a joint which slowed my thinking down even more, lol.

First, I hear what you’re saying and agree with many of your points. Please don’t think that I would ever tell anyone what to think/be offended by, I agree that just because I’m not bothered doesn’t mean someone else isn’t. If I don’t want you to tell me what to think then I won’t either (that said, my posting style can read as being more absolute, something I’m trying to work on, lol). And I should be the last person to set standards, given that in addition to enjoying offensive humour I also love a good gallows joke.

You’re right that I’m a white male and I try to acknowledge my privilege though I do admit I was blind to much of it early on. Yet I somehow also looked at the movie White Chicks when it came out and thought that if it’s wrong one way, isn’t it wrong the other? Society seemed to deem it ok, so I accepted it. Racial humour is admittedly a minefield to discuss and these days I often feel I’m not entitled to an opinion because of my male whiteness.

Vulgarity in comedy is something else entirely, and it seemed around the time of Eddie Murphy and Andrew Dice Clay (those are the ones I’m familiar with, I’m guessing Richard Pryor could be thrown in?) that it was acceptable though the older generations would frown on it. And I agree with the older folks on some levels, that if all you have is dirty words you’re probably not funny. You could bleep Eddie Murphy and still get the jokes, I think.

Circling back to the float, I do see why people would be bothered by it, but it does (in my mind) lead to the question of how do we then represent political leaders of visibly ethnic backgrounds? I don’t ask this to be offensive, but to learn the limits perhaps.

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

I think it's interesting you put Don Cherry in the same line as Chapelle and Gervais. Cherry is a racist scumbag. He didn't say those things to be funny or provocative. 

But to your point....I have to apologize as I'm once again answering with "I don't know" lol. Because after 9/11 happened, I could never in a million years imagined people would be making a joke that even mentioned it, not necessarily making fun of the event, but even mentioning it in a bit indirectly. But now comedians use it as a launching pad all the time. And in many instances, it's not only not cringe worthy; it's funny. Of course it's going to be triggering to the people who were directly traumatized by that event. We were all traumatized to some extent, but obviously none more than those present/affected. But should we be exercising restraint because a very small minority might get bothered by it? I don't think so. Now, there's obviously caveats to this (as there is to everything). Like Michael Richards' racist rant against black people in his audience. But I think it's the audience and society at large (not the mob) that decides these things. kramer might be the first example, actually, of someone getting "cancelled". Because it wasn't funny, and it was offensive to the majority. 

I realize we've gotten a bit off course here, as I had to look up and realize what thread I was in. lol. 

I do think pushing the limits is necessary, actually. I think that's what encourages progress, and sets us on the path that we, as a majority, want to forge. It tells people what is acceptable and what isn't, what to keep and what to leave behind. If you just hide these things, like closet racism, they bubble up when someone like Donald Trump comes along and tells millions it's ok. And then all of a sudden we're all tasked with the idea that 75 million people voted for a racist genital grabber. After having a black man in the white house for 8 years. 

And to Gervais' point, of course part of his motivation is going to be self serving. He's a comedian. If he was a cook, he's going to make things that make people happy. But I do agree with him that in some small way he's helping people explore uncomfortable conversations by first breaking the ice. If you can laugh about something, you can surely talk about it. His joke at the Golden Globes about celebrities "you know nothing about the real world, so come up here, thank your god, and your agent, and get off the stage" was something that we all knew, but him putting it out there made it a collective discomfort that we could all laugh our asses off at. I think a lot of his type of comedy is cathartic in some way; he says things that other comedians just don't say. I can identify with that; at work I'm known as the funny guy that says things to management and executive that most people only think about saying. But I get away with it because it's funny. People know what I'm saying is true, but because it gets a laugh, it's less corrosive. 

One of the funny things about the Cherry firing was how it was portrayed as racist/xenophobic. That year (and others) I’ve been one of “those people” who didn’t wear poppies. It was hardly the first time he used poor wording though.

Parksy

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I think it's interesting you put Don Cherry in the same line as Chapelle and Gervais. Cherry is a racist scumbag. He didn't say those things to be funny or provocative. 

But to your point....I have to apologize as I'm once again answering with "I don't know" lol. Because after 9/11 happened, I could never in a million years imagined people would be making a joke that even mentioned it, not necessarily making fun of the event, but even mentioning it in a bit indirectly. But now comedians use it as a launching pad all the time. And in many instances, it's not only not cringe worthy; it's funny. Of course it's going to be triggering to the people who were directly traumatized by that event. We were all traumatized to some extent, but obviously none more than those present/affected. But should we be exercising restraint because a very small minority might get bothered by it? I don't think so. Now, there's obviously caveats to this (as there is to everything). Like Michael Richards' racist rant against black people in his audience. But I think it's the audience and society at large (not the mob) that decides these things. kramer might be the first example, actually, of someone getting "cancelled". Because it wasn't funny, and it was offensive to the majority. 

I realize we've gotten a bit off course here, as I had to look up and realize what thread I was in. lol. 

I do think pushing the limits is necessary, actually. I think that's what encourages progress, and sets us on the path that we, as a majority, want to forge. It tells people what is acceptable and what isn't, what to keep and what to leave behind. If you just hide these things, like closet racism, they bubble up when someone like Donald Trump comes along and tells millions it's ok. And then all of a sudden we're all tasked with the idea that 75 million people voted for a racist genital grabber. After having a black man in the white house for 8 years. 

And to Gervais' point, of course part of his motivation is going to be self serving. He's a comedian. If he was a cook, he's going to make things that make people happy. But I do agree with him that in some small way he's helping people explore uncomfortable conversations by first breaking the ice. If you can laugh about something, you can surely talk about it. His joke at the Golden Globes about celebrities "you know nothing about the real world, so come up here, thank your god, and your agent, and get off the stage" was something that we all knew, but him putting it out there made it a collective discomfort that we could all laugh our asses off at. I think a lot of his type of comedy is cathartic in some way; he says things that other comedians just don't say. I can identify with that; at work I'm known as the funny guy that says things to management and executive that most people only think about saying. But I get away with it because it's funny. People know what I'm saying is true, but because it gets a laugh, it's less corrosive. 

One of the funny things about the Cherry firing was how it was portrayed as racist/xenophobic. That year (and others) I’ve been one of “those people” who didn’t wear poppies. It was hardly the first time he used poor wording though.

Interestingly, part of what I was hoping to learn is in the context of the idea that by talking and or joking about this stuff... it is bringing attention to it as Hugh was saying. 

I think the other side of that... and I think this is what Shandling was referring to... and something I completely agree with... it should not be a comedian who does that.  

Take the Indigenous issues with our country.   What has often baffled me when it comes to this particular social issue is the lack of inclusion of the indigenous community. 

For example... McGill changes it's name to Redbirds instead of Redmen... the changing of names of streets, schools, etc.  When I read these stories I rarely see the part of the story where the school for example... I'll use Ryerson... mentions that they consulted with the indigenous community regarding the issue.  

So if we say that comedians can and should joke about this stuff....  I can't help but think that that's the wrong course....unless.. they have taken appropriate steps and consulted whichever community they are mocking, roasting, or joking about.  Even then... I think it's a stretch to assume that it should be ok for them to use a community as a mechanism for a joke.  Again.. It's hard to see past the idea that no matter what... it serves the purpose of the comedian. 

Instead... to Hugh's point about not keeping things in the closet... let's as a society not rely on actors, musicians, and comedians to teach the public... let's have the school systems do that.  

Whenever I hear someone bark about social issues in sports and music and to "shut up and sing"  I'm reminded that it was Gord Downie that taught me about residential schools... and as much as I appreciate him for that... that is so fucking wrong on so many levels.  It should have been my teachers and my parents as far as I'm concerned. 

HughFreakingDillon

I prefer to let things hang out and let nature take its course. I mean, if a comedian makes a joke that falls flat or elicits boos from the crowd, he's likely not doing that joke again. And other comedians might take note of that. And then everyone knows where society stands. 

And I don't see anything wrong with being taught about residential schools from an artist. The arts teach us many things about the world. Sure, the school system has a job and it shouldn't have been swept under the rug, but that particular topic is still so new and fresh, and facts are still emerging about it, it would be difficult to develop cirriculum around that, especially at the school age level. University? Sure. Have open discussions about it. I think at this point these discussions need to be held with as mature a mind as possible. 

Teaching about residential schools might be seen as the same as teaching about middle eastern terrorists. that could actually cause more problems than it solves. 

I'd prefer the approach my kids' school takes; they learn about indigenous history, the seven teachings, etc. At that age and education level, I think it needs to focus on the postive rather than the traumatic. 

Parksy

HughFreakingDillon said:

I prefer to let things hang out and let nature take its course. I mean, if a comedian makes a joke that falls flat or elicits boos from the crowd, he's likely not doing that joke again. And other comedians might take note of that. And then everyone knows where society stands. 

And I don't see anything wrong with being taught about residential schools from an artist. The arts teach us many things about the world. Sure, the school system has a job and it shouldn't have been swept under the rug, but that particular topic is still so new and fresh, and facts are still emerging about it, it would be difficult to develop cirriculum around that, especially at the school age level. University? Sure. Have open discussions about it. I think at this point these discussions need to be held with as mature a mind as possible. 

Teaching about residential schools might be seen as the same as teaching about middle eastern terrorists. that could actually cause more problems than it solves. 

I'd prefer the approach my kids' school takes; they learn about indigenous history, the seven teachings, etc. At that age and education level, I think it needs to focus on the postive rather than the traumatic. 

Where society stands..... is in the toilet right now.  And I just yearn for something... anything to make us all better and more tolerant people. 

We're gonna agree to disagree lol... but to me there is a huge problem with artists teaching. Like just on a simple level.  I think if at a young age when our kids learn about confederation and John A. it should also be noted the mistakes that were made. How to go about that? Yeah that's beyond my skills or opinion.  Frankly.. exactly what Gord preached before he died. Take that message.. and make it part of history class... much like the USA should do regarding slavery if they don't do it already.   It's fascinating to think of psychology and early learning...   but with what we talked about before.. trying to get a point across to an older generation it's almost impossible.  The idea that you can't teach an old dog new tricks rings true.   If total focus on positive becomes how young people formulate opinions and facts.... all of sudden the ugly truth comes out later and it's almost too late to accept or even acknowledge.   I could be very wrong.  Perhaps a teacher on here can chime in    

HughFreakingDillon

it just depends on the age and maturity. I think it's good that my kids were starting to learn about indigenous culture from a young age....but at that age I don't know if it would have been a good idea to teach them about residential schools. I think that should come later. Just like we don't teach kids about world wars generally until history class in high school, but we do teach them the geography of the world earlier than that. 

DarthMaeglin

Parksy said:

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I think it's interesting you put Don Cherry in the same line as Chapelle and Gervais. Cherry is a racist scumbag. He didn't say those things to be funny or provocative. 

But to your point....I have to apologize as I'm once again answering with "I don't know" lol. Because after 9/11 happened, I could never in a million years imagined people would be making a joke that even mentioned it, not necessarily making fun of the event, but even mentioning it in a bit indirectly. But now comedians use it as a launching pad all the time. And in many instances, it's not only not cringe worthy; it's funny. Of course it's going to be triggering to the people who were directly traumatized by that event. We were all traumatized to some extent, but obviously none more than those present/affected. But should we be exercising restraint because a very small minority might get bothered by it? I don't think so. Now, there's obviously caveats to this (as there is to everything). Like Michael Richards' racist rant against black people in his audience. But I think it's the audience and society at large (not the mob) that decides these things. kramer might be the first example, actually, of someone getting "cancelled". Because it wasn't funny, and it was offensive to the majority. 

I realize we've gotten a bit off course here, as I had to look up and realize what thread I was in. lol. 

I do think pushing the limits is necessary, actually. I think that's what encourages progress, and sets us on the path that we, as a majority, want to forge. It tells people what is acceptable and what isn't, what to keep and what to leave behind. If you just hide these things, like closet racism, they bubble up when someone like Donald Trump comes along and tells millions it's ok. And then all of a sudden we're all tasked with the idea that 75 million people voted for a racist genital grabber. After having a black man in the white house for 8 years. 

And to Gervais' point, of course part of his motivation is going to be self serving. He's a comedian. If he was a cook, he's going to make things that make people happy. But I do agree with him that in some small way he's helping people explore uncomfortable conversations by first breaking the ice. If you can laugh about something, you can surely talk about it. His joke at the Golden Globes about celebrities "you know nothing about the real world, so come up here, thank your god, and your agent, and get off the stage" was something that we all knew, but him putting it out there made it a collective discomfort that we could all laugh our asses off at. I think a lot of his type of comedy is cathartic in some way; he says things that other comedians just don't say. I can identify with that; at work I'm known as the funny guy that says things to management and executive that most people only think about saying. But I get away with it because it's funny. People know what I'm saying is true, but because it gets a laugh, it's less corrosive. 

One of the funny things about the Cherry firing was how it was portrayed as racist/xenophobic. That year (and others) I’ve been one of “those people” who didn’t wear poppies. It was hardly the first time he used poor wording though.

Interestingly, part of what I was hoping to learn is in the context of the idea that by talking and or joking about this stuff... it is bringing attention to it as Hugh was saying. 

I think the other side of that... and I think this is what Shandling was referring to... and something I completely agree with... it should not be a comedian who does that.  

Take the Indigenous issues with our country.   What has often baffled me when it comes to this particular social issue is the lack of inclusion of the indigenous community. 

For example... McGill changes it's name to Redbirds instead of Redmen... the changing of names of streets, schools, etc.  When I read these stories I rarely see the part of the story where the school for example... I'll use Ryerson... mentions that they consulted with the indigenous community regarding the issue.  

So if we say that comedians can and should joke about this stuff....  I can't help but think that that's the wrong course....unless.. they have taken appropriate steps and consulted whichever community they are mocking, roasting, or joking about.  Even then... I think it's a stretch to assume that it should be ok for them to use a community as a mechanism for a joke.  Again.. It's hard to see past the idea that no matter what... it serves the purpose of the comedian. 

Instead... to Hugh's point about not keeping things in the closet... let's as a society not rely on actors, musicians, and comedians to teach the public... let's have the school systems do that.  

Whenever I hear someone bark about social issues in sports and music and to "shut up and sing"  I'm reminded that it was Gord Downie that taught me about residential schools... and as much as I appreciate him for that... that is so fucking wrong on so many levels.  It should have been my teachers and my parents as far as I'm concerned. 

I see what you mean but I guess I'm with Hugh in being ok with artists being agents of change (which usually starts with raising awareness), something that has a long history.  I get the "Shut up and play" people but usually one knows if an act is political and in the end it's the artist's prerogative. I do consider comedians artists,  lol. I'll admit I groaned inwardly when Ed was heaping praise on Trudeau at one of the last Toronto shows,  but I understood it,  lol.

I'm not sure how old you are (I'm 48(?!?)) so I'm not sure when you went to school.  Going through the public system through the 80s and early 90s I agree it's unfortunate I wasn't taught about the residential schools but there wasn't really the awareness there is now, but I think we should acknowledge progress has been made. Not having kids myself I don't know when they're taught about the schools but I would think it would be around the age the Holocaust is covered (which is different from teaching kids about the culture which can start fairly young I would think). I do agree that the relevant communities need to be central to developing any curriculum/programs. 

When it comes to renaming things I agree a certain amount of consultation with FN groups is necessary (or other relevant community), but I honestly think wider public input is equally necessary.  Here in Toronto city council decided on their own that Dundas Street needs to be renamed (forecast to cost $6 million) based on stories that were circulating at the time that were essentially misrepresentations of Dundas' words or intent. I believe there will,  however,  be some degree of public consultation on the new name (I'm tempted to submit Dundas I'll admit).

Parksy

To be clear.. I have zero issue with artists using their forum to bring attention to social issues... I just think it's very sad when they're seemingly the only ones. 

HughFreakingDillon

Parksy said:

To be clear.. I have zero issue with artists using their forum to bring attention to social issues... I just think it's very sad when they're seemingly the only ones. 

yes, that was clear. totally understand the perspective. but we do know that the education system is like a snail when it comes to implementing new types of curriculum, especially when it's still so polarizing. I wonder how long it took before the Holocaust started being taught?

HughFreakingDillon

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/freedom-convoy-hearings-judge-threatened-1.6502747

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/freedom-convoy-hearings-judge-threatened-1.6502747

Absolutely unacceptable (in my opinion, for the record I don’t like when people show up to protest at politicians homes (of any political stripe)).

BF89905

A number of irrational malcontents are apparently in Ottawa again for July 1st to protest our lack of freedoms up here. Many of these people shouId brush up on their world history prior to labeling Trudeau and the Liberal Party fascists. I'm not a Liberal or Conservative supporter; I consider myself a free agent

I wish mainstream media outlets would simply ignore these people. 

The bar is so low now for politicians. There is zero accountability. I'm far from perfect.... it just seems like so many of them are a combination of arrogant, dumb, and/or shady people. Let's hope things improve.

I'm still reeling from the PC's winning the Ontario election. Cheese & rice, their handling of the pandemic, the autism file, senior/retirement homes, ODSP, education, and health care has been awful. Despite the damage in those sectors, let's try to build a BS highway!

I hear Dofo's nephew, Mofo, is another Pierre Polievre type that has never had a real job, yet finds himself making $160k a year to do virtually nothing. That annual amount will rise quickly once he gets his hands into the developers' deals. I'm jealous and frustrated/angry that society has given these dumb dumbs license to do as they please. 

I guess it could be worse, us Canadians could be living somewhere in the States where the inclusivity and basic human rights train is going backwards. We really need humanity to improve. 

Let's end on a positive note...... have an enjoyable and healthy Canada Day long weekend everyone.

DarthMaeglin

Happy Canada Day everyone, I hope everyone’s able to enjoy the day!

Parksy

DarthMaeglin said:

Happy Canada Day everyone, I hope everyone’s able to enjoy the day!

Ditto! Hope everyone had a good and safe holiday! 

Parksy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYfKWQqvFac

Is this man:

A:  A Champion for Freedom of Speech?  

or

B: A Super-Doosh? 

Parksy

CPC leadership is turning out to be what some if not most of us on here predicted... a dumpster fire. 

If unaware... Patrick Brown has been ousted from the leadership race.  Proof has not been provided by the CPC and Brown is not only denying any wrongdoing but going to the extreme lengths of suggesting publicly that this is a screw job (not unlike Bret Hart / Shawn Michaels) done by the Polievre campaign.  He is claiming that the Conservative leadership committee is in cahoots with Polievre and has ousted him because he is a threat. Fascinating and salacious stuff from our politics today. 

While on the subject of Polievre...  he is seemingly digging in even further to a far right leaning leadership bid.  Recently he has done interviews with the likes of Jordan Peterson and True North Media, and he marched with Freedom Convoy supporters on Canada Day. 

I honestly don't think any of this helps the Conservative Party.  More importantly, I think the criticism he receives regarding being more akin to Trumpism seems to ring truer each day.  True North for example are known far right.. bordering on conspiracy type crap.. and have historically supported Donald Trump even going so far as to post a segment featuring disgraced Conrad Black supporting and bolstering Trump as if he's some sort of hero.  

We have a long way to go... but if 2025 becomes Trudeau vs. Polievere ... I honestly weep for our country. Like they say in Letterkenny... would you rather have shit in your nose forever or piss in your mouth forever. 

BF89905

Parksy said:

CPC leadership is turning out to be what some if not most of us on I here predicted... a dumpster fire. 

If unaware... Patrick Brown has been ousted from the leadership race.  Proof has not been provided by the CPC and Brown is not only denying any wrongdoing but going to the extreme lengths of suggesting publicly that this is a screw job (not unlike Bret Hart / Shawn Michaels) done by the Polievre campaign.  He is claiming that the Conservative leadership committee is in cahoots with Polievre and has ousted him because he is a threat. Fascinating and salacious stuff from our politics today. 

While on the subject of Polievre...  he is seemingly digging in even further to a far right leaning leadership bid.  Recently he has done interviews with the likes of Jordan Peterson and True North Media, and he marched with Freedom Convoy supporters on Canada Day. 

I honestly don't think any of this helps the Conservative Party.  More importantly, I think the criticism he receives regarding being more akin to Trumpism seems to ring truer each day.  True North for example are known far right.. bordering on conspiracy type crap.. and have historically supported Donald Trump even going so far as to post a segment featuring disgraced Conrad Black supporting and bolstering Trump as if he's some sort of hero.  

We have a long way to go... but if 2025 becomes Trudeau vs. Polievere ... I honestly weep for our country. Like they say in Letterkenny... would you rather have shit in your nose forever or piss in your mouth forever. 

I agree with your assessment of the CPC party. Polievre is a well spoken grifter. He's literally a lifer politician, that I don't think has ever held a real job. 

A very large problem with Canadian politics nowadays is that more than half of the eligible voters aren't paying attention, which is so disappointing; they also don't see it worth their time to vote. * See June's Ontario election as a snapshot of apathy.

Main stream media has been talking for over a week about airport delays. How are the hospitals doing? Answer: not good

Let's hope things improve