Canadian Politics Redux

DarthMaeglin

I'm struggling with the right words but I think brevity will be better (in part so I stop digging a deeper hole).

I want to apologize to the thread (and even the larger board) if for nothing else than breaking the central covenant of this place and being an asshole in ways,  not least of which is breaking the "If you hate something..." rule.




As an aside I just want to explain my editing of posts and the very limited amount that I do. Very early in my own online days (the forum for the show 24) I saw people substantially altering posts after the fact which if nothing else sometimes caused some confusion with subsequent replies.  Believing that one should stand behind their words (even anonymously online) I adopted the habit of only making cosmetic edits to my own posts and highlighting them, with only one exception that I can recall. I mention this in part to explain why I allow statements that might offend to remain even if I subsequently clarify or even retract them. 

Parksy

So Trudeau took a holiday in Montana and it costs $230K.  I don't know the full extent of the story, but apparently the Liberals were trying to mask the total costs of this trip for obvious reasons. 

Now... I get the security aspect to this and how that can raise the cost of the trip. I get that.  But so should Trudeau. 

By taking this trip, knowing the costs, to me is completely tone deaf on his part.   

Politically...  it's a dumb move for Trudeau and the Liberals. 

DarthMaeglin

Parksy said:

So Trudeau took a holiday in Montana and it costs $230K.  I don't know the full extent of the story, but apparently the Liberals were trying to mask the total costs of this trip for obvious reasons. 

Now... I get the security aspect to this and how that can raise the cost of the trip. I get that.  But so should Trudeau. 

By taking this trip, knowing the costs, to me is completely tone deaf on his part.   

Politically...  it's a dumb move for Trudeau and the Liberals. 

It wasn’t even a holiday but a four-day long weekend. Cost as much or more than 2 weeks with his close, personal friend the Aga Khan.

 I did read somewhere that Trudeau claimed the Secret Service protection he was given as a gift, even though (properly) it’s something the SS does for all visiting world leaders.

Lest we forget, it was a Liberal that claimed they were entitled to their entitlements.

DarthMaeglin

I still think the appropriate response would have been to let the press run the story and then simply say “The government is working with the Indian government to resolve this matter.”, as opposed to the nuclear option Trudeau ran with.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-india-making-life-difficult-1.7002961

1ThoughtKnown

Poilievre’s apple interview is pure gold. I laughed out loud at his take down of the small town journalist. True journalists are fair and objective. It seems they all want to be editorialists these days. 

Look at CNN or MSNBC or Fox News. None of these are “news” channels. They are Editorial channels. What was once two pages in the newspaper is now several 24 hour entertainment channels. Utter nonsense. 

When I was young, I never understood the editorials. I would read it and wonder why this person felt they needed to tell me how to think. Why did they not understand that I merely needed the facts and I could draw my own conclusions. Basically, journalism today is the halftime show on NFL Sunday. 

DarthMaeglin

Here’s the reporter’s version of the encounter, it’s almost comical compared to what is seen in the video.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Oliver-Osoyoos/451775/Pierre-Poilievre-was-in-town-Wednesday-capping-the-visit-off-with-a-rally-in-Oliver

Edit: Here’s the video in question as well, it breaks in mid-question and cuts off before the interview ends but is otherwise unedited.

https://youtu.be/rnEj7WLsWbk?si=I-O96ntKbi0G7C6t

1ThoughtKnown

All of that reaffirms what I posted above. The write up is an even more editorialized version of the reporter’s thoughts. And the questions… accusing him of populism, Trump-like politics, etc. 
It is so plainly obvious he doesn’t like PP, he can’t hide it in the interview or the article. 

I say all of this as a person who studied journalism in school and dabbled in it in my 20s.  I prided myself on being fair and objective in my reporting. The number one rule was to report the story, don’t become the story: 

But in today’s world, if you aren’t a talking head you are nothing so these small town hacks try to make a name for themselves. I live in the same area this happened which makes it funnier.

Before the anti-conservative mafia comes after me, I’m not here to defend Poilievre. I’m not a staunch conservative. I’ve voted for four different parties federally in my life. I simply thought his response to the awfully phrased and accusatory questions were hilariously bad.

Reporter: “Blah blah blah…populism”
PP: “what does that mean?”
Reporter: “appealing to people’s more emotional levels I would guess”

populism is a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. The guy asked a question with a word he didn’t know the meaning of. 

Then the questions are just plain horrible. Accusing him of tapping “strong ideological language” like “right wing, left wing, this and that” and as he is stumbling here he tries to bail out of that, only to make it worse that “some people would say you are taking a page out of the Donald Trump, uh” and then can’t answer when PP asks who is saying that. 

Reporter : “Don’t know”
PP: “You must know someone you asked the question”

When he finally asked a straight forward question, PP have a thoughtful straightforward answer regarding some of his plans (it’s an interview, very high level). The discussion about drug addicts was incorrectly reported in the written article. 

PP took him to the cleaners. Just one man’ opinion. Most of all it was all pretty hilarious. 

Parksy

Help me with something if you folks can: 

In this interview where Pierre was mowing down on an apple... can anyone tell me who the 'journalist' represented?  

I ask for a couple reasons, and yes, what I'm getting at is generally against Pierre because I generally think he's a doosh canoe. 

Now... let's say someone can identify this 'reporter' ....  I'm going to take a wild shot in the dark and suggest that this 'reporter' does not come from a 'main steam media' news outlet.  

IF... and that's an IF because I honestly don't know.  As I type this, the fellow may have been from Global News' Kelowna station. Who knows.   But if this guy was a Joe Blow 'reporter' from some obscure left wing media outlet.... or perhaps just some guy with a blog... and Pierre and his camp are plastering him on social media...   well... that's sad and hypocritical.  

You cannot be vehemently against main steam media news who have real journalists and also use some left wing nobody to put on social media. 

That said, I shall wait to see who this fellow was who was interviewing our Leader of the Opposition... learn who he works for, was his credentials are etc.  

Parksy

Didn't take me long... yes... the fellow is a joke of an editorial writer for an obscure newspaper.  Don Urquhart of the Times Chronicle of South Okanagan valley. 

I hope that folks who look upon Pierre as someone 'awesome' for this completely understand this... The guy is a joke. 

I quite honestly compare this to Auston Matthews scoring a goal on a U7 goalie. 

The fact that the Conservatives and Pierre and his camp are eating this up and looking at this as any sort of 'win' or 'victory' or 'look at us, we just owned the libs' ... is so unbelievably sad and pathetic. No different than the Leafs posting a video of Mattews sniping on a 7 year old and then posting it online as if it's worth bragging about. 

This is the guy Pierre Polievre took to the cleaners with his political savvy: 

[A Vancouver native, Don spent half his life living, working and eating his way around Southeast Asia. A graduate of Simon Fraser University, Don began his career writing for consumer magazines in Singapore before joining a large daily newspaper and later a daily business paper.

Moving to the South Okanagan in 2021 Don is still adjusting to the unique (read dry) environment with the fabulous wine and craft beer of the region aiding that adjustment. Whenever possible, backcountry hiking is top of the agenda.

He is the editor of the Times Chronicle newspaper in Oliver and Osoyoos.]

Parksy

1ThoughtKnown said:

Poilievre’s apple interview is pure gold. I laughed out loud at his take down of the small town journalist. True journalists are fair and objective. It seems they all want to be editorialists these days. 

Look at CNN or MSNBC or Fox News. None of these are “news” channels. They are Editorial channels. What was once two pages in the newspaper is now several 24 hour entertainment channels. Utter nonsense. 

When I was young, I never understood the editorials. I would read it and wonder why this person felt they needed to tell me how to think. Why did they not understand that I merely needed the facts and I could draw my own conclusions. Basically, journalism today is the halftime show on NFL Sunday. 

In some ways, I think he actually makes the joke of a journalist's point for him. 

Look at this clown.... Leader of the Opposition... going 'viral' for all the wrong reasons. And the really blatant and sad part... it's not other "news organizations," pundits, or right wing media people eating this up... HE IS.  Our Leader or the Opposition and the Conservative Party of Canada is posting this like some sort of accomplishment.  And people ask me why I don't want to vote for this moron. What a joke. And I hate to say this... anyone out there who watches this as is like "HAHA... look at him TAKE DOWN this biased reporter" really needs to take a step back and look at what they get their jollies off of. 

DarthMaeglin

I don’t know how much this issue has gone beyond Ontario, it seems that the NDP weren’t given many options by Jama (the article fails to mention that after being asked/told to take down the controversial post she chose to pin the post, making it the first thing people would see when looking at her profile (essentially doubling down on the statement).

 I don’t like the government’s reaction however, because it reeks of wrongthought which was a large part of my criticism of Trudeau’s handling of the evil trucker convoy. Dissident thoughts should be honestly examined, not dismissed out of hand which seems to be the way of the world at the moment.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/jama-ndp-caucus-1.7005056

Parksy

DarthMaeglin said:

I don’t know how much this issue has gone beyond Ontario, it seems that the NDP weren’t given many options by Jama (the article fails to mention that after being asked/told to take down the controversial post she chose to pin the post, making it the first thing people would see when looking at her profile (essentially doubling down on the statement).

 I don’t like the government’s reaction however, because it reeks of wrongthought which was a large part of my criticism of Trudeau’s handling of the evil trucker convoy. Dissident thoughts should be honestly examined, not dismissed out of hand which seems to be the way of the world at the moment.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/jama-ndp-caucus-1.7005056

great post.  I was actually thinking this earlier today.  

Stuff like this often comes as no surprise to me when dealing with any kind of society.  In Canada, our social democracy dictates laws, representation, etc.  so it's not all that shocking to see a political party that says "hey, there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed."

It's tricky business to want and desire freedom of individual thought and speech and at the same time basically NEED to co-exist with other people in a society. 

Everything seems to be on a scale or degree... that of which can barely ever be measurable. 

Certain things are no brainers... other things are kind of a gray area. And then folks like us debate everything in between. lol 

The NHL is an interesting case I think of something similar with this with their all around decision to ban pride jersey's, tape, etc.  I think their stance is:  "We, the NHL support LGBT+ ... however we do not feel it's a good idea to essentially force our players to openly support that as well."  I honestly agree with the NHL.  That's hockey.  A political party...  I can understand wanting a member to follow party lines.  

Again.. good post. 

DarthMaeglin

Parksy said:

DarthMaeglin said:

I don’t know how much this issue has gone beyond Ontario, it seems that the NDP weren’t given many options by Jama (the article fails to mention that after being asked/told to take down the controversial post she chose to pin the post, making it the first thing people would see when looking at her profile (essentially doubling down on the statement).

 I don’t like the government’s reaction however, because it reeks of wrongthought which was a large part of my criticism of Trudeau’s handling of the evil trucker convoy. Dissident thoughts should be honestly examined, not dismissed out of hand which seems to be the way of the world at the moment.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/jama-ndp-caucus-1.7005056

great post.  I was actually thinking this earlier today.  

Stuff like this often comes as no surprise to me when dealing with any kind of society.  In Canada, our social democracy dictates laws, representation, etc.  so it's not all that shocking to see a political party that says "hey, there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed."

It's tricky business to want and desire freedom of individual thought and speech and at the same time basically NEED to co-exist with other people in a society. 

Everything seems to be on a scale or degree... that of which can barely ever be measurable. 

Certain things are no brainers... other things are kind of a gray area. And then folks like us debate everything in between. lol 

The NHL is an interesting case I think of something similar with this with their all around decision to ban pride jersey's, tape, etc.  I think their stance is:  "We, the NHL support LGBT+ ... however we do not feel it's a good idea to essentially force our players to openly support that as well."  I honestly agree with the NHL.  That's hockey.  A political party...  I can understand wanting a member to follow party lines.  

Again.. good post. 

Thanks, another issue I take with the censure motion is how it disenfranchises her constituents. Said constituents are the ones who can take any further issue with Jama (yet again we touch on the need for reasonable recall legislation, lol).

With the NHL I agree that it’s their prerogative to be non-political and it’s strange how so much of the coverage I’ve seen bypasses the fact it’s a blanket ban, no group is being singled out. I really don’t know how they should handle those that disobey the ban, especially since they’ve recently opened up advertising on the jerseys and such. But again, it’s the league’s choice to make, and I don’t think there’s a policy against players expressing their views in interviews and other platforms so what’s the problem really?

 I hope that’s not a case of (to paraphrase Family Guy) “We received 5 complaints and each complaint equals 2 billion unsent complaints so we need to do something.” Some good causes got promoted on those theme nights, not least of which being the LGBTQ. Military and breast cancer were two other big ones.

It’s sad how we demand every group has to state where they stand on every issue then the groups have to deal with the blowback when someone’s inevitably offended. Neutrality is no longer accepted, seemingly.

1ThoughtKnown

Spin it however you want. Conservatives will spin it however they want. None of that was my point. I was talking about the poor journalism displayed and why I find it very hard to read or watch editorialized news. A lot of mainstream news is editorialized. 

You can hate on PP (fully expected that on this thread) it is your right in a democracy. I don’t like the guy either,  but I don’t like or trust any politician. Why would I? 

The interaction made me laugh. PP buried that guy, and it went viral. That is what happens when funny shit is on the internet. I highly doubt the team thought it would go viral, but I am sure they are tickled pink it did. He didn’t get rattled, held his composure. That is something good leaders do. 

1ThoughtKnown

Parksy said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

Poilievre’s apple interview is pure gold. I laughed out loud at his take down of the small town journalist. True journalists are fair and objective. It seems they all want to be editorialists these days. 

Look at CNN or MSNBC or Fox News. None of these are “news” channels. They are Editorial channels. What was once two pages in the newspaper is now several 24 hour entertainment channels. Utter nonsense. 

When I was young, I never understood the editorials. I would read it and wonder why this person felt they needed to tell me how to think. Why did they not understand that I merely needed the facts and I could draw my own conclusions. Basically, journalism today is the halftime show on NFL Sunday. 

In some ways, I think he actually makes the joke of a journalist's point for him. 

Look at this clown.... Leader of the Opposition... going 'viral' for all the wrong reasons. And the really blatant and sad part... it's not other "news organizations," pundits, or right wing media people eating this up... HE IS.  Our Leader or the Opposition and the Conservative Party of Canada is posting this like some sort of accomplishment.  And people ask me why I don't want to vote for this moron. What a joke. And I hate to say this... anyone out there who watches this as is like "HAHA... look at him TAKE DOWN this biased reporter" really needs to take a step back and look at what they get their jollies off of. 

If it was the other way around (conservative reporter/liberal leader) you would laugh your ass off and you know it. Lol. So would I! Just put Tucker Carlson in front of Trudeau and see the same kind of interaction. Don’t think you would laugh? Don’t think it would go viral? 

Why can’t anyone look at anything objectively anymore? What is funny is funny, full stop. If more people had a sense of humour we would be in a better place. 

If this interaction makes you want to vote for someone, that’s another story. It’s your right, it’s a democracy. But you best learn about the leader and their platform prior to casting that ballot 

Parksy

1ThoughtKnown said:

Spin it however you want. Conservatives will spin it however they want. None of that was my point. I was talking about the poor journalism displayed and why I find it very hard to read or watch editorialized news. A lot of mainstream news is editorialized. 

You can hate on PP (fully expected that on this thread) it is your right in a democracy. I don’t like the guy either,  but I don’t like or trust any politician. Why would I? 

The interaction made me laugh. PP buried that guy, and it went viral. That is what happens when funny shit is on the internet. I highly doubt the team thought it would go viral, but I am sure they are tickled pink it did. He didn’t get rattled, held his composure. That is something good leaders do. 

That's what I'm saying ....   it was extremely poor journalism. Why Cherry pick and exploit it?  The answer to that is the target audience has no idea what good journalism is.  Back to my original post, I liken it to the Leafs posting about Mattews scoring on a 7 year old.  It's a pathetic flex. 

Parksy

1ThoughtKnown said:

Parksy said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

Poilievre’s apple interview is pure gold. I laughed out loud at his take down of the small town journalist. True journalists are fair and objective. It seems they all want to be editorialists these days. 

Look at CNN or MSNBC or Fox News. None of these are “news” channels. They are Editorial channels. What was once two pages in the newspaper is now several 24 hour entertainment channels. Utter nonsense. 

When I was young, I never understood the editorials. I would read it and wonder why this person felt they needed to tell me how to think. Why did they not understand that I merely needed the facts and I could draw my own conclusions. Basically, journalism today is the halftime show on NFL Sunday. 

In some ways, I think he actually makes the joke of a journalist's point for him. 

Look at this clown.... Leader of the Opposition... going 'viral' for all the wrong reasons. And the really blatant and sad part... it's not other "news organizations," pundits, or right wing media people eating this up... HE IS.  Our Leader or the Opposition and the Conservative Party of Canada is posting this like some sort of accomplishment.  And people ask me why I don't want to vote for this moron. What a joke. And I hate to say this... anyone out there who watches this as is like "HAHA... look at him TAKE DOWN this biased reporter" really needs to take a step back and look at what they get their jollies off of. 

If it was the other way around (conservative reporter/liberal leader) you would laugh your ass off and you know it. Lol. So would I! Just put Tucker Carlson in front of Trudeau and see the same kind of interaction. Don’t think you would laugh? Don’t think it would go viral? 

Why can’t anyone look at anything objectively anymore? What is funny is funny, full stop. If more people had a sense of humour we would be in a better place. 

If this interaction makes you want to vote for someone, that’s another story. It’s your right, it’s a democracy. But you best learn about the leader and their platform prior to casting that ballot 

My gripe is exactly this.  Pierre doesn't want or doesn't care to advertise substance.  He wants clicks. He wants attention.  He wants funny or scary. 

I would judge Trudeau the same way if he 'schooled' a right wing nut job and then posted on his YouTube channel for clicks and likes. 

1ThoughtKnown

Gripe away. I think it’s hilarious. 

Politics has always been a popularity contest, now they go for clicks and likes which helps them get elected. 

Hate the game, not the player. 

Parksy

1ThoughtKnown said:

Gripe away. I think it’s hilarious. 

Politics has always been a popularity contest, now they go for clicks and likes which helps them get elected. 

Hate the game, not the player. 

This coming after the reporter negatively accused Pierre of being a populist. The exact strategy Trump successfully used.  Go figure. 

DarthMaeglin

Unfortunately I suspect this will lead us back to bullying any players that choose to not participate in supporting any cause, which it seems was the reason the league chose to stop the theme nights.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nhl-backtracks-pride-tape-ban-1.7006393