BeaverFever

LMAO Just admit you were drunk. Don’t drink and post

I don’t follow bc politics much but I thought the BC Liberal party was effectively the “conservative” party in BC. The story as I understand it is that the official BC Conservative Party was overtaken by another conservative party named Social Credit in the 70s, and both parties had formed government in BC a number of times until Social Credit completely imploded in corruption scandal in the 90s under Bill Vander Zalm and that’s when all the conservative voters and surviving politicians moved to the next closest party, the centrist Liberal Party, effectively taking it over.

Getting to the core of Pierre Poilievre’s biting B.C. interview … I found another instance of Mr. Poilievre attempting to dismantle a journalist. Here is that exchange, lightly edited for length: Reporter: Are you at all worried about a sorcerer’s apprentice effect? There’s a lot of anger in society right now, and if you say things that certain people like or it excites them, what if you can’t control how they react? What if you mobilize people and something ugly happens that you would never have wanted? Poilievre: No. Because I have not said anything that would provoke something like that. And by the way, the guy who has done more to provoke division and stoke anger across this country is Justin Trudeau. I would also add that your colleagues were vigorously criticizing me for the Fair Elections Act back in 2014. I had death threats at my house, delivered to my mailbox. Do you think Steve Maher [the journalist who covered the issue] should take personal responsibility for that because he was criticizing me at the time? Reporter: Right, so ... Well, anyway, let’s leave that. Poilievre: No, I think you should ask yourself that question. Reporter: Well, what I’m asking ... Story continues below advertisement Poilievre: What you seem to be suggesting is that I shouldn’t be criticizing the government because someone else might get angry about that, and do something that I don’t want them to do. But if that’s the logic, well then, Steve Maher should take personal responsibility for death threats delivered to my house. Reporter: I was talking more about the explicitly populist language, the us-versus-them, the elites are coming for you. I take your point about the divisiveness of Trudeau – but that doesn’t mean it’s good thing to do on the other side. It doesn’t mean that it might not have really negative spin-off effects, if we set up this idea that there’s me and there’s you, and we’re on opposing teams, and you’re out to get me. Poilievre: I don’t think that accurately characterizes what I’m saying. NDP members want more from Jagmeet Singh, which means demanding more from the Liberals I remembered this exchange, because that journalist fumbling their way back to the point they were sure they had before Mr. Poilievre revved up his rhetorical pea-shooter was me. Story continues below advertisement At the time, in February of 2022, the convoy had been in Ottawa for almost two weeks, Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole had just been turfed, and I was more than a month into working on a hefty profile of Mr. Poilievre, the instant front-runner to replace him. What had been scheduled as a 15-minute phone interview stretched to an hour, so it can’t have been just me who found it a good and useful conversation that helped me understand him and his view of the world better. The couple of times we got mired in a testy, go-nowhere exchange, it seemed like Mr. Poilievre retreated to debate-club fisticuffs because he couldn’t or refused to respond to the underlying question. I think that’s what was going on with Mr. Urquhart, too, only with an added layer of performative apple-crunching disdain. But now we see, with the virality of that clip, that this kind of thing can serve a much juicier purpose if you have a videographer on staff. Just deke shamelessly around a reporter, and they become your punching bag or – even better – the mascot of some media cabal. Either way: You win, and you don’t have to answer the question. Heck, the question isn’t even a real question, it’s a conspiracy. Sure, Mr. Urquhart’s question was muddled – though show me a journalist who says they’ve never framed a question badly, especially when nervous, overworked or out of their element, and I’ll show you someone with their pants on fire. It’s perfectly clear what he was getting at. Mr. Poilievre is free to reject the premise of the question and deploy all of his considerable rhetorical talents to dispute it, because that’s the way this works. Story continues below advertisement But kicking a journalist in the shins over and over to throw them off balance so you can run away, then turning the exchange into a social-media flex is telling on yourself. In order for this scenario to be the delicious come-uppance its fans believe it to be, you have to see Mr. Poilievre – leader of a major political party, a lifelong politician and, if the polls are right, the next prime minister – as the underdog here, not the overworked local reporter just trying to ask a guy from Ottawa a couple of questions in an apple orchard. … https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-getting-to-the-core-of-pierre-poilievres-biting-bc-interview/

No you’re being pathetically overly-literal because you’re losing the point that he claims he doesn’t see issues as left vs right. I said he regularly calls people marxists and you’re calling me a liar because in reality sometimes he calls them marxist, sometimes communist, sometimes socialist as if that’s some kind of material difference. You’re being absolutely ridiculous especially considering you don’t even understand the the differences between those terms and tou folks on the right use them interchangeably The party of over-the-top rhetoric and the guy who thinks opinions and facts are the same thing want to split hairs. Hilarious

1) you forgot the CPC does also its how the parliamentary system works don’t forget 2) DNC doesn’t vote as a bloc 3) The RNC’s inability to agree a House leader while the House is in search after ousting the previous one is a sign of internal dysfunction, period no matter how hard you try to spin it. The fact that they ousted the previous one without first having built a consensus on the replacement is your first clue that the inmates are running the asylum. The second is that even with all the current chaos this has caused they STILL can’t form any compromises or consensus given the urgency of the situation. Thisnis because the RNC politicians have become a grab bag of random grifters, hacks, self-serving opportunists and extremists who have no interest in anything or anyone except themselves.

No it’s false 1) So by your logic a Liberal party member then? After all, Canadians elected Liberals and you’re a Canadian so you’re responsible 2) Further to point 1 regardless of who elected them, punishing civilians for the action of their government is called “Collective Punishment” and is a war crime 3)It was one election in 2007 and there hasn’t been one since. False. Hamas is reportedly unpopular due to their heavy-handed oppression of Palestinians in Gaza. Palestinians - many of whom are Christian- are quite secular What??? Uh no that’s not how it works at all. “Sorry kiddo” but you have absolutely no clue here. 1) You cannot deliberately target civilians in war, or otherwise intentionally inflict suffering on them as punishment for their government’s actions….period. That is a war crime. I can’t believe I have to explain that 2) “We” are jot individually liable for reparations, those are paid by the government not individuals. I know I know you’re going to say “but the government pay with my taxes” but YOU are not liable - ie nobody sends you a reparations bill in your name and repossess your house and car if payment isn’t made So if someone has a quarrel with the Canadian government they cannot legally kill or collect payments from random Canadian civilians Got it?

Lol nice try, now you’re trying to split hairs to try to change the direction of the argument. Are you really down to “hahaha he screams ‘Socialist’ not ‘Marxist’ ”? That’s your move here really? Lame Wow a 10 year prediction that’s at least 3 elections and the first one is probably still 2 years away….I hope you don’t spend a lot of time at the casinos or racetracks with that kind of baseless confidence. He will probably win the next election if the current trajectory remains but there’s a lot of road after that and nobody travels it unscathed. I hope you’ve been practicing in the mirror saying “the PM doesn’t control the economy!” for when PP is in office and the economy hasn’t magically improved. I know it’s quite a pivot from “JT ruined the economy” but you guys never seem to have a problem with those kinds of wild swings.

That’s not correct

No I don’t admit that, I’ve watched him do it for 20 years I provided examples And don’t lose the plot he claims he doesn’t think about those kinds of things at all Lmao Talk about utter bullshit! If you’re going to claim you don’t see things in terms of left vs right maybe don’t start every other sentence with words like “this is the problem with you on the left!” Every politician says that, that’s a stock talking point for any would-be PM in Canada American republicans and some on the Canadian far right still denounce pursuit of “the common good” as socialism but nobody running as a mainstream parry leader would ever say otherwise Once again you show your ignorance having no idea of what a “Marxist” is and also your continued inability to distinguish between hyperbole, opinion and fact. The Trudeaus are not Marxists, period. The man made his regular appearances on national news for 20 years. Here is another example of him before he lost his glasses calling liberals and NDP a “socialist coalition” Here’s another denunciation of some policy he doesn’t like as “socialism” https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=1175166659506276 Here’s PP calling Trudeau “the epitome of communism” on Tik Tok In fact if you look at his Facebook feed so many posts are rants and memes about socialism. He’s been obsessed with it for years I am not going to spend hours digging up transcripts of every time he used the word Marxist, communist or socialist to describe some liberal policy du jour that conservatives don’t like any more than I’m going to spend hours dig up a dozen examples of Little Richard admitting that he’s gay. PP might be someone you’ve only heard of recently bit many of us noticed him decades ago due to his smarmy hyperbolic style.

No i propose they kill 100% of Hamas in legitimate military operations amd 0% of civilians, in full compliance with internationally accepted rules of engagement. Once again don’t conflate Has with Palestinian civilians they are not the same.

I think Freeland is the solid candidate for the Libs but the next election is probably unwinnable for them no matter who they have as their leader. As for camera performance Canadians can be more forgiving than in the USA where politics is mostly performative. Nobody really raves about Harper’s performance in front of the camera he was “Mr No Personality” and Chretien certainly had unique and unconventional character it was not appreciated in all quarters and he had a face no camera could love. I think Freeland can learn to not come off as “Hillary North,” as she doesn’t have the same historical baggage. Also if you’re referring to Kim Campbell, there are a lot of differences. The Conservative Party was disintegrating at the time as many members were splintering off into the Reform Party and Canada was embracing America’s Clinton-mania and so were looking to complete their own shift from conservative to liberal. We didn’t get a politician playing their Saxophone on late night TV but we got an unconventional leader who made a deliberate display of shunning a lot of the stuffiness and formalities of the office and presenting a plain-talking, scrappy, “unfiltered blue-collar” type persona, which at the time was considered highly unconventional especially for Canada.

Well the ALT-right is revenge of the high school dropouts. “Thanks to Trump I read my first news article yesterday and now I’m an expert on everything!” PP is old school angry neoliberal nerd pretending to be cool and hoping the dropouts invite him to their next party so he won’t have to call the cops on them.

I don’t entirely disagree with your point but the analogy with Hillary is maybe not so identical. Dem voters liked Obama and he probably would have been elected to a third term by a decent margin if that had been an option. However hey were cool to Hillary due to her cardboard cutout persona, her longstanding connections to the American business and political establishment, and her husband’s mixed legacy of austerity and neoliberal reforms. In contrast, Freeland is much more liked and respected than Trudeau She has a serious and accomplished professional pedigree. But as you say the challenge of running after JT resigns is convincing people of a pivot from the current Muppet in office w that is no small feat 8-10 years is the natural life expectancy of a governing party before being voted out, provided that the opposition is united and stable so it’s natural that the Libs will lose the next election As I said she may be better off sitting out the next round as it might be unwinnable for any Liberal and then she can focus on making PP a one-term PM

Don’t lose the plot. PP’s claim - and yours - was that he doesn’t believe in left and right The current leader of the liberal party and its most prominent previous leader. Again, don’t lose the plot. PP’s claim - and yours - is that he doesn’t see things in those terms. Also it is an objective fact that they are NOT Marxists. Again, don’t lose the plot. PP’s claim - and yours - is that he doesn’t see things in those terms. Also it is an objective fact that they are NOT socialists and in fact are avowed enemies of socialists. Although I recognize that in recent years the right has been trying to rewrite history as such, it’s like saying Islamists are Zionists simply because of the superficial similarities between the groups. Again, don’t lose the plot. PP’s claim - and yours - is that he doesn’t see things in those terms. As already established they were no actual Marxists. I’ve seen. PP many time on TV over the years long before he was ever considered a contender for leadership Ten years ago I was calling him the angry jealous nerd and talking about his obnoxious insulting style as giving him “Canada’s most punchable face.” I am not going to spend hours googling him him for you, the results above are from ten minutes of googling but the current coverage he gets as party leader after remaking his image overwhelms the search results especially from the time he was an irrelevant junior member making a name for himself by calling Liberals and NDP communists. His smarmy, toxic style over the past 20 years is well known and well documented He claims he doesn’t see things in terms of left and right and yet here I’ve provided ample examples of him doing just that. You’re trying to play a counting game where counting doesn’t even matter. It’s like a pedophile saying “You only counted 2 kids that I molested, is that all you got? It doesn’t prove anything”. Either he sees and communicates things in those left-right terms or he doesn’t. How many examples do you need?

No, you’re just another poorly educated gullible right winger who can’t read properly. It does not say that.

Petulance is the point for Pierre Poilievre By Nina Lakhani | News | October 17th 2023 Justin Trudeau is in deep, deep trouble. Based on recent polling, which continues to push Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative Party of Canada ahead by double digits, Trudeau’s Liberals appear headed for the sort of once-in-a-generation political shellacking that Brian Mulroney handed John Turner in 1984 and Stephen Harper dealt Michael Ignatieff in 2011. Ironically, there might only be one person who can save the Liberals from this fate: Pierre Poilievre. I’m sure this sounds delusional to most conservatives, given how high Poilievre is riding in the polls right now. But a recent video of him chatting with fruit growers and a local journalist in British Columbia — released by Poilievre’s own team, no less — serves as a reminder of his weaknesses and why they could make the next election more competitive than it looks right now. The very fact they released it, meanwhile, shows that his team can’t see the danger staring them right in the face. The video, titled “How do you like them apples?,” is clearly a reference to one of the defining moments in 1997’s Good Will Hunting. But rather than coming off like Matt Damon’s character, Poilievre seems to be channeling the condescending Harvard student that gets humiliated by Damon in the scene. When a local journalist named Don Urquhart asks him about his populist political brand and willingness to borrow from Donald Trump’s political playbook, he gets visibly annoyed. “What are you talking about? What page? Give me a page.” There are many ways he could have handled this line of questioning, from a gentle pivot to the importance of listening to the average voter to an articulation of what his own playbook actually includes. He doesn’t have to behave like a petulant jackass, in other words. But with Poilievre, it seems, petulance is the point. It’s who he’s been his entire political career, and it’s what still bubbles to the surface almost instinctively, regardless of how much time and money his team spends trying to change it. His penchant for two-dimensional thinking and deliberate oversimplification is also on full display in his response. He talks about the importance of balancing the budget and cutting spending, but when pressed on the details of where and how he would do that, he produces a grab bag of Conservative hobby horses that wouldn’t amount to a rounding error on the federal budget. “Defund the CBC, save a billion dollars,” he says. “Get rid of the ArriveCan app. Reduce the monstrous contracting out. Stop sending our money to foreign dictators, to terrorists, and to international bureaucracies that waste it on ourselves.” Oh, about those “dictators and terrorists” to whom Canada is apparently giving money? When asked to clarify, he could only come up with the $257 million given to the Asian Infrastructure Bank, which funds low-carbon projects in China and other parts of Asia — funding the federal government has already announced that it's suspended. Poilievre, though, suggested it’s really about “building pipelines that we don’t allow to be built here” (we do, of course: see TMX and Coastal GasLink) and “designed to re-establish the ancient Silk Road of the Chinese empire. Why would we pay to establish some kind of imperial silk dynasty with Canadian tax dollars for a communist dictatorship? It’s insane.” What people are reading This is a childish answer to a serious question, but it’s a telling one as well. It’s emblematic of Poilievre’s approach to politics, one designed to dumb everything (and everyone) down to an elementary school level of analysis. His fondness for simplistic — dare I say, Trumpish? — political formulations and his inability to resist blaming his opponents for everything under the sun might appeal to the conservative base, but it surely sits less comfortably with the general public. Most people, I think — I hope — understand there are no easy solutions to the challenges we face, especially when it comes to things like climate change and other global economic and geopolitical realities. The Trudeau Liberals have less than two years to remind Canadians of who Poilievre really is and why his fundamentally unserious approach to politics is a threat they should take more seriously. Given their demonstrated lack of competence on a bunch of different files of late, that might be well beyond their abilities at this point. You can only campaign on being the steady hand at the wheel if the car isn’t swerving all over the place, after all. But if there’s a path to victory for the Trudeau Liberals in 2025, it has to revolve around Trudeau’s willingness to acknowledge the complexity of the moment we’re in right now. We live in a world where there are no free lunches, and few easy meals of any sort. Poilievre’s entire value proposition to voters, meanwhile, revolves around serving them an imaginary platter and pretending someone else will pay the bill. It’s long past time the Trudeau Liberals called that out. If they’re going to go down, they might as well do it swinging. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/10/19/opinion/petulance-point-pierre-poilievre-Liberals-Trudeau?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAqEAgAKgcICjCY164LMKXixgMwmPbiAQ&utm_content=rundown

You mean to say fabricate totally absurd lies and conduct criminal acts in order to steal an election and end US democracy Plenty of mob bosses and their followers said the exact same thing.

Hardly! She’s become a witness for the prosecution! She will still likely lose her licence and I believe she still has a bunch daunting lawsuits against her. “Big Fish” criminals make plea bargains all the time.

Trudeau should definitely step down. As for Freeland, she’s the natural choice but unless she’s planning to bring in a major change in direction or something new like pharmacare she’s probably better off sitting out a round and running after PPs first term. Became people don’t just want a fresh face they want a new set of priorities.

Neither the headlines nor Trudeau said Israel bombed the hospital in those articles. Those stories cover JTs reactions to the initial reports of the hospital being bombed by Israel.

He removed his glasses to distance himself from his reputation as the smarmy spiteful nerd who calls the police on your house party because you didn’t invite him.

Are you joking? The man has literally had no other job im his adult life except 20 years of calling Liberals amd NDP communists, marxists etc. and denouncing “leftists” at every opportunity, more so than most conservatives which is saying alot. It’s basically ehat he was known for throughout his career. Now that he’s rebranding his image and hiding his glasses he doesn’t want people to remember any of that. But Pepperidge Farm remembers. Here is just a few from quick googles some from the current cycle: Here he promises to bring “Leftist tears” Here, he says Trudeaus are Marxists Here is tweeting about the “woke left” and also spouting baseless conservative nonsense about fascists being the left. and here is another tweet of his about “socialism” in admiration of Margaret Thatcher Edit: here’s another, from a notorious right-wing propaganda site Pierre Poilievre: The Liberal Party has been taken over by radical leftists By Candice Malcolm - September 16, 2021 ..,Pierre doesn’t mince words in his criticism of Trudeau and his central bankers as well as a scathing assessment of the government-funded legacy media. He saves his fiercest words for the Liberal party, who he says have been “taken over by radical leftists who have a state-driven ideology where the government takes over every aspect of our lives.” https://tnc.news/2021/09/16/pierre-poilievre-the-liberal-party-has-been-taken-over-by-radical-leftists/

For the love of god can someone please tell me what the new “P” stands for? Some things come to mind but then I’m like “no that can’t be it, even a straight person would have one of those”

She is an Ottawa swamp creature though- gets a high paid “parliamentary affairs Advisor” job at the Senate at age 20 under the Harper government and currently is a “foreign affairs advisor” to a conservative senator despite not having any discernible relevant education or work experience

I don’t know who the interviewer is but he’s not very good. Hilarious that PP of all people would say he doesn’t talk about “left wing”. He’s a guy who screams “Marxist” 10 times a day. If his Big Mac at McDonlads doesn’t have enough sauce on it I het screams that the girl at the counter is a “Marxist”. Edit: the reporter is from the South Okanagan Times Chronicle, what never heard of it? From the way the story is blowing up all over the right wing internet you would think he took down CNN or NYT or something