CouchPotato

Yeah, Harper was kind of reserved, and I think this sort of thing is important to a lot of voters. It really was a big boost for him when he sang A Little Help From My Friends with Yo Yo Ma.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/10/us-cancels-1000-china-student-visas-claiming-ties-to-military Of course, but they are still parroting Chinese propaganda. I mean if Pierre wants to cut taxes, reduce immigration or get tougher on crime we will be told that he is Trumpian. Everybody knows those are things conservatives have always supported.

The CSIS report is from 2021 so Trump wouldn't have even been in office. But I think the general message is that they were pushing baseless anti-Conservative propaganda.... or as CBC would call it 'targeting Carney.'

CSIS Warned Beijing Would Brand Conservatives as Trumpian. Now Carney’s Campaign Is Doing It. https://www.thebureau.news/p/csis-warned-beijing-would-brand-conservatives

And after ten years of the Liberals doing this we are just as sick of it as you, myata. Luckily Pierre Poilievre has a plan to combat dishonesty and corruption in government. Check out this six point plan.... 1. Ban shadow lobbyists and close the Carney loophole by requiring anyone advising the government directly or indirectly, who stands to gain financially from their advice, to register as a lobbyist. 2. Ban politicians from making decisions that benefit themselves or their families disproportionately, and require Ethics Commissioner approval and full public disclosure of all personal interests. 3. Increase fines for ethics violations to $10,000. 4. Tax transparency. Require anyone running for public office to disclose where they paid taxes for the last seven years. 5. Require cabinet ministers to divest fully from tax havens and disclose assets to the Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, with penalties for non-compliance. No more so-called blind trusts that only blind the public. 6. Require party leaders to disclose their assets within 30 days of becoming leader and require Prime Ministers to divest their assets within 30 days of assuming office. https://www.conservative.ca/poilievres-plan-means-accountability-for-a-change/?utm_source=perplexity I am with you, myata! Let's bring it home, Buddy. Vote CPC! Vote Pierre!

Yeah, I heard that, too. Apparently you can't remove them. You have to call the campaign to have them remove them.

Elaborate??

I saw that the other day. Is there any more info on it? I heard there was quite a large volume of Conservative signs replaced with Liberal ones. Hard to imagine someone could have requested a large number of signs from the Liberal campaign team.

This is worthy of it's own thread. Someone had to pay for those buttons.

So unless I vote Liberal I am going to look like those guys? myata, you act like a child. This is the way a child argues. All emotion, no substance. You are an adult right? Where in the CPC platform does it mention banning Muslims, deporting gays (if I am not mistaken Poilievre's step dad is gay), or jailing women who have abortions? Stopping immigrants at the border who are trying to enter illegally is something I think most Canadians would be on board with.

“We will not forget that young 36-year-old couple whose biological clock is running out faster than they can afford to buy a home and have kids.” What is wrong with that? He is talking about how people are struggling to afford homes and start a family. What does that have to do with not respecting women's choices?

It's so much easier to just demonize people who disagree with you. Your attitude is no different than the totalitarians you claim to oppose. Who is not respecting women's choices? Provide examples.

The CPC is nothing at all like the Republican party.

That still does nothing to make your point, whatever that is. You have asserted that because Pierre used the term Marxist improperly that makes him an ideologue. There is nothing about this in the definition of an ideologue. But in one post you said it's the sort of behavior an ideologue might engage in. Perhaps. Then I point out that all kinds of politicians demonize people. But you say there is difference between using a political term improperly and other kinds of demonization. That is correct. There is a difference. But you haven't provided any explanation as to why using a political label improperly makes one more of a ideologue than one who engages in other forms of demonization. Likewise, you haven't even acknowledged that there may be other factors in what determines the severity of one's rhetoric. Once, again, this is the sort of thing robosmith does. He starts making up rules on the fly to explain why horrible behavior is different when a leftist does it. In a thread about TPUSA people on campus having their tents torn down and tables overturned, he argues that this is fine because TPUSA doesn't engage in proper debate. This is a rule he has just made up. He posted a list of debate rules, but didn't bother to explain how TPUSA broke any of them. But more importantly, it's irrelevant anyway. It's actually very disturbing to suggest that it's ok to lash out violently at people whether or not they debate properly. If am not mistaken you 'liked' that post. Another fine example of the type of civility you support.

You haven't provided any evidence that calling someone a Marxist is any more an example of ideologue-ish behavior than other forms of demonization. It's a rule you have just made up. robosmith does this sort of thing all the time. I can see some sense in what you are saying, but I think there are more factors than a lack of specificity of political terms that go into the severity of someone's rhetoric. You haven't sufficiently made any point to refute. Gotta get ready to watch the hockey game. Cheers.

How many examples have you provided? I was the one who actually provided two. I would disagree, wholeheartedly. I do take some consideration of your argument with respect to Marxist being a very specific thing, but I also look at both situations. Trudeau was a leader and he labelled people who were vaccine-hesitant with all these terms which have no relationship to vaccine-hesitancy. He also asked whether we should tolerate them at all? That is horrible for a leader to do. No competent leader would try to create more division the way he did.

One instance while talking to people one on one while out on the campaign trail. That to you is significant example of a return to McCarthy era discourse? Using a defined term incorrectly does not make one an ideologue. You have failed to establish the connection. You make think it's worse to call someone a Marxist incorrectly than to call a large group of everyday people racist and extremist and to question whether they ought to be tolerated (on live television, no less), but you have just invented this rule out of thin air that using a defined term incorrectly is somehow greater proof of one being an ideologue.

I am not sure you actually make that distinction, Mike. The evidence would suggest otherwise. Fairly recently you pointed to something West said in this forum and exclaimed, "Ah ha, you see, a forum poster called someone a Marxist ergo Poiilevre is Trumpian." (not verbatim, I realize). You seemed to think that was the gotcha of all gotchas.

You still haven't provided any convincing examples of how Poilievre is a throwback to McCarthy era style discourse other than he called Liberals Marxist on the campaign trail once. He also took that statement back. Trudeau has used far more inflammatory rhetoric to divide everyday people. You don't call that out. The outrage always goes one direction. That is fine, Mike. That's your right. Just once again, you only discredit yourself and your own lament over the decline civil discourse.

Because I am not comparing your appraisal of rhetoric on this forum to your appraisal of rhetoric off of this forum. I am saying the double standard is visible right here. You ignore people who are sometimes confrontational and tattle on them like a child, all the while praising unhinged rants. This all occurs right here, Mike.

I did not say that there was a comparison between private people and public figures, what I said is that within the confines of this forum your double standard is on full display. Of course there is no comparison. And you are free to like whatever you want. But you not only 'like' posts by these people, you like some of the most unhinged posts by these people. That is your right. But it says a lot about your tastes for rhetoric. You lose all credibility to talk about it when you praise the schizophrenic rants of a poster who sees politicians he doesn't agree with and people who support them as evil entities, demonic hordes with lying twisting tongues led by an evil clown. A person who never uses any facts to debate anything and uses the sort of extreme language and caricature-ish propaganda the Nazis were famous for.

Yes, Mike, your double standard with regard to rhetoric is on full display on this forum. You talk about things like rhetoric and civil discussion. You express distaste for certain posters when they get more heated and insulting. That is understandable. And to your credit, you are very good at not engaging in such language yourself. You deserve a great deal of credit for that. But also you betray these so-called values because you consistently 'like' some of the most unhinged posts on here. You came to the defense of the worst offender on here. A person who has expressed his desire for other posters to drop dead on multiple occasions and has made disgusting accusations about other posters. You 'like' the schizophrenic rants of a particular poster who uses overdramatic apocalyptic poetry to paint politicians he doesn't like and the people who support them as actual demonic entities. Like a mad army led by an evil clown. That is far more dangerous rhetoric than simply calling someone a Marxist. He has even invoked the Lord of the Rings more than once and compared people Sauron. To him, the political opposition is not just extreme or radical, they are the embodiment of evil. And if you disagree with him, you quickly become one of Sauron's orcs.

I see. So is it ok to call them Nazis? I need to know all the rules, Mike, since it seems you get to make them. Trudeau and the Liberals did not just call the Convoy leaders Nazis. In fact, I am not sure they did that at all. What they did do was attempt to paint the entire convoy that way. One MP even said that 'honk honk' meant Heil Hitler. This was rhetoric they used in the House of Commons. This was worse than some attack on a public figure. This was an attack on a lot of regular working people. The only source I can find of Pierre calling someone a Liberal a Marxist was on the campaign trail. Oh, and he called Singh a Maserati Marxist. Here is how Trudeau referred to people who did not take the vaccine. This was not part of some conversation on the campaign trail. This was on live television, Mike.

Yes, but it's not the quality of the rhetoric you care about. It's who is delivering it.

ideologue /ī′dē-ə-lôg″, -lŏg″, ĭd′ē-/ noun An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology. An adherent to or advocate of some ideology{3}. Accusing someone else of being extreme is not an inherent feature of being an ideologue. You may consider it an example of behavior common among ideologues, but you have only provided one example of Pierre ever doing so. It's not common practice with Pierre. Tons of politicians have made extreme comments like this. As for distinguishing between whether someone merely calls someone an extremist or labels them with a specific type of extremism (whether mistakenly or not) has nothing to do with being an ideologue. That is just a rule you have made up on the fly. You say you haven't seen any argument against your point. You haven't even made a point to begin with. OK, that is a the real definition of being an ideologue, but you still haven't provided any examples of Pierre being one. Stand by it all you want. You just fail to make any case as to how someone fits the dictionary definition of ideologue. Let's be honest here, Mike. You heard of one incident where Pierre called Liberals marxists while door knocking. All of a sudden you start calling him Trumpian. You make a lot of pretense about how all this sort of thing is offensive to your high standards, while you consistently praise posters who call others fascists, wish other posters dead or accuse them of having a sexual attraction to their own children. You don't care about rhetoric.