Michael Hardner

Nope. They REGISTERED as an advocacy group so that they could run election ads! The debates Chief didn't know. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/federal-debates-chief-says-he-was-unaware-rebel-news-had-registered-as-advocacy-group/

Because it's almost impossible to 'define' a journalist... and nobody wants the state to issue journalism licenses. Nobody. So you depend on that very elusive and valuable quality called 'goodwill' and the attendant value of 'trust'. Most Canadians know what that is but not Rebel News. I was going to link to the story where they ran at Trudeau's bodyguards then started blubbering that they were assaulted, but the only organization who covered that was The Rebel themselves. Typical.

100%. And this is why both Jesse Brown (being sued by the Rebel and lil Mr. Bexte last I heard) and Journalism maven AND PROFESSOR Jan Wong both agree that it's not possible to do so. However, you can make people choose between being advocates or journalists, if they want to participate in a national process such as a debate.

@Moonbox here's an example of one of their seasoned journalists ... keean bexte... He's known for having sold flags online, the far-right nationalist type... Cute lad....

Here's a "question" from Keean Bexte: "You're hoping that Canadians won't connect the dots... the man that moved Paul Bernardo from a maximum security prison is your chief of staff..." It's not a question, it's an accusation. They're there to elect Poilievre, period. They also stacked the line and were said to have added extra people. There's no way a podcast/scandal sheet should have the same number of questions as a national broadcaster. I couldn't expect to go there and ask more questions than anyone, as a 3rd party advocacy group or fledgling journalist...

What bothers reasonable people is open hypocrisy, namely the questioning of reasonably objective sources like CTV, Global, CBC, and the printed press... while giving these Rebel bozos a pass. It makes us want to put you on IGNORE, because you won't concede a point. Moonbox and I don't often agree, but he/she has framed the situation in a way that passes the reason test: everybody has bias, and the CBC is possibly more biased than the rest but that doesn't mean that trying to be objective is without value.

1. If there's another way, that's on a par with that, any press outlet should be thoroughly admonished for using it. I can't think of one. 2. That's a legitimate point of view, and the one echoed by Jesse Brown of Canadaland You can't really reject them for being bad at journalism. Otherwise, lots of other post media outlets would be rejected. You can reject them for not being journalists though.

https://www.cija.ca/rebel_news_admits_it_owns_truck_displaying_anti_muslim_ads_citynews_toronto This outfit drives a truck around Toronto with anti-Muslim messages in it. They also make their own news by rushing the PM's security detail and filming it. Amoral ambulance chasing hypocrites. Poilievre wants this to replace the CBC, I guess? Anyway, I'm hoping that this massive genital wart on Canadian politics will wither away soon.

They don't. They're full of outrage, but only for the other guys. They're fine with their team making up their own rules. This is why there's no working with them now...

Because newspapers require READING. In Revolutionary Russia, the lumpen proletariat did not trust the literate. Another guy who doesn't acknowledge the billboard vans... Have you ever considered applying a standard to peoples behaviour?

Pick a lane...

Yeah, you didn't address the van once. I suppose that's because you would have to concede a point. You seem to want to argue to win. Not interesting...

Insulting the media, parking a truck with a campaign sign in front of the venue, asking questions with editorial comments inserted. If you were able to at least admit that these things are DIFFERENT then I might have hope that you are able to concede a point.

Exactly. And all the people who scream 'bias' at the CBC because of things like the expression on Rosemary Barton's face wilfully ignore these kind of tactics. Objectivity is at a premium now. If people obviously don't even try you should just cut them out of the conversation to save yourself the noise.

The questions are loaded and they purposefully take too long to ask them, loading them with barbs for the candidate they're trying to defeat. You don't acknowledge that or the troll billboard parked outside... Will you conceded that at least ?

More to it than that. Loaded questions beyond the pale, parking a truck out front as per eyeball's cite above, and aggressively taking up question time from the real journalists.

Exactly. People who think this is normal aren't being honest. The line of thinking is: objectivity is impossible so why even try ? Instead we'll openly and aggressively push one candidate and tell everyone the others are the same. Shameful behaviour and we should do our best to ignore it.

No, that's exactly what it is to most people, especially on here.

I haven't seen any official sources saying things are going well. So you have at least articulated several hard metrics that we can use moving forward: inflation, stock market, Federal US budget. Interest rates, unemployment make a total of five metrics. We can watch those moving forward and see how it goes

It's not happening that way.

Really they just have to get better at management. They do concentrate on cutting costs, which puts them ahead of the USA and all counts. All Americans like to do is spend spend spend. They're in for a big ouchie soon...

Revenue is not the problem, yet. The tax cut produced a huge deficit. Your response is that Paul Ryan is a rhino. You're not getting objective information. Trump's economic plan is going to cause disaster worldwide but especially for the USA. I don't know when and if your personal awakening will come.

1. Conspiracy Theory. Find me a valid poll that receives this neglect you refer to. Most people use aggregate polls anyway so it comes out in the wash. And the conventional Canadian aggregate poll was pretty accurate last time, I looked. 2. Cite ? Sorry... but Poilievre was in super-majority territory a few scant months ago. What happened to the bought-off pollsters ? It doesn't fly... there's no conspiracy in polling... let's just move past this...

And ? What of that ? If we cut their taxes, what is the purpose ? To say 'thank you' ? So we borrow money to pay for their gifts ? Trump reduced revenues and increased the debt and Paul Ryan quit politics.

Do you do understand we're talking about numbers right? If the debt is 2 trillion... Should you be worried about 1 million or 1 trillion? Should you be worried about payments only? Or revenues? Why do you believe that foreign aid is what we need to focus on? Who told you that? If it's 1% of expenditure or even 2%, most of that money goes to domestic companies that provide goods overseas. Like Farmers. Pardon me, but it seems that you are falling for some old tropes that aren't true. What about taxes? Shouldn't they go up on the highest orders if we have a deficit? Trump cut taxes in his first term, the deficit went up in good times. And deficit Hawks like Paul Ryan were powerless and eventually he quit the party. Let's talk about facts here.