Michael Hardner

That's crazy. What tribe are you from ?

I don't think so. If you do, then you must agree with the changes in social attitude that find significantly more support with younger folks. Adding: a true community weighs the opinion from diverse sources, including the wisdom of age and the optimism of youth. That's the core of why 'diversity' is important - it's a natural way to mitigate one-sided opinions.

Believe it or not, I approve of the principle behind it and everyone who lives in the west should. Someone needs to pull apart, simplify, and retune government so that it's simple enough for the average person to understand. It's a fundamental problem, and adds to the general strife, that nobody can authoritatively say WTF is actually happening. We end up relying on tribal authorities, and objectivity becomes too expensive. Now, the methods that DOGE are using seem (SEEM) to be infantile. As someone who has spent their career working it large organization IT, I can authoritatively tell you that the narrative coming from both sides is riddled with misinfo/disinfo. NOBODY can show up on day one and have the effect that is claimed... claimed by BOTH SIDES. And this is evidence of my point in the paragraph above. But the layoffs are real, and the cavalier approach are dully irresponsible so I would put a halt to it and restart with a process that is open, collaborative and agile. Believe it or not the workers themselves are likely to have the best ideas as to how to improve things, in my experience. But you have to change the culture.

That's what hits you like your first bong hit. 1965 gets burst apart in one second when the needle drops.

The appearance of that song in mad Men was sublime.

What it's really about is the mythology of how American political economy works. There's a massive private government that runs things invisibly. I'd be glad with a smaller government that did away with both public and private.

If you were alliterating, you'd say conservatives conquest in current canvas!

Clinton and others were blasted for things that this administration does as well. They are just better at politics, and have the top network squarely in their corner. The whole farce of this administration going after the elite is a head shaker.. Working people are living day to day as Charles Schwab and others rake in billions. https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/trump-charles-schwab-stock-market-tariffs-nascar-b2731568.html

No, it's frustrating when double standards are so obvious, and especially when smart people defend them.

They'll still be talking about him for years, just as the Republicans play the Hillary Benghazi record until the grooves are worn out.

This from a man who wears makeup all day.

You mean the sub stack? Okay, but as I said CTV doesn't qualify. So you're just talking generally then? Fine. PP went after the CEO of Bell. That's what I was referring to when we got onto this thread.

CTV, as a broadcaster, does not qualify as an Canadian Journalism Organization. https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/businesses/topics/corporations/business-tax-credits/qualified-canadian-journalism-organization.html Now you're saying the information on subsidies is closely held. But you had a very specific number: "A quarter of their budget comes from government subsidies" If you care to do the research to figure out where you got your number, I'd be interested. Thanks.

Nobody is covering the Trump tariffs to hurt Poilievre. How is CTV subsidized by the government exactly? I'm not doubting that they are but just want to see where the numbers come from. A lot of the rest of this is circumstantial, pretty hard to nail down proof of the conspiracy.

Not a rule, an opinion. You disagree with me, and that's fine. I don't think that leaders should use this kind of dialogue.

He is Gen X, the forgotten generation.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideologue#:~:text=noun,: an impractical idealist : theorist My interpretation of the definition. The first definition had additional terms.

1. I didn't provide any. I've heard him say it. That's all. Clearly not a mistake. 2. I'm Not familiar with any of that. He called the leaders of the convoy, racist and misogynist, based on a few examples it seems. I don't know about that other stuff. Regardless, you're not providing any more points against my fundamental objection that a leader calling a party Marxist is different than that.

1. Are you saying he only said it twice? I feel better about it if so. 2. Yes I think it's worse. No competent leader would use such a term without forethought. 3. I already said so.

1. Other than the defining aspect of the McCarthy era? I'm glad to hear he took it back, but I did not know that. 2. It's subjective to say that his rhetoric was more inflammatory. I'm citing a specific case whereby a leader is using a defined term, absolutely incorrectly. Your apples to oranges comparison is yours to make. I don't think I said I was outraged.

Well, if you're asking about why I ignore people, it's because they're not worth speaking with. Perspektiv was such a vein and egotistical poster... If you ever called him on his contradictions he would go into a long diatribe about some ex-wife or something. Other people only discuss to when when, like it's a zero-sum game. You can't learn anything or get them to concede any point. The idea that I would ignore someone because they're confrontational is strange. I don't know how we got away from talking about Poilievre. The McCarthy era style of discourse is something I particularly detest. I'd much rather have Doug Ford and his pork barrel bakery....

If there's no comparison between private individuals, making statements, and public individuals making statements, then why are you saying I follow a double standard by treating those things differently? Liking a post by someone doesn't mean I think they would be a great leader. Sometimes it's just a good point buried within it I had no idea anybody looked at my posts so carefully.

There's no comparison between what private people say and what public leaders say. I have liked posts from people that I even have on ignore, so there's no principle behind me liking a post or not. I can dislike you and like one of your posts. Back to the point, Pierre is running a very different kind of campaign that was successful against Trudeau. I doubt that it's going to be successful now, but I don't know. And yes, he comes across as an ideologue with very different modes of politicking than others.

1. Some of leadership? Absolutely. It's not the same as calling an entire party, the Communist party. Have you seen Pat King's hilarious racist videos? He imitates a Chinese guy ... Western separatists, racists and such... I don't remember the details but at least a few of them deserved the moniker.

No. Calling the opposing parties Nazis or Marxists isn't ok. There's some rationale for calling the convoy leaders names is ok to a point because they were crazy.