Michael Hardner

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.

I've heard him say it more than once. I got my definition from Merriam-Webster I think, and it's got nothing to do with calling somebody extreme. It's got to do with using the specific label. Try and find an example of a politician doing this in before Pierre did it, you won't find that. I don't know why people who like him try to pretend it's the same as other conservatives. He's not. I do care about rhetoric.

I feel great actually

1. I'm not ignoring it, I just haven't seen an argument against my point that I believe. We're not talking about his ideology, we're talking about him behaving like an ideologue. And making extreme statements is definitely a sign of an ideologue. He's not just saying that Trudeau is Extreme, he's calling him a Marxist which is something specific and pretty blatantly not true. 2. Everything is ideology, including centrist policy and everything you wrote there. It's all ideology. Everyone has ideology, not everyone is an idealogue, which refers to someone who is uncompromising and dogmatic 3. Yes, calling another party. A Nazi party is a sign of ideologue. There are lots of examples of calling people dictators, which I also don't support, but that's mostly insults. The conservative MP Rachel Thomas indicated that Trudeau could be a dictator, but I don't think that makes her an ideologue. It's just an insult in that level. Anyway, at this point we're just arguing about our personal interpretations of words. I'll stand by the dictionary definition of ideologue. And for the definition of ideology, I would refer to Slavoj Zizek's popular description of it referring to unknown knowns... See Donald Rumsfeld... Cheers

As is pointed in the comments, we need to understand what this money actually was spent on. The fact that they put the word gender in there, versus women, tells me they're probably trying to spike the punch. As for Pierre, calling Liberals "Marxist" is about all you need to know, with regards to his ideological rhetoric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Cardy Leader Dominic Cardy...

Well I never understood the strategy, but I'm not really the target either. Regardless of how it appears to a CBC panelist, or to me (a conservative btw) I don't see how anyone can assert that it has the opposite effect unless they do some kind of survey. Even then, it would be difficult. "In a survey of potential voters who are undecided, x% indicated that the large rallies will make them definitely not vote CPC" That seems like a survey that would just produce a percentage of percentage of undecided about being undecided.