Jump to content

Trudeau is going to lose.


PIK

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1) Herbert Marcuse and Antonio Gramsci

2) Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault

3) just because Peterson didn't think of their names off the top of his head in a debate a couple of years ago doesn't mean they don't exist and honestly Slavoj knows all about them

1) So I heard of Marcuse, and he died in 1979.  Wrote about culture I think and critical theory. While influenced by Marx I don't think he was considered a 'Marxist' and died decades before 'woke' came into common use.  Gramsci died in the 1930s according to Wikipedia.  I never heard of him and his Wikipedia page doesn't mention identity politics or racism at all.  I suspect this is just something you read somewhere and not your own ideas.  As such, it's likely somebody's attempt to explain away Peterson's ridiculous term or disparage wokism.  Weak.

2) Now you are talking about postmodernists that I know a *little* about.  His views were highly philosophical and nothing as basic as "wokism" plus he's accused of rationalizing a contemporary who wrote in a Nazi paper, anti-semitism etc.

3) Marxism is dead.  If you can't criticize the new 'woke' ethnic without trying to tar it with dead ideologies you are weak.  As I said, older Marxists don't buy into this stuff from what I can tell.  Chomsky signed the anti-liberalism letter in The Atlantic or Harper's - I forget which.

If you want to convince yourself that Marxism is back, go ahead.  I don't believe you have enough knowledge of these topics to convey an argument and from the little I know of philosophy, I don't think you are putting together a solid argument.

If you still want to fight with me about something, pick another topic... maybe "Be it resolved that Maxime Bernier is leading a successful resurgence of the right" or "Be it resolved that Maxime Bernier's nose doesn't honk when you squeeze it"... 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

your inability to see obvious connections between the woke and Marxism is comical

I can and do criticize the woke for all sorts of things, quite successfully

using Marxist logic and underlying assumptions is one of them

and being influenced by thinkers who had those same assumptions is another

none of your dismissals hold any water whatsoever

Marxism ain't dead, it just re-branded and that is enough to fool you

the woke for the most part, are just blatantly ripping off the philosophers mentioned above among many others

they sinply repackage that same thinking and applying it to race, sex and gender

that's how you get to your Kimberle Crenshaw's, Derrick Bell's, Ibram X. Kendi's and Robin DiAngelo's etc of the world

the woke are not original thinkers, they are extremely derivative of the thinkers I mentioned in previous posts

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. using Marxist logic and underlying assumptions is one of them

 

2. Marxism ain't dead, it just re-branded and that is enough to fool you

 

1. I think it is called Hegelian logic, and again you are far outside your area of understanding. Hint: it's not postmodern

2. You use the term 'Marxist' when you mean to say 'bad'.  I never hear what people quoting marks, and you haven't responded to my point that the marxists that are still around never promote wokeism.

 

But just keep repeating bullshit it's very Pravda of you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I think it is called Hegelian logic, and again you are far outside your area of understanding. Hint: it's not postmodern

2. You use the term 'Marxist' when you mean to say 'bad'.  I never hear what people quoting marks, and you haven't responded to my point that the marxists that are still around never promote wokeism.

 

But just keep repeating bullshit it's very Pravda of you

1) Postmodern logic is based on the Hegelian dialectic

Postmodernists are Hegelian

you are clearly outside your depth, and projecting on me

2) when I use the term Marxist, I mean to say Marxist

I am pointing out the ideology having been repackaged quite clearly

it's not just a synonym for bad, just because other people use it that way frivolously doesn't mean that I am

nice try fool

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1) Postmodernists are Hegelian

2) you are clearly outside your depth, and projecting on me

3) nice try fool

1) They're different philosophies

2) Maybe.  Prove #1 then, and I will concur.

3) oh forgive me, how could I doubt that you understand philosophy to a great depth when you use language like this! 😂

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) They're different philosophies

2) Maybe.  Prove #1 then, and I will concur.

3) oh forgive me, how could I doubt that you understand philosophy to a great depth when you use language like this! 😂

Finished pouting . . . ?

This thread is about your boy Trudeau.  Any chance you could squeeze-off your philosophy bowel movement and get back on track?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) They're different philosophies

2) Maybe.  Prove #1 then, and I will concur.

3) oh forgive me, how could I doubt that you understand philosophy to a great depth when you use language like this! 😂

1) not all Hegelians are woke

but all the woke are Hegelian

the obvious similarities are not simply dismissed by pointing out differences that exist in the application of the same way of thinking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) ? Can you prove that?

2) ok.  Well show me then.

I have repeatedly

you just keep bringing up irrelevant asides to distract from that

and then act as if the ability to bring up irrelevant asides somehow disproves my point

you do not seem amenable to reason on the subject

your confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance are just too strong

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

1. I have repeatedly

2. and then act as if the ability to bring up irrelevant asides somehow disproves my point

1. No, you just outline different philosophies influenced by each other.  And you didn't say where you got this.

2. I think that if you were able to have original thoughts on this topic, you would be willing and able to answer my honest questions.  You would be able to respond to counterpoints

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No, you just outline different philosophies influenced by each other.  And you didn't say where you got this.

2. I think that if you were able to have original thoughts on this topic, you would be willing and able to answer my honest questions.  You would be able to respond to counterpoints

I have responded to the counterpoints over and over

you keep dismissing by continuing to bring up endless counterpoints

ankle biting and nitpicking with zero insight of your own

just raw skepticism for the sake of skepticism

without even any good reason to be skeptical

no matter how well I lay out the argument

you will not change your mind

your feelings don't care about the facts

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1.without even any good reason to be skeptical

2. no matter how well I lay out the argument

3. you will not change your mind

1. Yes, you haven't told me where you got the info about Marcuse etal.

2. I explained why your argument is lacking.  What did you think about the Marxist take on postmodernism that I posted? Are you going to comment on that?

3. Oh yes I would.  Forgive me for being skeptical but you haven't given me reason to believe and instead of helping me understand, you're going after me personally.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Six years ago Mr. Trudeau was elected with a strong (actually, massive) majority mandate for several essential reforms. Let's see what happened:

1. Cannabis legalized and consumer industry created: done

2. Climate change: carbon pricing implemented. Done? But have the emissions come down? No.

3. Healthcare accords and agreements. Billions transferred and spent. Done? But has the quality of healthcare improved visibly?

4. Reconciliation: meetings held and marches played. What changed in reality? See "SNC-Lavalin"

5. Clean drinking water: billions spent. Done? Not even close.

And yes, the election reform. Do you see the pattern here? The only thing we were able to accomplish, in six years with not ever virtually but actually no limits or controls government is removing a restriction. Not creating or building anything new that has not been before. Nothing else is done and how do we know that it even can be done? Do we even want to know that throwing billions to keep up slowly decaying status quo isn't the same as solving problems and moving ahead, in this century?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other news it looks like Trudeau is gaining in the polls now. When the election was called I guessed an easy majority for him and he still might get it if he can continue to scare lefty voters from the NDP and Greens. Another minority will be considered a huge failure. He's just as polarizing as his old man. Image really does go a long way with many Canadians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Trudeau is going to win

if you want to talk about it

nothing is stopping you

Trudeau is screwed. Another minority he gets show the door. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Trudeau raising the CHILD card?   He's using his own son?

 

Lol - who's he tugging along with him?   His own son?

 

Why on earth would you bring a child in an environment that could be dangerous?   Lol - he's exposing his own child to vile language being thrown at him!

 

Oh, boy!

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, betsy said:

Is Trudeau raising the CHILD card?   He's using his own son?

 

Lol - who's he tugging along with him?   His own son?

 

Why on earth would you bring a child in an environment that could be dangerous?   Lol - he's exposing his own child to vile language being thrown at him!

 

Oh, boy!

perhaps because he knows these protests are staged

and he is not in any danger at all

perhaps because if the agent provocateurs show up when his son is there

that will play even better for him to the media and electorate

as the cartoon villains he is playing against become more and more cartoonish

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

perhaps because he knows these protests are staged

and he is not in any danger at all

perhaps because if the agent provocateurs show up when his son is there

that will play even better for him to the media and electorate

as the cartoon villains he is playing against become more and more cartoonish

I think so too that these protests are staged.  Like yesterday when the heckler threw sexist remark at his wife - how convenient it offers to  bury the latest bombshell book by Jody Wildon Raybould.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Liberals’ Globe and Mail division will be a nasty place to work at again today. The dynamic duo, Robert Fife, Ottawa Bureau Cheif, and Steven Chase, Senior Parliamentary Reporter — who often make the bold move of daring to expose Liberal Party corruption when they see it — has really done it this time. They’ve exposed pretty much the whole damned party — virtually every elected MP — as corrupt.

Liberal MPs have been using parliamentary funds to pay for services from companies that provide two of the governing party’s most important digital campaign operations, and that also run its powerful voter-contact database.

An examination of expenses filed in the House of Commons shows 149 Liberal MPs, or 97 percent of the caucus, made payments out of their office budgets to Data Sciences Inc., founded by a close friend of Justin Trudeau.

 

As Fife and Chase report, the president of one of the firms, Tom Pitfield, is a childhood friend of Justin Trudeau, who also ran their election campaign’s digital data operations.  Pitfield’s wife, Anna Gainey, was the president of the Liberal Party itself and is also close to the Trudeaus. These are the two people who went down to the Aga Khan’s lavish resort on a private jet with their pals the Trudeaus back in ’16, which the ethics commissioner later ruled was an ethics violation — a conflict of interest. Again: nothing learned. Or more likely, again, I don’t give a flying F.

https://proudtobecanadian.ca/sponsorship-ii-a-new-liberal-party-corruption-scandal-exposed-by-fife-chase/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, betsy said:

I think so too that these protests are staged.  Like yesterday when the heckler threw sexist remark at his wife - how convenient it offers to  bury the latest bombshell book by Jody Wildon Raybould.

it's just all too convenient for Liberals

from the timing, to the police response, to the cartoonish uncanadian protesters, to the media reaction, to Trudeau's reaction etc

it's too perfect

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...