Interesting Quote About Trudeau & His Sheeple

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. some of the media doing their job in some instances. is not proof that the mainstream media as a whole are doing a good job overall

2. the media reported on SNC Lavalin, therefore they aren't heavily biased in Trudeau's favor. does not follow

 

1. Absolutely I agree with this.  People often mistake me for thinking I actually LIKE the status quo because I defend it against conspiracy theories.  I concur that they do their job in some instances and could do better.

2. Not sure about this statement - if they were HEAVILY biased they would bury the story outright.  They don't act on every tip they get.  If you take out the term HEAVILY then your statement is true.  But to prove The Globe, who is Canada's Conservative paper of record, OWNED BY CANADA'S WEALTHIEST MOST CONSERVATIVE FAMILY ....

To get the idea of how f**ked up the perspective of the chucklefucks on here is - search for 'Soros' - a man who has negligible impact on Canada's day-to-day life - on this site and you get 678 hits.  Search for 'thomson family' and you get a grand total of 6.

Pat yourselves on the back...

[Yzermandius19]

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Not sure about this statement - if they were HEAVILY biased they would bury the story outright.  They don't act on every tip they get.  If you take out the term HEAVILY then your statement is true.

not if they take a bigger reputational hit being caught burying it then they would if they don't bury it

then they just get out in front of the story and spin it to make it seem like less of a big deal than it is

being heavily biased does not necessarily mean you bury every story you don't like regardless of circumstances

that is a faulty assumption

Edited June 1, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

53 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. not if they take a bigger reputational hit being caught burying it then they would if they don't bury it

2. then they just get out in front of the story and spin it to make it seem like less of a big deal than it is

3. being heavily biased does not necessarily mean you bury every story you don't like regardless of circumstances, that is a faulty assumption

1. Which is the case
2. This boggles the mind.  How do they break a major scandal and simultaneously downplay it ?!?!?

"BREAKING NEWS YOU AREN'T GOING TO BELIEVE THIS AND... uh well... never mind really not that big a deal..."

3. I think if you were heavily biased you would bury all you could get away with.  They could have got away with this. 

[Yzermandius19]

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I think if you were heavily biased you would bury all you could get away with.  They could have got away with this. 

How?

someone else breaking it means they get no credibility points

and someone would have broken it, so might as well get the credit instead of someone else

especially considering the reputational hit if their competitors ever find out they sat on it

folks like you will buy it

SNC Lavalin couldn't have been concealed forever

if it could have been, it would have

the media didn't agree with your assessment and tried to cover their asses

and apparently to folks like yourself they covered it well enough that they scored enough brownie points

for you to think they aren't strongly biased

it worked like a charm with the target audience

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

What are you talking about? It was televised by Global! Global is mainstream media.

Right. Truth and Reconciliation Day was televised on Global. So everyone in Canada who cared enough about T & R Day to watch it on TV found out in real time that the PM ditched. I think we should both agree on that, right?

His absence was a big deal, so the obvious question became: "What was important enough to make the crying Teddy bear guy skip out on this event?" As PM of a country it's possible that there was some urgent need for him to be somewhere else, right? And Canadians would have understood that if Putin, Xi, Biden and KJU were in Ottawa that Trudeau wouldn't leave them with Chrystia Freeland and her poodle, right? Are we still on the same page? 

On that day:

-there were dozens of people when knew that hew was in Tofino,

-there were dozens more who knew that he wasn't in Ottawa in "important meetings",

-there were rumours on the internet that he was surfing and the truth wasn't going to remain hidden.

 

Global was partly "breaking a story", but to the same extent they were "saving some credibility". The entire MSM couldn't gap on that one.

 

The MSM might be able to gaslight Canadians who know that Trudeau was hatemongering by saying that "he obviously meant something different, because his heart is soooo pure", but they couldn't lie about what province he was in on a day when literally everyone in the country wanted to know where he was. It's too much.

If it was just conservatives who wanted to know where he was, the MSM could have just accused people of being racists and misogynists for asking that question, but lefitists wanted to know too, and they deserve answers. And it wasn't a matter of opinion where they could 'splain it away, it was a matter of what location he was in. Badda-boom badda-bing. 

Not everything can be hidden, ignored, omitted, overlooked, or outright lied about. Sometimes the media is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The German media had to admit that Berlin was being bombed. The Russian media had to admit that the Moskva was sunk. The British media had to admit that The Hood was obliterated. Global had to admit that Trudeau was surfing in Tofino instead of holding a Teddy bear and crying at T & R Day. Shit happens. Global doesn't get a cape for doing something that they couldn't possibly weasel out of. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

1. Right. Truth and Reconciliation Day was televised on Global. So everyone in Canada who cared enough about T & R Day to watch it on TV found out in real time that the PM ditched. I think we should both agree on that, right?

2. His absence was a big deal, so the obvious question became: "What was important enough to make the crying Teddy bear guy skip out on this event?" As PM of a country it's possible that there was some urgent need for him to be somewhere else, right? And Canadians would have understood that if Putin, Xi, Biden and KJU were in Ottawa that Trudeau wouldn't leave them with Chrystia Freeland and her poodle, right? Are we still on the same page? 

3. Global was partly "breaking a story", but to the same extent they were "saving some credibility". The entire MSM couldn't gap on that one.

4. Not everything can be hidden, ignored, omitted, overlooked, or outright lied about. Sometimes the media is stuck between a rock and a hard place. 

1. Yes.
2. 3.  There's no way they had to send a camera crew to cover him on the beach.  If they really wanted to save him they could have ignord the tip.

4. Your idea that the media would LOVE to save Trudeau but sometimes... well they just can't.... is conveniently unfalsifiable.  That means any time they criticize him, you can simply say "oh they were FORCED to cover this because they had no choice".  Therefore there is no way for me to disprove your hard-held belief that they are protecting him.  Conventient.

The fact is - the media covers politics, and they always have.  If muckraker cheapskate sites like The Rebel had any credibility or put their money where their mouth is, they could actually investigate stories.  

The MSM is all that you have... Conservatives dominate the landscape of newspapers and there is little editorial content on television - the "bias" that is referred to there is choice of coverage, wording/omissions etc.

Sorry it doesn't stand up

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes.
2. 3.  There's no way they had to send a camera crew to cover him on the beach.  If they really wanted to save him they could have ignord the tip.

4. Your idea that the media would LOVE to save Trudeau but sometimes... well they just can't.... is conveniently unfalsifiable.  That means any time they criticize him, you can simply say "oh they were FORCED to cover this because they had no choice".  Therefore there is no way for me to disprove your hard-held belief that they are protecting him.  Conventient.

The fact is - the media covers politics, and they always have.  If muckraker cheapskate sites like The Rebel had any credibility or put their money where their mouth is, they could actually investigate stories.  

The MSM is all that you have... Conservatives dominate the landscape of newspapers and there is little editorial content on television - the "bias" that is referred to there is choice of coverage, wording/omissions etc.

Sorry it doesn't stand up

Sorry, what doesn't stand up is YOUR claim that "the fact that Global covered the story of Trudeau surfing on T & R Day is proof that they're not irredeemably biased."

It's exactly like I said, the option to ignore that story did not exist. The fact that they covered it is not proof of anything.  

Fox News talked about the time when Donald Trump said "Meghan Kelly didn't like me. She had blood in her eyes and her... whatever." Is that proof that they're neutral? 

It's like when you cut down your dad's cherry tree, and it was still laying there on the lawn as you walked in the front door, saw still in hand, covered in sawdust, and said, "Father, it was I who cut down your cherry tree." 

He didn't congratulate you for your honesty for the exact same reason that I'm not celebrating that solitary moment when Global told an inconvenient truth about Trudeau. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

1. Sorry, what doesn't stand up is YOUR claim that "the fact that Global covered the story of Trudeau surfing on T & R Day is proof that they're not irredeemably biased."

2. Fox News talked about the time when Donald Trump said "Meghan Kelly didn't like me. She had blood in her eyes and her... whatever." Is that proof that they're neutral? 

 

1.  Right, it doesn't because you play this card that says "well you see they HAD to criticize Trudeau in order to be able to cover for him later". 

They stuck a camera in his face on Reconciliation Day and asked "what are you doing on the beach".  Nobody knew exactly where he was - and so the reasonable conclusion is they had a story and they went with it.  Not that they were protecting Trudeau.  That is lunacy.

2. Not an analogy.  It's probably some kind of evidence that Kelly was trying to be neutral.

Anyway, keep on thinking that television, The National Post and the Globe and Mail love Trudeau.... it protects you from having to deal with the world I guess, and the idea that a 150+ years old institution persists won't need to conflict with the all-powerful Trudeau narrative...

[WestCanMan]

@Michael Hardner You also forgot to mention why CTV and CBC have never acknowledged the allegations of "impropriety" at West Point Grey Academy...

I did manage to find one CBC article about Trudeau and West Point Grey, it was from just before Trudeau's first election as leader of the LPOC: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/justin-trudeau-former-students-1.3282973

Quote

Justin Trudeau's former B.C. students recall their charismatic teacher

Social Sharing

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

Former students in Metro Vancouver recall an engaging teacher who loved the outdoors

CBC News · Posted: Oct 21, 2015 7:06 PM PT | Last Updated: October 22, 2015

Look, there are links for sharing. So thoughtful.

Quote

Justin Trudeau's former students in British Columbia are sharing their experiences with him as a teacher, recalling a charismatic persona they say is reflected in his current leadership style.

"I remember it like it was yesterday," said Randip Janda, a media consultant.

Lol, it just keeps getting better....

Quote

Trudeau taught Janda's class two years after the prime minister-designate had delivered an emotional eulogy at the funeral of his father, former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. 

Janda said Trudeau conveyed the same passionate communication skills in the classroom. He said he particularly recalled Trudeau reading from Wayson Choy's novel The Jade Peony during the class.

"The way he read it was not the typical way you would hear a teacher read it," said Janda. "To be fair, he did have arguably the most charismatic leader in Canadian history as a father, so I'm sure that helped."

Gag reflex, so strong.... must.... continue....

Quote

The traits Trudeau displayed in Janda's class in 2002 were the same onces at play when he saw the prime minister-designate thanking people and shaking their hands at a Metro station in Montreal, he said.

"Getting people to feel at ease and open up ... that's a pretty unique trait, and I think you could pick that up even going 12, 13 years back," he said.

'He was just a cool dude'

Radio host Emilie Clarke also remembers Trudeau from when he occasionally subbed in as her French teacher at West Point Grey Academy, a private school on Vancouver's Westside where he also taught drama and physical education.

"He was super engaging. If we knew Mr. Trudeau was subbing in, we were so excited," she said. "You just couldn't not look at him."

Look, they were almost on the right track.....

Quote

"He's super engaging, and I think that's why he did so well during his campaign," she said. "He has a knack for just talking to you."

Clarke said she remembers Trudeau as a fun teacher who was "always a good time" and enjoyed the outdoors. She said his being the son of a former Prime Minister didn't have an impact in the classroom.

"To us he was just a cool dude," she said. "To our parents, they were like, 'Mr. Trudeau teaches my children.'" 

From the mouths of babes...

Looking back at this article, the fact that Trudeau gave the CBC $675M right after he won that 2015 election makes a lot more sense.... Money well spent, hey MH?

I only found one other article from the CBC about Trudeau leaving West Point Grey just said that he remained interested in pursuing a teaching career: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/justin-trudeau-denies-reports-about-his-future-1.277995

 

 

So, if he was so cool there, and so well loved, why didn't he love his job there? Why did he quit? 

I guess it depends on which version of his story you believe... https://www.deltaconservatives.com/why_did_justin_trudeau_leave_his_teaching_job_at_west_point_grey_academy

Quote

 after all Trudeau’s story has changed four times since 2001.

First, the Ottawa Citizen reported in 2001 that Trudeau would “give up his teaching job at a Vancouver private school next September to give speeches.” Several days later this claim was refuted by Trudeau in a statement issued by lawfirm Heenan Blaikie. The Montreal Gazette reported Trudeau was accepting a teaching job at a public school.

In his 2014 autobiography, Trudeau says he left the school after a dispute with the administration over an article written in the school newspaper. According to Trudeau, he convinced a student to write an article criticizing the fact that the girls at the school were never reprimanded for the way they dress. This article was deemed disrespectful by the school’s administration.

The Vancouver Sun reported in 2015 that the reason Trudeau left the school was “in part over a dispute over dress code and values.”

In a 2019 book by John Ivison, Trudeau’s departure is summed up as “a disagreement over an article written by a student for which Trudeau was responsible”.

On October 4, 2019 Trudeau said he left the school “because [he] was moving on with [his] life”.

That same day, the former headmaster of the school said that Trudeau left the school because he was going to study to be an engineer.

Why did Justin Trudeau leave West Point Grey Academy? What’s the real reason? Why has his story changed so many times, and if the above reports are incorrect, why hasn’t Trudeau corrected the record?

Here's an article about an NDA that Trudeau allegedly signed with a former student of his: https://buffalochronicle.com/2019/10/10/trudeau-accusor-lands-a-seven-figure-nda-to-keep-quiet-about-his-west-grey-departure/

Quote

Sources are telling The Buffalo Chronicle that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau‘s accuser has been in talks with a private attorney for more than a week, discussing a heated sexual relationship that began and ended more than 18 years ago, when the young woman was a student at Vancouver’s prestigious West Point Grey Academy.  The Chronicle is told that the two engaged in a months-long affair beginning in the summer of 2000, both on and off-campus.

That non-disclosure and an accompanying non-disparagement agreement were signed last night, according to the source, for more than $2.25 million CDN.

A friend of the accusor’s family reached out to The Chronicle days ago, prior to the signing of the non-disclosure agreement, when its terms were not in effect and still being negotiated.  Those talks took nearly two weeks and took place almost entirely in Vancouver.

OH THE SPURIOUSNESS!!!! lol

[WestCanMan]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Right, it doesn't because you play this card that says "well you see they HAD to criticize Trudeau in order to be able to cover for him later". 

They stuck a camera in his face on Reconciliation Day and asked "what are you doing on the beach".  Nobody knew exactly where he was - and so the reasonable conclusion is they had a story and they went with it.  Not that they were protecting Trudeau.  That is lunacy.

2. Not an analogy.  It's probably some kind of evidence that Kelly was trying to be neutral.

Anyway, keep on thinking that television, The National Post and the Globe and Mail love Trudeau.... it protects you from having to deal with the world I guess, and the idea that a 150+ institution persists won't need to conflict the all-powerful Trudeau narrative...

Like I said, the story was impossible ignore.

It's like there was a fire in the Global News room right when they were about to eat a giant roast beef, so they left, and now you're claiming that the fact they left is proof that they all went vegan at that exact moment. 

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Right, it doesn't because you play this card that says "well you see they HAD to criticize Trudeau in order to be able to cover for him later". 

They stuck a camera in his face on Reconciliation Day and asked "what are you doing on the beach".  Nobody knew exactly where he was - and so the reasonable conclusion is they had a story and they went with it.  Not that they were protecting Trudeau.  That is lunacy.

2. Not an analogy.  It's probably some kind of evidence that Kelly was trying to be neutral.

Anyway, keep on thinking that television, The National Post and the Globe and Mail love Trudeau.... it protects you from having to deal with the world I guess, and the idea that a 150+ years old institution persists won't need to conflict with the all-powerful Trudeau narrative...

1) I didn't "play a card". You played a card. You tried to use something as proof which wasn't proof of anything at all. 

2) It's an analogy. Fox News did something because it wasn't possible for them to avoid it. Just like Global did.

3) I never said that Nat Post was as bad as G & M, Global, CTV and CBC. You're the one that's trying to group them together. I'm also not the only person who's aware of the massive biases of CTV, CBC and Global. 

If you think that CTV, CBC and Global are legitimate news organizations then you're an idiot. 

[WestCanMan]

So @Michael Hardner, you're still not commenting on the verboten topic of "Why did Trudeau abruptly quit his teaching gig, while saying that he was moving on to other things, and then take another teaching job?"

What do you have to say about the photos of him being inappropriate with the young teenage girls?

What do you think about the fact that CBC's only mention of Trudeau and West Point Grey Academy was the article where they blew sunshine up his ass, right before the election?

Are you forbidden to comment on it?