Liberal trolls come for Anaida Poilievre (spoiler: There is zero evidence she is a foreign agent sent by Stephen Harper to unravel Canada )

[CdnFox]

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/carson-jerema-liberal-trolls-come-for-anaida-poilievre

 

Anyone who was worried that Elon Musk had turned Twitter into some sort of alt-right hellscape can relax. It is still very much a welcoming place for hysterical left-wing conspiracy theories popular among the “#IStandWithTrudeau” crowd. Lately, they’ve been obsessed with spreading nonsense about Anaida Poilievre, wife of Pierre Poilievre, being some sort of foreign agent sent to destabilize Canada, possibly at the behest of Stephen Harper.

Have to admit - i did not see that coming.

The liberals push the idea that they're all about empowering women. That we need more women in politics. That it's WRONG and EVIL to attack women politicans or political figures on line, and that it's horrible that we don't have more women's voices .

Then they do this.  And they do it every single time.

They do it with Leslyn Lewis, and any other woman that doesn't tow the line, and now Anaida who's not even running for office is being attacked by the libs.

And it's not just this handful of jokers.

She's an immigrant, she's self made having started from a lower middle class family, she's a powerful woman - all the things the libs are supposed to like.

But she's conservative. So she's scum.

[Michael Hardner]

Well the conspiracy theory seems retarded but the article doesn't provide a link to one.

I think trolls be trolls and I don't expect people to listen them EXCEPT that if you agree with the opinion that a troll has then it's your job to denounce them as they make YOU look bad.

Let's have real opinions not bots and trolls.  Send them back to the pizza parlor...

[CdnFox]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Well the conspiracy theory seems retarded but the article doesn't provide a link to one.

I suspect they didn't want to give it the traffic.

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

I think trolls be trolls and I don't expect people to listen them EXCEPT that if you agree with the opinion that a troll has then it's your job to denounce them as they make YOU look bad.

Let's have real opinions not bots and trolls.  Send them back to the pizza parlor...

Well i would HOPE that most liberals wouldn't buy into the idea that she's a spy sent by harper to destroy canada LOL While we all joke about it i think they're a little more sane than that. Reminds me of the 'harper eats babies' conspiracy theory back in the day, nobody really thought that.

But just the fact that they're going after her is annoyingly hypocritical .  And a few others on that side have as well. We'll see but its kind of a disturbing trend. Wives have always been off limits, nobody went after Mrs Harper and nobody's bugging Justin's wife (as long as she doesn't take money from people he hires as pm) .

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. I suspect they didn't want to give it the traffic.

2. Well i would HOPE that most liberals wouldn't buy into the idea that she's a spy sent by harper to destroy canada   

3. Reminds me of the 'harper eats babies' conspiracy theory back in the day, nobody really thought that.

4. But just the fact that they're going after her is annoyingly hypocritical . 

5. ...its kind of a disturbing trend.

6. Wives have always been off limits, nobody went after Mrs Harper and nobody's bugging Justin's wife 

1. Ok.  I have seen them screenshot tweets and blur out the name before.
2. No sane person would believe it.
3. Did you see the "Harper's wife is a lesbian" one ?  More believable and therefore more toxic.
4. It will be hypocritical in light of Michelle Obama's "When they go low we go high" claim yes.
5. Agreed
6. Disagree.  I think I have seen stuff about both.  The question isn't whether ANYONE has said something, it's the scale and the perceived support from the core for such statements.  With me, it's zero support.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok.  I have seen them screenshot tweets and blur out the name before.

regarding slurs and attacks on women? When was that?

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. No sane person would believe it.

Sure - liberals probably won't either. (Ba da bing! Tip yer waitresses folks...)

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Did you see the "Harper's wife is a lesbian" one ?  More believable and therefore more toxic.

Missed that but not terribly surprised.

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. It will be hypocritical in light of Michelle Obama's "When they go low we go high" claim yes.

True - although in fairness that was in the us and it's not like canadian liberals made that particular claim.

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. Agreed

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. Disagree.  I think I have seen stuff about both.  The question isn't whether ANYONE has said something, it's the scale and the perceived support from the core for such statements.  With me, it's zero support.

I'll concede that if a thing can be said, somewhere some how some nut bar is going to say it so a very small incident or single voice can't be considered relevant.  But - i feel like its more than that.  I guess we'll have to wait and see, long way yet from an election. I suspect she'll play a bigger role than most wives do and we'll see how people react

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. regarding slurs and attacks on women? When was that?

2. Sure - liberals probably won't either. (Ba da bing! Tip yer waitresses folks...)

3. True - although in fairness that was in the us and it's not like canadian liberals made that particular claim.

4.  I feel like its more than that.  

1. Generally I mean I recall things like that seen in the media.  Blurred social media posts.
2. Oh ... ha ha ha ... crazy libs
3. But the Democrats used to be beyond dirty back in the good old days.  Flash forward and Bill Clinton was the throwback politician to Huey Long, Lyndon Johnson and the like.
4. It's a mud war.  Much more than just a single incident.  

[Michael Hardner]

JFK and Ike were the clean images that got us out of the dirtyness... but they were linked with LBJ and Nixon... 

And JFK only seemed straight - he out-dirtied Nixon to win the presidency in crooked Chicago.  That was the real stop the steal...

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Michael, I'm aware of your smears against JFK and how you take almost every chance to criticize him.

Not nice, Michael. 

Hahahahaha... you're joking right ?  Let's see...

[Queenmandy85]

6 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Michael, I'm aware of your smears against JFK and how you take almost every chance to criticize him.

Not nice, Michael. 

Michael is correct. 

[Michael Hardner]

https://repolitics.com/forums/search/?&q=JFK&page=2&quick=1&author=Michael Hardner&search_and_or=or&sortby=relevancy

Also searched on Kennedy.  The only bad thing I could find was when I said he never had a job, which as the son of wealthy man ... was true.  He did serve in the South Pacific in WW2, US Navy. 

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Slight overexaggeration, however, every time I talked about him, you seem to bring up his negative parts. He had good and bad, as any politician. 

What are you even talking about ?  

[CdnFox]

Anywaaaaayyyyy

Do you guys agree that politicians spouses should tend to be 'off limits' for the kind of criticism and attack politicians get.

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

The liberals push the idea that they're all about empowering women.

They couldn't care less about women. Unless of course,  you are also a liberal.

 

[Michael Hardner]

53 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Michael, I'm aware of your smears against JFK and how you take almost every chance to criticize him.

@Contrarian I haven't criticized JFK in the past much at all.

The Democrats and Republicans have done dirty politics in the past, even JFK.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

1. It was my mob politics Michael, you once said about him that "he never had a real job", The Contrarian remembered. 😎 You did phrase it in a question, though. 

2. The better question is, how does such behaviour online of people that begin such rumours can be countered without the government getting involved? Because, we all know, "Uncle Sam" wants to get involved and "restore order" but at what cost?

What are your opinions on counter such behaviour, the ignore function? 

1. Yes I said that awhile ago I guess.
2. It is countered when there is no market for it.

[Nefarious Banana]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Anywaaaaayyyyy

Do you guys agree that politicians spouses should tend to be 'off limits' for the kind of criticism and attack politicians get.

Are Justin and Chrystia a couple?  betrothed? . . . . 

Chrystia off-limits?

[CdnFox]

Just now, Nefarious Banana said:

Are Justin and Chrystia a couple?  betrothed? . . . . 

Chrystia off-limits?

Oh they're  a couple of somethings, probably not what you meant tho

 

[Aristides]

21st Century politics. 

[ExFlyer]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Anywaaaaayyyyy

Do you guys agree that politicians spouses should tend to be 'off limits' for the kind of criticism and attack politicians get.

Yes ........except if the spouses and/or kids are part of the politicians campaign or office. (Trump?)

If they put themselves out there, they will get flack.

Edited April 26 by ExFlyer