This is why Polievre will win the election - the infamous 'apple' interview

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, jatt47 said:

 

Keep going with the hate speech. 

 

ROFLMAO - says the racist pig who can't open his mouth without spewing hate speech

As to the rest - you're an insignificant little weiner who blames others for his failings - your race and culture should be deeply ashamed of you

 

ਅਕਾਲ ਗਧੇ ਦੀਆਂ ਗੇਂਦਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਚੂਸਦਾ ਹੈ

 

2 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Translation please . . .

Akal sucks donkey balls   

[WestCanMan]

TBH, that guy might not even be a Sikh. He might be someone from a different religion trying to foment hatred between the Sikhs and other communities.

It's a common theme on AJ+ to try to pit Hindus and Sikhs against each other. 

Just stop responding to that guy now, put him on your ignore list. The thread is being derailed. 

28 minutes ago, jatt47 said:

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/singhu-border-man-killed-nihang-sikhs-7572897/

Adios smelly little biatch, you're on my ignore list now. 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

TBH, that guy might not even be a Sikh. He might be someone from a different religion trying to foment hatred between the Sikhs and other communities.

It's a common theme on AJ+ to try to pit Hindus and Sikhs against each other. 

Just stop responding to that guy now, put him on your ignore list. The thread is being derailed. 

Adios smelly little biatch, you're on my ignore list now. 

False flags are a thing.  He does seem so disgusting that it's hard to believe he's real

[Nefarious Banana]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

ਅਕਾਲ ਗਧੇ ਦੀਆਂ ਗੇਂਦਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਚੂਸਦਾ ਹੈ

Akal sucks donkey balls   

Thinking it was:  "Would you like a dill pickle with that sir"

[BeaverFever]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So you admit you were lying, and he doesn't "Cry marxist" or 'communist' constantly.

No I don’t admit that, I’ve watched him do it for 20 years  I provided examples  And don’t lose the plot he claims he doesn’t think about those kinds of things at all

 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And this is the problem with you on the left - you constantly say utter bullshit and when you get called on it you demand to change the channel.

Lmao Talk about utter bullshit!  If you’re going to claim you don’t see things in terms of left vs right maybe don’t start every other sentence with words like “this is the problem with you on the left!”

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

he's said that it should be more about common ground, not just saying I"m left and you're right.

Every politician says that, that’s a stock talking point for any would-be PM in Canada  American republicans and some on the Canadian far right still denounce pursuit of “the common good” as socialism but nobody running as a mainstream parry leader would ever say otherwise  

 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But you could only find one example where he talked about two actual marxists, and thats not hyperbole - his dad was an actual believer in marx's work.  And no example of him worrying about 'commies' at all, just once where he was talking about actual communists.

What a failure you are.

PP is going to wipe the floor with your kind  

Once again you show your ignorance having no idea of what a “Marxist” is and also your continued inability to distinguish between hyperbole, opinion and fact. The Trudeaus are not Marxists, period.  The man made his regular appearances on national news for 20 years.  Here is another example of him before he lost his glasses calling liberals and NDP a “socialist coalition”

 

Here’s another denunciation of some policy he doesn’t like as “socialism”
 

https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=1175166659506276

 Here’s PP calling Trudeau “the epitome of communism” on Tik Tok

In fact if you look at his Facebook feed so many posts are rants and memes about socialism.  He’s been obsessed with it for years  

I am not going to spend hours digging up transcripts of every time he used the word Marxist, communist or socialist to describe some liberal policy du jour that conservatives don’t like any more than I’m going to spend hours dig up a dozen examples of Little Richard admitting that he’s gay. PP might be someone you’ve only heard of recently bit many of us noticed him decades ago due to his smarmy hyperbolic style. 

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So you admit you were lying, and he doesn't "Cry marxist" or 'communist' constantly.

No I don’t admit that, I’ve watched him do it for 20 years  I provided examples  And don’t lose the plot he claims he doesn’t think about those kinds of things at all

But you didn't.  You said he constantly cries marxist

And you couldn't provide any examples of that.  The closest you could come is him talking about specific marxists  and historical communits

So you do admit it.

In fact  - you  know you're wrong to the point where you're trying to change the discussion. You want to substitute other words such as 'socialist' and a bunch of others.  Presumably your thinking is if you can cobble together enough words that basically sort of refer to the left you can pretend they all mean 'Marxist'.  They don't.

And the fact you would try proves you knew you were wrong.

Sorry kiddo You failed again. He doesn't "cry marxist" constantly in the slightest.

And as this interview shows - he's totally kicking your ass and will likely be prime minister for a good solid 10 years   Hope you're ready  

Edited October 21, 2023 by CdnFox

[BeaverFever]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But you didn't.  You said he constantly cries marxist

And you couldn't provide any examples of that.  The closest you could come is him talking about specific marxists  and historical communits

So you do admit it.

In fact  - you  know you're wrong to the point where you're trying to change the discussion. You want to substitute other words such as 'socialist' and a bunch of others.  Presumably your thinking is if you can cobble together enough words that basically sort of refer to the left you can pretend they all mean 'Marxist'.  They don't.

And the fact you would try proves you knew you were wrong.

Sorry kiddo You failed again. He doesn't "cry marxist" constantly in the slightest.

And as this interview shows - he's totally kicking your ass and will likely be prime minister for a good solid 10 years   Hope you're ready  

Lol nice try, now you’re trying to split hairs to try to change the direction of the argument.  Are you really down to “hahaha he screams ‘Socialist’ not ‘Marxist’ ”?  That’s your move here really?  Lame  

Wow a 10 year prediction that’s at least 3 elections and the first one is probably still 2 years away….I hope you don’t spend a lot of time at the casinos or racetracks with that kind of baseless confidence. He will probably win the next election if the current trajectory remains but there’s a lot of road after that and nobody travels it unscathed. I hope you’ve been practicing in the mirror saying “the PM doesn’t control the economy!” for when PP is in office and the economy hasn’t magically improved. I know it’s quite a pivot from “JT ruined the economy” but you guys never seem to have a problem with those kinds of wild swings. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Thinking it was:  "Would you like a dill pickle with that sir"

I'll keep that one in mind

 

 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

ol nice try, now you’re trying to split hairs

 

LOL - typical leftie.  Pointing out what you actually said and what you doubled down on AFTER i've proven you wrong is "splitting hairs'.

No it isn't kiddo.  Sorry. Don't blame me because you didn't mean what you said.

Edited October 21, 2023 by CdnFox

[BeaverFever]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

LOL - typical leftie.  Pointing out what you actually said and what you doubled down on AFTER i've proven you wrong is "splitting hairs'.

No it isn't kiddo.  Sorry. Don't blame me because you didn't mean what you said.

No you’re being pathetically overly-literal because you’re losing the point that he claims he doesn’t see issues as left vs right. I said he  regularly calls people marxists  and you’re calling me a liar because in reality sometimes he calls them marxist, sometimes communist, sometimes socialist  as if that’s some kind of material difference. You’re being absolutely ridiculous especially considering you don’t even understand the the differences between those terms and tou folks on the right use them interchangeably  

The party of over-the-top rhetoric and the guy who thinks opinions and facts are the same thing want to split hairs. Hilarious 

[BeaverFever]

Getting to the core of Pierre Poilievre’s biting B.C. interview
 

…

I found another instance of Mr. Poilievre attempting to dismantle a journalist. Here is that exchange, lightly edited for length:

Reporter: Are you at all worried about a sorcerer’s apprentice effect? There’s a lot of anger in society right now, and if you say things that certain people like or it excites them, what if you can’t control how they react? What if you mobilize people and something ugly happens that you would never have wanted?

Poilievre: No. Because I have not said anything that would provoke something like that. And by the way, the guy who has done more to provoke division and stoke anger across this country is Justin Trudeau.

I would also add that your colleagues were vigorously criticizing me for the Fair Elections Act back in 2014. I had death threats at my house, delivered to my mailbox. Do you think Steve Maher [the journalist who covered the issue] should take personal responsibility for that because he was criticizing me at the time?

Reporter: Right, so ... Well, anyway, let’s leave that.

Poilievre: No, I think you should ask yourself that question.

Reporter: Well, what I’m asking ...

Story continues below advertisement

Poilievre: What you seem to be suggesting is that I shouldn’t be criticizing the government because someone else might get angry about that, and do something that I don’t want them to do. But if that’s the logic, well then, Steve Maher should take personal responsibility for death threats delivered to my house.

Reporter: I was talking more about the explicitly populist language, the us-versus-them, the elites are coming for you. I take your point about the divisiveness of Trudeau – but that doesn’t mean it’s good thing to do on the other side. It doesn’t mean that it might not have really negative spin-off effects, if we set up this idea that there’s me and there’s you, and we’re on opposing teams, and you’re out to get me.

Poilievre: I don’t think that accurately characterizes what I’m saying.

NDP members want more from Jagmeet Singh, which means demanding more from the Liberals

I remembered this exchange, because that journalist fumbling their way back to the point they were sure they had before Mr. Poilievre revved up his rhetorical pea-shooter was me.

Story continues below advertisement

At the time, in February of 2022, the convoy had been in Ottawa for almost two weeks, Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole had just been turfed, and I was more than a month into working on a hefty profile of Mr. Poilievre, the instant front-runner to replace him.

What had been scheduled as a 15-minute phone interview stretched to an hour, so it can’t have been just me who found it a good and useful conversation that helped me understand him and his view of the world better.

The couple of times we got mired in a testy, go-nowhere exchange, it seemed like Mr. Poilievre retreated to debate-club fisticuffs because he couldn’t or refused to respond to the underlying question. I think that’s what was going on with Mr. Urquhart, too, only with an added layer of performative apple-crunching disdain.

But now we see, with the virality of that clip, that this kind of thing can serve a much juicier purpose if you have a videographer on staff. Just deke shamelessly around a reporter, and they become your punching bag or – even better – the mascot of some media cabal. Either way: You win, and you don’t have to answer the question. Heck, the question isn’t even a real question, it’s a conspiracy.

Sure, Mr. Urquhart’s question was muddled – though show me a journalist who says they’ve never framed a question badly, especially when nervous, overworked or out of their element, and I’ll show you someone with their pants on fire. It’s perfectly clear what he was getting at. Mr. Poilievre is free to reject the premise of the question and deploy all of his considerable rhetorical talents to dispute it, because that’s the way this works.

Story continues below advertisement

But kicking a journalist in the shins over and over to throw them off balance so you can run away, then turning the exchange into a social-media flex is telling on yourself.

In order for this scenario to be the delicious come-uppance its fans believe it to be, you have to see Mr. Poilievre – leader of a major political party, a lifelong politician and, if the polls are right, the next prime minister – as the underdog here, not the overworked local reporter just trying to ask a guy from Ottawa a couple of questions in an apple orchard.

 

…

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-getting-to-the-core-of-pierre-poilievres-biting-bc-interview/

 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Getting to the core of Pierre Poilievre’s biting B.C. interview
 

…

I found another instance of Mr. Poilievre attempting to dismantle a journalist. Here is that exchange, lightly edited for length:

Reporter: Are you at all worried about a sorcerer’s apprentice effect? There’s a lot of anger in society right now, and if you say things that certain people like or it excites them, what if you can’t control how they react? What if you mobilize people and something ugly happens that you would never have wanted?

Poilievre: No. Because I have not said anything that would provoke something like that. And by the way, the guy who has done more to provoke division and stoke anger across this country is Justin Trudeau.

I would also add that your colleagues were vigorously criticizing me for the Fair Elections Act back in 2014. I had death threats at my house, delivered to my mailbox. Do you think Steve Maher [the journalist who covered the issue] should take personal responsibility for that because he was criticizing me at the time?

Reporter: Right, so ... Well, anyway, let’s leave that.

Poilievre: No, I think you should ask yourself that question.

Reporter: Well, what I’m asking ...

Story continues below advertisement

Poilievre: What you seem to be suggesting is that I shouldn’t be criticizing the government because someone else might get angry about that, and do something that I don’t want them to do. But if that’s the logic, well then, Steve Maher should take personal responsibility for death threats delivered to my house.

Reporter: I was talking more about the explicitly populist language, the us-versus-them, the elites are coming for you. I take your point about the divisiveness of Trudeau – but that doesn’t mean it’s good thing to do on the other side. It doesn’t mean that it might not have really negative spin-off effects, if we set up this idea that there’s me and there’s you, and we’re on opposing teams, and you’re out to get me.

Poilievre: I don’t think that accurately characterizes what I’m saying.

NDP members want more from Jagmeet Singh, which means demanding more from the Liberals

I remembered this exchange, because that journalist fumbling their way back to the point they were sure they had before Mr. Poilievre revved up his rhetorical pea-shooter was me.

Story continues below advertisement

At the time, in February of 2022, the convoy had been in Ottawa for almost two weeks, Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole had just been turfed, and I was more than a month into working on a hefty profile of Mr. Poilievre, the instant front-runner to replace him.

What had been scheduled as a 15-minute phone interview stretched to an hour, so it can’t have been just me who found it a good and useful conversation that helped me understand him and his view of the world better.

The couple of times we got mired in a testy, go-nowhere exchange, it seemed like Mr. Poilievre retreated to debate-club fisticuffs because he couldn’t or refused to respond to the underlying question. I think that’s what was going on with Mr. Urquhart, too, only with an added layer of performative apple-crunching disdain.

But now we see, with the virality of that clip, that this kind of thing can serve a much juicier purpose if you have a videographer on staff. Just deke shamelessly around a reporter, and they become your punching bag or – even better – the mascot of some media cabal. Either way: You win, and you don’t have to answer the question. Heck, the question isn’t even a real question, it’s a conspiracy.

Sure, Mr. Urquhart’s question was muddled – though show me a journalist who says they’ve never framed a question badly, especially when nervous, overworked or out of their element, and I’ll show you someone with their pants on fire. It’s perfectly clear what he was getting at. Mr. Poilievre is free to reject the premise of the question and deploy all of his considerable rhetorical talents to dispute it, because that’s the way this works.

Story continues below advertisement

But kicking a journalist in the shins over and over to throw them off balance so you can run away, then turning the exchange into a social-media flex is telling on yourself.

In order for this scenario to be the delicious come-uppance its fans believe it to be, you have to see Mr. Poilievre – leader of a major political party, a lifelong politician and, if the polls are right, the next prime minister – as the underdog here, not the overworked local reporter just trying to ask a guy from Ottawa a couple of questions in an apple orchard.

 

…

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-getting-to-the-core-of-pierre-poilievres-biting-bc-interview/

 

Beave... @CdnFox already ate your lunch. Must he eat your dinner too?

Have some honor and stop making a fool of yourself.

[Michael Hardner]

The best thing about the coming Poilievre victory will be the memes going away.  

Like they did for Doug Ford no more anti government hysteria on social media

Edited October 21, 2023 by Michael Hardner

[WestCanMan]

12 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

No I don’t admit that, I’ve watched him do it for 20 years  I provided examples  And don’t lose the plot he claims he doesn’t think about those kinds of things at all

1) Some things are Marxist or socialist, and it's 100% correct for him to say that. He said that he avoids using the term 'left wing and right wing' which is fair because they're so broad that it's not always applicable. 

2) We say "leftist" here all the time for a very good reason: we're not usually talking about just the LPOC or just the DNC or the voters for those two, we lump them all together into something I call the basket of basket cases. 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

No you’re being pathetically overly-literal

Sorry - no.  You said something was true.  I said that it was not true You insisted it was and when you tried to give examples you realized you were absolutely wrong and tried to change what you said.

As we both know now - you were entirely wrong. Nothing new there.

Polievre doesn't "Constantly cry marxist"  as you claim.  And in fact doesn't  "CONSTANTLY" cry anything with regards to the left - sure, he'll point out radical woke left wing behavior on occasion where it's appropriate but for the most part he actually focuses on specific failings of the liberal party, not 'wokeism' in general.

Tge vast vast vast majority of the time when he's talking he says the problems we have are gatekeepers - bureaucrats and red tape -  a lack of common sense in how we address issues - etc etc.  Not "the left" or 'the woke'.

 

So you lose twice.  As you've now conceded what you ACUALLY said was entirely wrong, and even what you sort of meant is wrong. He's not fixated on left wingers, he attributes most of Canada's problems to bad economic choices and bureaucracy.

You failed that one hard kid  

 

 

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Getting to the core of Pierre Poilievre’s biting B.C. interview

I found another instance of Mr. Poilievre attempting to dismantle a journalist. Here is that exchange, lightly edited for length:

What your little butthurt loser reporter fails to realize is that... he's just a biased dolt and a detriment to journalism.

Here's the first exchange:

Quote

Reporter: Are you at all worried about a sorcerer’s apprentice effect? There’s a lot of anger in society right now, and if you say things that certain people like or it excites them, what if you can’t control how they react? What if you mobilize people and something ugly happens that you would never have wanted?

Poilievre: No. Because I have not said anything that would provoke something like that. And by the way, the guy who has done more to provoke division and stoke anger across this country is Justin Trudeau.

Right there the reporter is basically accusing PP of saying things that were untrue, exaggerated, inflammatory or unnecessary, which is clearly not the case at all. 

In case you've forgotten, a perfectly legitimate protest came thousands of miles to Ottawa and the PMOC just hid somewhere and called them vile names for no good reason at all. It's absolutely NECESSARY for the (candidate for the role of) leader of the opposition to tell Canadians that what happened was improper. The media should have stepped in and done so as well, but in their constant struggle to support the LPOC they were derelict in their duty to Canadians.

PP 1) properly stated that he didn't say anything that would start any riots, as is partially evidenced by the fact that there was never even the slightest hint of a riot, and

2) he correctly drew attention to the fact that the PMOC was actually busy inciting anger, hatred and division to the best of his weaselly ability 

Quote

I would also add that your colleagues were vigorously criticizing me for the Fair Elections Act back in 2014. I had death threats at my house, delivered to my mailbox. Do you think Steve Maher [the journalist who covered the issue] should take personal responsibility for that because he was criticizing me at the time?

PP also brought up a fair point about inflammatory media rhetoric, which was false, that was directed at himself, which incited death threats against him. 

The 'journalist' decided to make that inconvenient truth off-topic. "VEE AR DA VUNS OSKING DA KVESTIONCE!"

Quote

Reporter: Right, so ... Well, anyway, let’s leave that.

Right? PP was falsely accused of doing something that Trudeau actually was doing at the extremist level, something that the media was doing at the extremist level (they were also pretending to see a sea of Swastikas, something that @Michael Hardner was busted for doing himself here), and he wasn't supposed to mention that. 

For whatever reason, this reporter just demanded that PP stay on his back heel and defend himself from a false allegation. The nerve of him for refusing to play along!

Quote

Poilievre: No, I think you should ask yourself that question.

Reporter: Well, what I’m asking ...

Poilievre: What you seem to be suggesting is that I shouldn’t be criticizing the government because someone else might get angry about that, and do something that I don’t want them to do. But if that’s the logic, well then, Steve Maher should take personal responsibility for death threats delivered to my house.

PP nails that little stooge with a broadside but he's so daft he didn't even notice... He even reposted it...

1) It's PP's JOB to criticize the gov't when they do something as egregious as what Trudeau did. 

FYI this isn't (wasn't?) Nazi Germany where the dictator speaks and all the peons listen and then obey. 

It's Canada, and when the PM sounds like a Nazi it's the opposition's DUTY to voice that exact concern. Bill Maher and other leftists also noted that Trudeau sounded like Hitler. How did the entire MSM in Canada miss it? 

2) Do you think the topic of death threats against the (potential, at that time) leader of the opposition was too inconsequential/out of place to be brought up? 

Quote

Reporter: I was talking more about the explicitly populist language, the us-versus-them, the elites are coming for you. I take your point about the divisiveness of Trudeau – but that doesn’t mean it’s good thing to do on the other side. It doesn’t mean that it might not have really negative spin-off effects, if we set up this idea that there’s me and there’s you, and we’re on opposing teams, and you’re out to get me.

Poilievre: I don’t think that accurately characterizes what I’m saying.

The reporter ignores the perfectly fair question, and goes on to spew of a litany of alt-left buzzwords, "populists, elites, and us-vs-them" in yet another false accusation. 

Literally nothing that PP said was 'populist', or conspiratorial. Trudeau actually was doing the things that he was accused of and the reporter even acknowledged that they knew that to be the case....

Does the weaselly little maggot reporter have an article where he voiced those concerns about the PMOC's divisiveness himself? Did he interview Trudeau about that? 

I will literally fall off my chair if you can find an article where this 'reporter', or anyone from his company, interviewed Trudeau and called him out for his divisiveness. I don't think that you can get within 100 miles of the PM for such an interview, and I don't think you'd have a job in our MSM for long if you did.

I'll admit that I ignore Canadian mainstream media with a passion, precisely because of little leftard weasels like that guy who think that their their prime directive is to undermine conservatives to help their dear leader, but I've never seen the topic of Trudeau's divisiveness broached by the MSM 

PP says that he thinks he was misinterpreted and he's almost certainly right, but I don't know the details of the comment that is being referenced so I'll give them both the benefit of the doubt and assume that what he said was troublesome, but not as troublesome as the reporter is suggesting. 

Quote

I remembered this exchange, because that journalist fumbling their way back to the point they were sure they had before Mr. Poilievre revved up his rhetorical pea-shooter was me.

Ummmm, was that supposed to be a kind of "me too" moment? ?

Spare me, cupcake. You flung your little handfuls of poop at the bull, you got the horns. ooOOooh, that was so naastyyy. PP is like the big bad old honey badger, comin' to take your stuff. He clearly doesn't give a shit.

Quote

What had been scheduled as a 15-minute phone interview stretched to an hour, so it can’t have been just me who found it a good and useful conversation that helped me understand him and his view of the world better.

Hey reporter/biotch, this is directed at you: how about acknowledging the fact that, instead of running from a snotty little reporter like you, PP gave you far more time than you deserved? 

You honestly had an hour of phone time to compile your shitty little hit piece and somehow this is still the best that you can do? 

Go back to "dishonest reportng 101" now you Jr varsity hack.

Quote

The couple of times we got mired in a testy, go-nowhere exchange, it seemed like Mr. Poilievre retreated to debate-club fisticuffs because he couldn’t or refused to respond to the underlying question.

Hmmmm, so reporterbiotch, who has the God-like ability to cherry-pick whatever verbal exchanges with PP that he wants to, can't specifically cite these examples of PP being 'unable or unwilling to answer a question so he retreated to debate-club fiticuffs', he's just going to refer to them as if they're an established fact, and we're supposed to play along?

HEY REPORTERBIOTCH... do you remember where, in paragraph one, PP hoisted you, Trudeau and Steve Maher on your own petard and you "couldn’t or refused to respond to the underlying question"? 

That's literally the only example of someone being unable to respond to a question on that whole crap article (or at least in the portion that's posted here, and I'm not clicking on a G&M article for the same reason I don't drink from the toilet). 

Quote

But now we see, with the virality of that clip, that this kind of thing can serve a much juicier purpose if you have a videographer on staff. Just deke shamelessly around a reporter, and they become your punching bag or – even better – the mascot of some media cabal.

1) Where was the "deke shamelessly" part of PP's interview? He was delivered a series of accusations in the form of questions and he called the reporter out on it. Each time. Again and again. And the guy didn't learn. In that whole time. 

2) A media cabal?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!? HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!!!!

Did PP give the CBC a $695M raise? Did he give 'select media outlets' $600M before the 2019 election? Did he give "top secret media outlets" $90M before the 2021 election? Does reporterbiotch not realize that he's part of a media cabal himself? 

Quote

But kicking a journalist in the shins over and over to throw them off balance so you can run away, then turning the exchange into a social-media flex is telling on yourself.

If a reporter doesn't want to get kicked in the shins then maybe they should refrain from alluding to unicorns as facts to be discussed. Some topics are non-starters for polite conversation. 

Is "Allusion to unicorns" the name of a logical fallacy? Surely there's a name for this, I just don't know it. Allusion to a false reference maybe? Allusion to a fabrication? 

I'm gonna stick with "allusion to unicorns". Me likey.

Quote

In order for this scenario to be the delicious come-uppance its fans believe it to be, you have to see Mr. Poilievre – leader of a major political party, a lifelong politician and, if the polls are right, the next prime minister – as the underdog here, not the overworked local reporter just trying to ask a guy from Ottawa a couple of questions in an apple orchard.

OMG, the poor 'overworked local reporter' ? HE'S A VICTIM!!!! SOMEONE GIVE PP A YELLOW CARD! A RED CARD! THIS MAN'S SHINS WERE KICKED! #OWIEOWIEOWIEOWIE.PP.IZZA.BUWWY

This guy clearly isn't overworked because he can only interview the opposition: Trudeau brings a jumbo jet full of sycophant media across the country with him and surrounds himself with a wall of cops when he goes out campaigning, just so that he doesn't have to deal with reporters who want to allude to Trudeau's actual scandals, indiscretions, blunders, international embarrassments, etc. 

Edited October 21, 2023 by WestCanMan

[WestCanMan]

The Gutfeld show did a segment on this PP interview on his Wednesday night show. Everyone loved it. Definitely worth a watch. 

It starts in the last half of the show, about the 35 minute mark iirc. 

[ExFlyer]

On 10/20/2023 at 7:09 AM, Nationalist said:

@CdnFox buddy...I do believe this sword waving simpleton is begging for a race war. Surrey used to be a nice place. Is it really now filled with racist twerps like this?

I disagree.

Even waaaay back, Surrey was a dump and it has progressively gotten worse.

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I disagree.

Even waaaay back, Surrey was a dump and it has progressively gotten worse.

Whalley was a dump.  But there were lots of nice parts.

Although in fairness there's the old standing joke: "living in delta means never having to say you're surrey".

[ExFlyer]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Whalley was a dump.  But there were lots of nice parts.

Although in fairness there's the old standing joke: "living in delta means never having to say you're surrey".

Yeah, what it was like in Whalley has now spread to a most of Surrey. Can't remember the name but a bar just at the end of Pattullo Bridge was where I could get in when I was underage

My Brothers has lived there for over 40 years and I have seen the decline every time I visit.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

I disagree.

Even waaaay back, Surrey was a dump and it has progressively gotten worse.

There are some very nice parts of Surrey: Cloverdale, Boundary Park, South Surrey, etc are big areas which are very nice throughout.

They're far nicer than East Van in general, although not as expensive. 

There are smaller areas with estate homes, but they're part of communities which aren't as nice as Cloverdale etc overall.

Yeah, Whalley isn't great, but it's definitely not the armpit of the lower mainland. The Hastings corridor in Van is by far the worst - Whalley doesn't even come close. Maple Ridge is generally nice, but they have a lot of meth there, and you see more meth victims there than in Whalley. 

[ExFlyer]

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

There are some very nice parts of Surrey: Cloverdale, Boundary Park, South Surrey, etc are big areas which are very nice throughout.

They're far nicer than East Van in general, although not as expensive. 

There are smaller areas with estate homes, but they're part of communities which aren't as nice as Cloverdale etc overall.

Yeah, Whalley isn't great, but it's definitely not the armpit of the lower mainland. The Hastings corridor in Van is by far the worst - Whalley doesn't even come close. Maple Ridge is generally nice, but they have a lot of meth there, and you see more meth victims there than in Whalley. 

East Van was always a shithole.

Just said Whalley was a dump back when and said East Hastings was a drug haven back then too.

Estate homes? Is that what you call the 5 family monster houses? (owned by east indian (or south asian or whatever they are called these days) families) LOL

Cloverdale is where Surrey residents moved to get away and now, the dregs are moving there too LOL

Whalley is just one big dumpy strip mall (with a couple junk yards separating them) LOL

 

[CdnFox]

55 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

There are some very nice parts of Surrey: Cloverdale, Boundary Park, South Surrey, etc are big areas which are very nice throughout.

They're far nicer than East Van in general, although not as expensive. 

There are smaller areas with estate homes, but they're part of communities which aren't as nice as Cloverdale etc overall.

Yeah, Whalley isn't great, but it's definitely not the armpit of the lower mainland. The Hastings corridor in Van is by far the worst - Whalley doesn't even come close. Maple Ridge is generally nice, but they have a lot of meth there, and you see more meth victims there than in Whalley. 

Well i don't think you can compare the hastings corridor fairly with the rest of anywhere in the lower mainland really - i mean that's the black hole of drug addiction and homelessness - it reaches such a high density there that even light and antiperspirant can't escape.

[herbie]

55 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

East Van was always a shithole.

F you... former Commercial Dr. & Renfrew resident.

So PP chomps an apple and talks like Dad next door and asks 'what is populism'... and he'll cut taxes (a little) and spending on services (a lot)... yeah just what we need.

[ExFlyer]

9 minutes ago, herbie said:

F you... former Commercial Dr. & Renfrew resident.

So PP chomps an apple and talks like Dad next door and asks 'what is populism'... and he'll cut taxes (a little) and spending on services (a lot)... yeah just what we need.

What are you whining about now???   Who are you calling resident???

East Hastings was always a shithole,... always.

WTF are you talking about???

[CITIZEN_2015]

When is next election? With Liberal-NDP alliance, is it not in October 2025 or two years from now?