Character and Commitment to Canada: Poilievre vs Carney

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

1. How many examples have you provided? I was the one who actually provided two.

2. Trudeau was a leader and he labelled people who were vaccine-hesitant with all these terms which have no relationship to vaccine-hesitancy. He also asked whether we should tolerate them at all? That is horrible for a leader to do. No competent leader would try to create more division the way he did.

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.

[CouchPotato]

43 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Regardless, you're not providing any more points against my fundamental objection that a leader calling a party Marxist is different than that.

You haven't provided any evidence that calling someone a Marxist is any more an example of ideologue-ish behavior than other forms of demonization. It's a rule you have just made up. robosmith does this sort of thing all the time. I can see some sense in what you are saying, but I think there are more factors than a lack of specificity of political terms that go into the severity of someone's rhetoric.

You haven't sufficiently made any point to refute.

Gotta get ready to watch the hockey game.

Cheers.

Edited Saturday at 10:23 PM by CouchPotato

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

You haven't provided any evidence that calling someone a Marxist is any more an example of ideologue-ish behavior than other forms of demonization. It's a rule you have just made up. robosmith does this sort of thing all the time. I can see some sense in what you are saying, but I think there are more factors than a lack of specificity of political terms that go into the severity of someone's rhetoric.

You haven't sufficiently made any point to refute.

Gotta get ready to watch the hockey game.

Cheers.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideologue#:~:text=noun,: an impractical idealist : theorist

 

My interpretation of the definition.  The first definition had additional terms.

[CouchPotato]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideologue#:~:text=noun,: an impractical idealist : theorist

 

My interpretation of the definition.  The first definition had additional terms.

That still does nothing to make your point, whatever that is.

You have asserted that because Pierre used the term Marxist improperly that makes him an ideologue. There is nothing about this in the definition of an ideologue. But in one post you said it's the sort of behavior an ideologue might engage in. Perhaps. Then I point out that all kinds of politicians demonize people. But you say there is difference between using a political term improperly and other kinds of demonization. That is correct. There is a difference. But you haven't provided any explanation as to why using a political label improperly makes one more of a ideologue than one who engages in other forms of demonization. Likewise, you haven't even acknowledged that there may be other factors in what determines the severity of one's rhetoric.

Once, again, this is the sort of thing robosmith does. He starts making up rules on the fly to explain why horrible behavior is different when a leftist does it. In a thread about TPUSA people on campus having their tents torn down and tables overturned, he argues that this is fine because TPUSA doesn't engage in proper debate. This is a rule he has just made up. He posted a list of debate rules, but didn't bother to explain how TPUSA broke any of them. But more importantly, it's irrelevant anyway. It's actually very disturbing to suggest that it's ok to lash out violently at people whether or not they debate properly. If am not mistaken you 'liked' that post. Another fine example of the type of civility you support.

[August1991]

13 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

So, have all the leftists here just conceded the fact that Carney's integrity is completely shot, and that Poilievre towers over him in that respect? 

I don't see any leftists trying to make the case for Carney, and it's pretty bad when even the truth-averse cultists here can't utter a peep in support of a leftist narrative. 

No.

IMHO, Carney's federal Liberals are likely to win enough seats for a minority - a stable majority with either of the NPD, Bloc.

BTW, define "leftist".

Flipping through this thread, I reckon that you're "clueless" about Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

. He starts making up rules on the fly to explain why horrible behavior is different when a leftist does it.  

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.

[I am Groot]

On 4/11/2025 at 11:43 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. You mean like when he was eating the apple ?  I ... guess ?  And, no, he's not changing his tack towards media "during the campaign", he's been hostile to them going as far as to implicate the Bell GlobeMedia CEO in a conspiracy to undermine him.  Not new.

It's not a conspiracy. It's self-interest. A quarter of their budget comes from government subsidies and they know the Conservatives would have none of that. When I look around the web I see heavy coverage of everything related to Trump and tariffs and threats even when there's nothing new. The CBC had no less than a dozen new stories on their web site the other day related to Trump fearmongering and didn't cover the Carney Cayman islands tax shelter story at all. Same with Global news. CTV had one tiny box down low mentioning Brookfield but not mentioning the accounts with Carney's name on them.

And now we're getting multiple questions by the media to Poilievre on abortion. Why? Because they've been instructed to do so despite the fact Conservative policy has remained unchanged for twenty years and Poilievre has already reiterated it several times. So why the questions? So they can put the questions and answers on TV and in their newspapers to raise doubts and make people fear. 

It's a very American tactic because the Liberals use Democratic advisors. Guns, gays and abortion in every election - scary scary! Don't look at that policy history! Don't think about our record! Look over there! Be scared! Be scared! And the media works with it every election and never calls it out.

Edited Sunday at 03:15 PM by I am Groot

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

It's not a conspiracy. It's self-interest. A quarter of their budget comes from government subsidies and they know the Conservatives would have none of that. When I look around the web I see heavy coverage of everything related to Trump and tariffs and threats even when there's nothing new. The CBC had no less than a dozen new stories on their web site the other day related to Trump fearmongering and didn't cover the Carney Cayman islands tax shelter story at all. Same with Global news. CTV had one tiny box down low mentioning Brookfield but not mentioning the accounts with Carney's name on them.

And now we're getting multiple questions by the media to Poilievre on abortion. Why? Because they've been instructed to do so despite the fact Conservative policy has remained unchanged for twenty years and Poilievre has already reiterated it several times. So why the questions? So they can put the questions and answers on TV and in their newspapers to raise doubts and make people fear. 

It's a very American tactic because the Liberals use Democratic advisors. Guns, gays and abortion in every election - scary scary! Don't look at that policy history! Don't think about our record! Look over there! Be scared! Be scared! And the media works with it every election and never calls it out.

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.

[I am Groot]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

As I said, I don't believe there's any organized conspiracy. It's each media company doing what they think its best for their bottom lines. As for who gets how much, information like that is closely held in Canada. 

https://deanbeeby.substack.com/p/news-media-bailouts-short-on-transparency

https://thehub.ca/2024/07/09/trust-in-canadian-news-erodes-with-government-funding-five-key-takeaways-from-the-hubs-exclusive-polling-on-trust-in-canadian-media/

[WestCanMan]

8 hours ago, August1991 said:

No.

IMHO, Carney's federal Liberals are likely to win enough seats for a minority - a stable majority with either of the NPD, Bloc.

BTW, define "leftist".

Flipping through this thread, I reckon that you're "clueless" about Canada.

Geez August, I had you pegged for anything but illiterate.

The question was about whether or not a single leftist here could address the topic of Carney's dismal lack of integrity, and your answer was reads like "CBC's propaganda could still carry the day for the scumbag".

[Michael Hardner]

50 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

As I said, I don't believe there's any organized conspiracy. It's each media company doing what they think its best for their bottom lines. As for who gets how much, information like that is closely held in Canada. 

https://deanbeeby.substack.com/p/news-media-bailouts-short-on-transparency

https://thehub.ca/2024/07/09/trust-in-canadian-news-erodes-with-government-funding-five-key-takeaways-from-the-hubs-exclusive-polling-on-trust-in-canadian-media/

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.

Edited Sunday at 04:49 PM by Michael Hardner

[I am Groot]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

It was in the cite, except it was 35%

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

It was in the cite, except it was 35%

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.

[WestCanMan]

On 4/12/2025 at 12:59 PM, Michael Hardner said:

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....

You're ignoring someone because they pointed out the fact that you lied. 

You can't deny the fact that you lied, so you're pretending not to notice. 

I don't know why so many people are afraid to call a spade a spade, but I'm not. 

You lied, by trying to pretend that Trudeau didn't randomly call the unvaxed "racists and misogynists", and I'm not letting that fade into obscurity. You need to be a better person, MH. 

[WestCanMan]

There are still some leftists chiming in here, but none have gone so far as to try to pretend that mark Carney isn't a compulsive liar with alarmingly close ties to Chinese agents and the Chinese gov't itself.

I'll just throw this up here again: the challenge is still open:

• So, have all the leftists here just conceded the fact that Carney's integrity is completely shot, and that Poilievre towers over him in that respect? 

  I don't see any leftists trying to make the case for Carney, and it's pretty bad when even the truth-averse cultists here can't utter a peep in support of their dear leader. Poilievre has easily said about 10,000x as many words to Canadians as Carney has, can leftists even find one example of PP lying like the Carney? 

Edited Monday at 03:21 AM by WestCanMan