Character and Commitment to Canada: Poilievre vs Carney

[Michael Hardner]

54 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

IMO...very few "like" the carney. They hate anything however loosely related to Trump.

But which of the 2 are close to Trump, in reality.

The carney has the personality of a blank sheet of white paper.

Have an apple...you'll feel better.

I feel great actually

[Michael Hardner]

54 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

 

ideologue /ī′dē-ə-lôg″, -lŏg″, ĭd′ē-/

noun

1. An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology.
2. An adherent to or advocate of some ideology{3}.

Accusing someone else of being extreme is not an inherent feature of being an ideologue. You may consider it an example of behavior common among ideologues, but you have only provided one example of Pierre ever doing so. It's not common practice with Pierre. Tons of politicians have made extreme comments like this. As for distinguishing between whether someone merely calls someone an extremist or labels them with a specific type of extremism (whether mistakenly or not) has nothing to do with being an ideologue. That is just a rule you have made up on the fly. You say you haven't seen any argument against your point. You haven't even made a point to begin with.

OK, that is a the real definition of being an ideologue, but you still haven't provided any examples of Pierre being one.

Stand by it all you want. You just fail to make any case as to how someone fits the dictionary definition of ideologue.

Let's be honest here, Mike. You heard of one incident where Pierre called Liberals marxists while door knocking. All of a sudden you start calling him Trumpian. You make a lot of pretense about how all this sort of thing is offensive to your high standards, while you consistently praise posters who call others fascists, wish other posters dead or accuse them of having a sexual attraction to their own children. You don't care about rhetoric.

I've heard him say it more than once. I got my definition from Merriam-Webster I think, and it's got nothing to do with calling somebody extreme. It's got to do with using the specific label. Try and find an example of a politician doing this in before Pierre did it, you won't find that. 

I don't know why people who like him try to pretend it's the same as other conservatives. He's not. 

I do care about rhetoric.  

 

[WestCanMan]

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I've heard him say it more than once. I got my definition from Merriam-Webster I think, and it's got nothing to do with calling somebody extreme. It's got to do with using the specific label. Try and find an example of a politician doing this in before Pierre did it, you won't find that. 

I don't know why people who like him try to pretend it's the same as other conservatives. He's not. 

I do care about rhetoric.  

 

Can you post a video of that? 

Did he just say "Marxist policy" or did he call someone a Marxist?

And just remember that Marxism is cute and cuddly in theory. It's the real-life version of "Marxism" that slaughters people. 

 

Also....

• Trudeau called the unvaxed "racists and misogynists" MH - he even questioned whether or not we should be "tolerated" - and you didn't give a shit, so why are you so bent out of shape because PP inaccurately called those f'ing Nazis 'Marxists'?

  You see the hypocrisy there, right?

  And make no mistake, MH, there was nothing democratic or Canadian about that little b1tch's covid fascism. Calling him a Marxist is letting him off easy. There's no word that can be used to describe Trudeau that's out of line. 

Edited Saturday at 02:55 PM by WestCanMan

[CouchPotato]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I do care about rhetoric. 

Yes, but it's not the quality of the rhetoric you care about. It's who is delivering it.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

Yes, but it's not the quality of the rhetoric you care about. It's who is delivering it.

No.  Calling the opposing parties Nazis or Marxists isn't ok.

 

There's some rationale for calling the convoy leaders names is ok to a point because they were crazy.

[Legato]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No.  Calling the opposing parties Nazis or Marxists isn't ok.

 

There's some rationale for calling the convoy leaders names is ok to a point because they were crazy.

Crazy in what/which way? Were they Marxists? What rationale?

[CouchPotato]

35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There's some rationale for calling the convoy leaders names is ok to a point because they were crazy.

I see. So is it ok to call them Nazis? I need to know all the rules, Mike, since it seems you get to make them.

Trudeau and the Liberals did not just call the Convoy leaders Nazis. In fact, I am not sure they did that at all. What they did do was attempt to paint the entire convoy that way. One MP even said that 'honk honk' meant Heil Hitler. This was rhetoric they used in the House of Commons. This was worse than some attack on a public figure. This was an attack on a lot of regular working people.

The only source I can find of Pierre calling someone a Liberal a Marxist was on the campaign trail. Oh, and he called Singh a Maserati Marxist.

Here is how Trudeau referred to people who did not take the vaccine. This was not part of some conversation on the campaign trail. This was on live television, Mike.

Quote

"They are extremists who don’t believe in science, they’re often misogynists, also often racists. It’s a small group that muscles in, and we have to make a choice in terms of leaders, in terms of the country. Do we tolerate these people?"

 

Edited Saturday at 04:57 PM by CouchPotato

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

1. So is it ok to call them Nazis? 

1. Some of leadership? Absolutely. It's not the same as calling an entire party, the Communist party. Have you seen Pat King's hilarious racist videos? He imitates a Chinese guy 

...

 

22 minutes ago, Legato said:

Crazy in what/which way? Were they Marxists? What rationale?

Western separatists, racists and such... I don't remember the details but at least a few of them deserved the moniker.

[WestCanMan]

48 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No.  Calling the opposing parties Nazis or Marxists isn't ok.

Leftists do it all the time, and I'm not exaggerating or painting everyone with the same brush. 

The Dems barely ever talk about Trump without calling him a Nazi or insinuating that he's a racist, or tied to extremist groups, etc, etc. Our media in Canada plays along with those assessments every single time. 

When was the last time you ever saw CBC or CTV get on their high horse and say "The Dems comments were way beyond the pale" after they made reference to Trump being a Nazi? 

I don't recall seeing you voice your concern for the Dems' divisive rhetoric, or for the CBC's tacit support of it.

Our media just tried to link Poilievre to some dude who dislikes Khalistani separatists just because he donated to the CPC party. Did you voice your concern for CBC's ridiculous bias and inflammatory accusation? 

Quote

There's some rationale for calling the convoy leaders names is ok to a point because they were crazy.

You're 100% wrong.

1. Politicians get some leeway for accusing each other of things that may be a bit exaggerated. And I mean a bit, not "Trump is a Nazi", or "Trump is holding a rally in MSG - it's the first one of its kind since the US Nazi party held one there in 1935." That's f'ing outrageous and disgusting. 
2. Politicians should not be libelling groups of citizens, and creating division and hostility between them. That's what people do when they want to see violence. It's the kind of thing that Maxine Waters and BLM ask for, not respectable leaders in civilized countries.
3. Trudeau didn't just call "convoy leaders" names, so what you said there was disingenuous enough to constitute a an actual fabrication (ie - the most severe form of LIE). Trudeau called THE UNVAXED "racists and misogynists" - not just convoy leaders - and then supposed that maybe Canadians shouldn't even 'tolerate' them. The last leader of a western nation to falsely label a group as "unclean", create a gesundheitspass to divide citizens by their artificial level of cleanliness, publicly slander and vilify them, and to ask the citizens whether or not they should even tolerate them, was Adolf Hitler. And yeah, every single word and punctuation mark in that comparison between Hitler and Trudeau was 100% on point. Bill Maher even made the comparison between Trudeau and Hitler, and that was only based on 1/4 of the info I just wrote there. And it bears mentioning that, at the time Trudeau was theorizing that maybe we shouldn't tolerate the unvaxed, he was building "voluntary covid quarantine centres" in remote areas of the north which had a lot of "gulag" or even "concentration camp" potential, and then he flatly denied the existence of them. Ontario MPP Randy Hillier was branded as a nutjob, both by media and the LPOC, for saying that the "voluntary covid quarantine centres" were even being built. Those just absolutely "did not exist" as far as the media was concerned until it was revealed later that they truly were being built, just for a more 'benevolent' (😂) purpose. 

 

Look at yourself MH: you're trying to completely vilify PP, and act like he's unfit to be PM, just because you feel like you remember him calling someone a Marxist, but there are dozens of examples of Trudeau and the dems saying/doing far worse things, even inciting violence, and your support of them never wavered for a second. You even went so far as to lie for them, as you just got caught doing right there Michael. You just f'ing lied about Trudeau's vile slander to cover for him. 

You are, by the litany of verified facts mentioned by myself and others here, both a liar and hypocrite, MH. You're off your rocker. 

Edited Saturday at 05:10 PM by WestCanMan

[CouchPotato]

52 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No.

Yes, Mike, your double standard with regard to rhetoric is on full display on this forum. You talk about things like rhetoric and civil discussion. You express distaste for certain posters when they get more heated and insulting. That is understandable. And to your credit, you are very good at not engaging in such language yourself. You deserve a great deal of credit for that. But also you betray these so-called values because you consistently 'like' some of the most unhinged posts on here. You came to the defense of the worst offender on here. A person who has expressed his desire for other posters to drop dead on multiple occasions and has made disgusting accusations about other posters. You 'like' the schizophrenic rants of a particular poster who uses overdramatic apocalyptic poetry to paint politicians he doesn't like and the people who support them as actual demonic entities. Like a mad army led by an evil clown. That is far more dangerous rhetoric than simply calling someone a Marxist. He has even invoked the Lord of the Rings more than once and compared people Sauron. To him, the political opposition is not just extreme or radical, they are the embodiment of evil. And if you disagree with him, you quickly become one of Sauron's orcs.

Edited Saturday at 05:13 PM by CouchPotato

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

Yes, Mike, your double standard with regard to rhetoric is on full display on this forum. You talk about things like rhetoric and civil discussion. You express distaste for certain posters when they get more heated and insulting. That is understandable. And to your credit, you are very good at not engaging in such language yourself. You deserve a great deal of credit for that. But also you betray these so-called values because you consistently 'like' some of the most unhinged posts on here. You came to the defense of the worst offender on here. A person who has expressed his desire for other posters to drop dead on multiple occasions and has made disgusting accusations about other posters. You 'like' the schizophrenic rants of a particular poster who uses overdramatic apocalyptic poetry to paint politicians he doesn't like and the people who support them as actual demonic entities. Like a mad army led by an evil clown. That is far more dangerous rhetoric than simply calling someone a Marxist. He has even invoked the Lord of the Rings more than once and compared people Sauron. To him, the political opposition is not just extreme or radical, they are the embodiment of evil. And if you disagree with him, you quickly become one of Sauron's orcs.

There's no comparison between what private people say and what public leaders say. I have liked posts from people that I even have on ignore, so there's no principle behind me liking a post or not.  I can dislike you and like one of your posts. 

 

Back to the point, Pierre is running a very different kind of campaign that was successful against Trudeau. I doubt that it's going to be successful now, but I don't know. 

 

And yes, he comes across as an ideologue with very different modes of politicking than others.

[WestCanMan]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

There's no comparison between what private people say and what public leaders say. I have liked posts from people that I even have on ignore, so there's no principle behind me liking a post or not.  I can dislike you and like one of your posts. 

 

Back to the point, Pierre is running a very different kind of campaign that was successful against Trudeau. I doubt that it's going to be successful now, but I don't know. 

 

And yes, he comes across as an ideologue with very different modes of politicking than others.

^^Still hasn't acknowledged that he got caught lying to cover up for Trudeau's vile slander against the "unvaxed". 

[CouchPotato]

24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There's no comparison between what private people say and what public leaders say. I have liked posts from people that I even have on ignore, so there's no principle behind me liking a post or not.  I can dislike you and like one of your posts.

I did not say that there was a comparison between private people and public figures, what I said is that within the confines of this forum your double standard is on full display. Of course there is no comparison. And you are free to like whatever you want. But you not only 'like' posts by these people, you like some of the most unhinged posts by these people. That is your right. But it says a lot about your tastes for rhetoric. You lose all credibility to talk about it when you praise the schizophrenic rants of a poster who sees politicians he doesn't agree with and people who support them as evil entities, demonic hordes with lying twisting tongues led by an evil clown. A person who never uses any facts to debate anything and uses the sort of extreme language and caricature-ish propaganda the Nazis were famous for.

Edited Saturday at 05:46 PM by CouchPotato

[WestCanMan]

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. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, CouchPotato said:

I did not say that there was a comparison between private people and public figures, what I said is that within the confines of this forum your double standard is on full display. Of course there is no comparison. And you are free to like whatever you want. But you not only 'like' posts by these people, you like some of the most unhinged posts by these people. That is your right. But it says a lot about your tastes for rhetoric. You lose all credibility to talk about it when you praise the schizophrenic rants of a poster who sees politicians he doesn't agree with and people who support them as evil entities, demonic hordes with lying twisting tongues led by an evil clown. A person who never uses any facts to debate anything and uses the sort of extreme language and caricature-ish propaganda the Nazis were famous for.

If there's no comparison between private individuals, making statements, and public individuals making statements, then why are you saying I follow a double standard by treating those things differently? 

 

Liking a post by someone doesn't mean I think they would be a great leader. Sometimes it's just a good point buried within it 

I had no idea anybody looked at my posts so carefully.

[CouchPotato]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If there's no comparison between private individuals, making statements, and public individuals making statements, then why are you saying I follow a double standard by treating those things differently? 

Because I am not comparing your appraisal of rhetoric on this forum to your appraisal of rhetoric off of this forum. I am saying the double standard is visible right here. You ignore people who are sometimes confrontational and tattle on them like a child, all the while praising unhinged rants. This all occurs right here, Mike.

[Michael Hardner]

37 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

 You ignore people who are sometimes confrontational and tattle on them like a child, all the while praising unhinged rants. This all occurs right here, Mike.

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....

[CouchPotato]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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 still haven't provided any convincing examples of how Poilievre is a throwback to McCarthy era style discourse other than he called Liberals Marxist on the campaign trail once. He also took that statement back.

Trudeau has used far more inflammatory rhetoric to divide everyday people. You don't call that out. The outrage always goes one direction. That is fine, Mike. That's your right. Just once again, you only discredit yourself and your own lament over the decline civil discourse.

Edited Saturday at 08:07 PM by CouchPotato

[herbie]

14 hours ago, Moonbox said:

If you think that out of the two, Carney and not Poilievre is the ideologue, I'm not sure you even understand what the word means

They're not even sure of their own ideology. As I pointed out many times they have this concept that businesses exist for some altruistic reason and not to make profits.
That in spite of the oligarchy of the rich rapidly consolidating their power, they'll somehow decide they've made "enough" money and hand the excess over to the workers and the govt.
That it's better to buy more expensive parts locally and the higher price they have to charge for their product will increase sales.

And the rest of us are in agreement that life is just so shitty we have to tear down the country and copycat the USA because we must copy everything they do.

Edited Saturday at 08:19 PM by herbie

[Legato]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Some of leadership? Absolutely. It's not the same as calling an entire party, the Communist party. Have you seen Pat King's hilarious racist videos? He imitates a Chinese guy 

...

 

Western separatists, racists and such... I don't remember the details but at least a few of them deserved the moniker.

Western separatists? What do they have to do with the convoy. Are you saying the convoy people are racist?

and such?

[CouchPotato]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

There's no comparison between what private people say and what public leaders say.

I am not sure you actually make that distinction, Mike. The evidence would suggest otherwise. Fairly recently you pointed to something West said in this forum and exclaimed, "Ah ha, you see, a forum poster called someone a Marxist ergo Poiilevre is Trumpian." (not verbatim, I realize). You seemed to think that was the gotcha of all gotchas.

Edited Saturday at 08:39 PM by CouchPotato

[Michael Hardner]

41 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

1. You still haven't provided any convincing examples of how Poilievre is a throwback to McCarthy era style discourse other than he called Liberals Marxist on the campaign trail once. He also took that statement back.

2. Trudeau has used far more inflammatory rhetoric to divide everyday people.  

1. Other than the defining aspect of the McCarthy era? I'm glad to hear he took it back, but I did not know that.

2. It's subjective to say that his rhetoric was more inflammatory. I'm citing a specific case whereby a leader is using a defined term, absolutely incorrectly. Your apples to oranges comparison is yours to make.  I don't think I said I was outraged.

[CouchPotato]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Other than the defining aspect of the McCarthy era? I'm glad to hear he took it back, but I did not know that.

One instance while talking to people one on one while out on the campaign trail. That to you is significant example of a return to McCarthy era discourse?

Quote

It's subjective to say that his rhetoric was more inflammatory. I'm citing a specific case whereby a leader is using a defined term, absolutely incorrectly. Your apples to oranges comparison is yours to make.  I don't think I said I was outraged.

Using a defined term incorrectly does not make one an ideologue. You have failed to establish the connection. You make think it's worse to call someone a Marxist incorrectly than to call a large group of everyday people racist and extremist and to question whether they ought to be tolerated (on live television, no less), but you have just invented this rule out of thin air that using a defined term incorrectly is somehow greater proof of one being an ideologue.

 

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

1. One instance while talking to people one on one while out on the campaign trail. That to you is significant example of a return to McCarthy era discourse?

2. Using a defined term incorrectly does not make one an ideologue. You have failed to establish the connection.

3 You make think it's worse to call someone a Marxist incorrectly than to call a large group of everyday people racist and extremist and to question whether they ought to be tolerated (on live television, no less), 

1. Are you saying he only said it twice? I feel better about it if so.

2. Yes I think it's worse.  No competent leader would use such a term without forethought.

3. I already said so.

[CouchPotato]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

1. Are you saying he only said it twice? I feel better about it if so.

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

Quote

2. Yes I think it's worse.  No competent leader would use such a term without forethought.

I would disagree, wholeheartedly. I do take some consideration of your argument with respect to Marxist being a very specific thing, but I also look at both situations. 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.