The shack comment should be remembered, but not for the term shack. It should be remembered for Poilievre giving the address in a public forum of a random Canadian to make his point. The lady living in this modest house did not ask for this attention, but Poilievre does not care about her if he thinks it is helpful to his cause. Collateral damage.
However, there was a much bigger piece of collateral damage this week: John Baird. Forcing him to attack CBC for accurately reporting what he said when he introduced Trudeau is telling in more than one way. It shows that Poilievre feels that he needs to humiliate anybody who appears to graceful to the other party. I have no doubt that the call came from Jenni Byrne and that she threatened to release some of the dirt on Baird if he would not humiliate himself and declare unwavering support to the leader.
It is also telling as it shows that a pivot to a less angry Poilievre is not in the cards. He is going to ride the everything is broken theme all the way to the election.
The shack struck a nerve for me, because that is a very common style of house in the Niagara built in the 40s and 50s. My in-laws lived in one for decades. Properly maintained and with a bit of updating to the plumbing and electrical, they would make fine places to live right now.
I'm someone who will remember the shack comment. It's not just 'awkward', it's an insulting comment. And yet another example of why PP should never be Prime Minister.
I’m puzzled by your remark that the little house in question “does not look particularly well kept.” It looks cosy and homey to me --not rundown -- but then I’m a Maritimer living in a big old farmhouse.
Bottom line is: Pierre Poilievre publicly ‘Doxed’ an unsuspecting woman by weaponizing her actual HOME ADDRESS plus a Photo that went Viral, Violated Her Privacy while Insulting Her - then purports he called her to Apologize.. So how did he somehow get Her Personal Number ? This is Classic Propaganda - while running his mouth for his daily ‘Attention Performances’ & all on the taxpayer dime - almost 20 years now of his parasitic scumbaggery
Let's remember that there is more than one reason why some people are angry. For example, it didn't help when Mr. Trudeau repeatedly called out working people as racists, misogynists, white supremacists and told them that there is no -lace for them in Canada. Many took these as personal insults (whether justified or not) and they remember.
Then there are the little things, such as Mr. Trudeau staying at a $6,000 a night hotel room on the occasion of the Queen's funeral.
Finally, Mr. Trudeau and his Cabinet Ministers flatly refuse to engage with people who come with grievances. Talking to them or their representatives does not mean agreeing with them, or "giving in". It does mean starting to build bridges in a badly fractured country.
Mr. Poilievre is wrong to insist on anger and rage. But Mr. Trudeau is wrong to create the openings for him to do so.
I am no Trudeau fan. But to accuse him of "creating the openings for this kind of behaviour" is a distortion of realities. These protestors don't come with grievances -- they can't even articulate what policies they object to, because they're not complaining about policies. They are not ashamed that they have no understanding of politics or how to be legitimately heard in opposition to government. They'd rather throw tantrums. So you can't really be surprised if many of us out here, whatever our feelings about this government, feel that expecting it to "build bridges" while being held hostage is just ... a bridge too far.
I didn't say that the protestors were reacting to Mr. Trudeau's policies. I was very explicit in saying that they were reacting to what they perceived as his insults.
Put it this way. I can overlook policy differences far more easily than I can overlook ad hominem attacks. That's what's happening here. I suspect that Mr. Trudeau was trying to play "wedge politics" and it backfired.
I know you didn't suggest that the protestors were reacting to his policies -- my apologies for not being clear about that. And I agree that Trudeau was doing a Hilary Clinton in his comments; he was insulting. I find he and his government insult my intelligence all the time, and his arrogance gets up my nose. Do I react like those protestors? No. Why not? Because I know when I'm being manipulated, and those protestors have been manipulated into channeling their anger in a particular way which is entirely -- and deliberately --unproductive of anything in the way of meaningful change. Their leaders don't want them to articulate specific grievances. The Liberals know that, which is why they won't play ball. So wedge politics is the name of the game played by both teams. Who started it doesn't matter. How to stop it -- darned if I know. It is well-nigh impossible to adopt a "reasonable" position on anything now, it seems. so thoroughly reductionist have our politics become.
As to stopping it, I suggest a try at dialogue. It is difficult, especially in today's climate. But engaging protestors individually or in small groups, away from leaders, is our best bet. That was what both the Ottawa Police Service and the Ontario Provincial Police wanted to do, according to Paul Wells in his book, An Emergency in Ottawa. And in both cases, politicians put a firm end to that. (Again, from Paul Wells' book.) Even now, when I drop in on meetings of the Liberal faithful, I hear that we must "stand up" to "those people", and that we must "call them out". That attitude is not helping.
Not to let the Conservatives off the hook. But Mr. Scrimshaw and his readers lean to the left, so that's what I'm going after here.
I spent two mornings talking to the truckers on Parliament Hill, trying to understand what was motivating them. I found it enlightening for me. And perhaps I took the edge off the anger for a few of them. I really don't know.
The place was like a street party, the kind I remembered from my university days. The vast majority were misguided and ignorant, but non-violent and even helpful. I understand the terrible nuisance they constituted for the people living there, and certainly would not want them in my neighbourhood. But I did not get the feeling that they were a threat in any way.
Your first sentence is essentially a bald faced lie. No matter how often you repeat, adapt, vary it, defend it or pretend it’s fact or even resembles a Truth
Trudeau never called “working people” racist or whatever. He called racists what they are.
When hundreds of delegations came unexpectedly to a funeral in London, hotels could demand any price for a hotel room.
The current protestors (like the convoy people) don’t come with grievances, they come with demands. Demands of cancelling government and replacing it with some crazy council. You don’t build bridges with delusional people.
Your argument is a the same as defending husbands that beat their wives because their wives made them miserable. Grow up.
Actually, I addressed all points you were trying to make. In any case, even if your points are true (they are not), it does not justify the harassments and threats of violence. If you disagree with a politician or you think he or she insulted you, you do not get to confront them with nooses and other threats. This should be called out each and every time. The silence from Poilievre on this tells you enough about this.
For what it’s worth, I went looking for video of these often-cited egregious remarks from the PM. I think sometimes our internal biases grab hold of something and run with it, so I try seek out primary sources.
September 2021 in Welland, ON, at a campaign event, about half-way through, he replied to a question from Hannah Thibideau about how he felt asking his supporters to put themselves and their kids at risk of harm, including from racist comments by protesters, at his campaign events. He replied that “yes, there is a small, fringe element in this country that is angry, that doesn’t believe in science, that is lashing out with racist, misogynistic attacks, but Canadians, the vast majority of Canadians are not represented by them. And I know [Canadians] will not allow those voices, those special interest groups, those protesters…I don’t even want to call them protesters, those anti-vaxxer mobs, to dictate how this country gets through this pandemic, and how we recover our economy, recover from lockdowns, where people can get back to work, and back to doing the things they want to do, and keep our kids safe. They don’t get to dictate policy of this government. So it is puzzling to people to see that on vaccines and many other things, Aaron O’Toole is at least taking some of his cues from them. Canadians need leadership, and I know Liberals across the country are willing to stand up to ensure Canadians get that.”
And one 50 second clip, shared by the Western Standard (I didn’t find the original interview) from a French tv interview in December 2021 where the interviewer asks a question (not heard on the video clip) and he says roughly the same thing: that most Canadians want to do the right things to keep everyone safe during the pandemic, but a small group of people hold racist, misogynistic, anti-science viewpoints, but they are not the majority.
Lots more spin, rage-farming, and political punditry than concrete examples of him making these comments at any other time. IMO his comments weren’t as outrageous as they’ve been portrayed, but they clearly hit a nerve. If you’re NOT racist, misogynistic, or part of an anti-vax mob during a pandemic…should you be outraged that he’s said most Canadians aren’t like that? And if you hold anti-vax (or vaccine-hesitant) views, but aren’t part of the loudly aggressive and aggrieved people who shout epithets at him wherever he goes, would you be outraged by his comments?
Lately the same people who were shouting about vaccines and mask mandates have pivoted to being outraged about LGBTQ2S+ being discussed in school, or anti-racism, or WEF, or whatever. Their fears are real, even if they’re often not based in objective reality. I understand that. But how do you build bridges with people who see the world through outrage goggles? I wish I knew, because we’ve been listening to them scream about their fears for years. My brother is part of this group…afraid of Sharia Law, Muslims, White replacement, WEP & the UN taking our sovereignty, masks, vaccines, Chinese immigrants, LGBTQ2S+ people indoctrinating kids, BLM, CRT, etc. The topics change, but the fear/outage is the same. It’s clear to me that no amount of dialogue will be enough. If you’ve got the answers to this, I’d sure like to hear them, because I’m not sure what this PM — or any future PM — is going to do to assuage these fears in any concrete, long term way.
One of the most coherent accurate & civil debunkings - I’ve come across.. & have written plenty myself.. but there’s no Quit to Misinformation Propaganda - & those in the Business Of Deception 4 Partisan Profit revel in Fabrication For The Nation.. quite a classic parasitic perversion .. & yes.. I do mean PARASITIC in the sense that Parasitology is a KNOWN SCIENCE Biologically & Behaviourally - The Country named Canada & Canadians ‘are the host’
My French is good enough to understand what Trudeau said. I certainly do not need to rely on Subramaya and Ivison to understand what was said.
Anyway, the people who thought that Trudeau accused them of hate and racism collected their F Trudeau, Nazi and confederate flags, got into their pick up trucks to drive to Ottawa. On the way they picked up the rope to tie them into nooses and the protest was complete.
All three links you posted were referring to, or clipped from, the same single French tv interview from 2021.
Much was written about these same comments by political pundits, especially those whose views sit decidedly right of centre, like Rupa, Iveson, Western Standard, Toronto Sun, etc.
In 2021, Trudeau campaigned on getting people vaccinated, because it seemed like the best option we had; I suspect many politicians around the world did the same. It was a wedge issue everywhere, because there were a group of people who thought getting vaccinated was the worst thing anyone could do.
In 2023 these folks are still outraged…about something. Do I think the PM is responsible for their outrage? No. Do I think he sometimes opens his mouth and steps in it? Yes. Is Poilievre helping to calm the situation? Nope. Does any of this give the perpetually aggrieved a reason to yell and scream epithets at public events? Nope. They’re all adults, and I expect them to behave like adults.
Like so much of the pretendo ‘journalism’ by Partisan ‘conservatives’ - I’ve avoided much of the Septic Tank EchoChamber by simply ‘turning off & ignoring Rupa, Ivison, Don Martin, Bob Fife, Terry Glavin, Rex Murphy et al Inc. Yes I get plenty enough just by ‘Twitter Osmosis’.. The flatulent excrement churned out is as toxic as that of Ms Candice Bergen & the nonstop lies of Poilievre. ‘Yellow Journalism’ ain’t confined to Partisan MainStreamMedia, Partisan SocialMedia & EvangelicalReligiousDross. It’s my view that Pierre Poilievre & the CPC War Room, & the entire CPC Party of Stephen Harper & Ray Novak ‘Have Now Become Media’. Certainly we know Public Relations Entities are EMBEDDED within the CPC Party & Individual MP’s Offices. Misinformation & Disinformation are among the Classic Tactics of Propaganda.. as is Yellow Journalism.. Quelle Surprise eh ! This is very evident in Alberta via the Kenney design/built UCP Secrecy Machine that Danielle Smith, her TBA Parasitic coup d’état, Big Bitumen & Methane partners + Propaganda Pimps
The ‘misogyny’ quote’ is utter horseshit.. and nobody spewed & brayed it more than Bergen & Poilievre. Yes I have exceptional access to some of the finest professional translators in Canada - French to English & vice versa. Setting the ‘Context’ & accepting that the interviewer clearly & vocally prompted the actual sentence somehow got left out of the Absurd Fantasy version now endlessly mutating.
I think it's really, really, really unwise to think no one will rememebr these missteps in 2025.
The Liberals aren't on attack now because they own the House until late 2025 but once the writ is dropped they will use EVERYTHING Poilievre has said; the attack ads will go from the shack to drug addiction to how they made inflation better to just about anything and everything.
And Poilievre going "Trudeau! Trudau!" just won't resonate and the media will just keep going after him because...he's Conservative.
And when you are Conservative in Canada, you're treated with suspicion. And the longer the LPC remains in power (as it its rightful position) federally, the less CPC will gain traction.
The shack comment should be remembered, but not for the term shack. It should be remembered for Poilievre giving the address in a public forum of a random Canadian to make his point. The lady living in this modest house did not ask for this attention, but Poilievre does not care about her if he thinks it is helpful to his cause. Collateral damage.
However, there was a much bigger piece of collateral damage this week: John Baird. Forcing him to attack CBC for accurately reporting what he said when he introduced Trudeau is telling in more than one way. It shows that Poilievre feels that he needs to humiliate anybody who appears to graceful to the other party. I have no doubt that the call came from Jenni Byrne and that she threatened to release some of the dirt on Baird if he would not humiliate himself and declare unwavering support to the leader.
It is also telling as it shows that a pivot to a less angry Poilievre is not in the cards. He is going to ride the everything is broken theme all the way to the election.
The shack struck a nerve for me, because that is a very common style of house in the Niagara built in the 40s and 50s. My in-laws lived in one for decades. Properly maintained and with a bit of updating to the plumbing and electrical, they would make fine places to live right now.
I'm someone who will remember the shack comment. It's not just 'awkward', it's an insulting comment. And yet another example of why PP should never be Prime Minister.
I’m puzzled by your remark that the little house in question “does not look particularly well kept.” It looks cosy and homey to me --not rundown -- but then I’m a Maritimer living in a big old farmhouse.
Green t shirt guy, MGTOW, Jordan Peterson, convoy coffees etc etc. He's not toning down anything, he's in lockstep with his base. It's who he is.
Bottom line is: Pierre Poilievre publicly ‘Doxed’ an unsuspecting woman by weaponizing her actual HOME ADDRESS plus a Photo that went Viral, Violated Her Privacy while Insulting Her - then purports he called her to Apologize.. So how did he somehow get Her Personal Number ? This is Classic Propaganda - while running his mouth for his daily ‘Attention Performances’ & all on the taxpayer dime - almost 20 years now of his parasitic scumbaggery
.. I promise to ‘get back to you’ when another ‘journalist’ points this REALITY out
to their ‘audience’ ie their ‘Penetration’.. if any.. thereof
Somehow .. I don’t suspect a Multi Millionaire ‘cool guy’ with his new contact lenses
living & thriving off the Canadian Taxpayers dime for nigh on 20 years has much ‘street cred’
with disgruntled Farmers & First Nation hunters & gatherers
about ‘they’re coming for your hunting rifles’..
& presuming Gun Owners are unsuspecting local yokel Voters from Alberta or Sask
BUT ! The Polite & White Evangelicals at some 150 & counting - ‘Rallies’ - see it through a different lens
& god bless them.. but so far they can’t ‘Vote For Pierre4PM’ .. indeed their Riding ‘PROXY’ is exactly whom ?
& is going to somehow ‘return control of their lives’ through .. osmosis ? A letter from Jenni Byrne ?
Or their Live Savings they put into Crypto $$$ ?
He’s also going to reinvent Healthcare, Education & indeed even Elections..
plus Economics, Biology, History & the Newfoundland & Labrador seal hunt quota
to ‘Save the East Coast Salmon’ .. (forget the West Coast Wild Fisheries)
& plug in Pre Fab Pipelines to save us all from whatever seems Top of Mind
for Jenni & the Cold WAR TOMB warriors .. & Harper High Table
Let's remember that there is more than one reason why some people are angry. For example, it didn't help when Mr. Trudeau repeatedly called out working people as racists, misogynists, white supremacists and told them that there is no -lace for them in Canada. Many took these as personal insults (whether justified or not) and they remember.
Then there are the little things, such as Mr. Trudeau staying at a $6,000 a night hotel room on the occasion of the Queen's funeral.
Finally, Mr. Trudeau and his Cabinet Ministers flatly refuse to engage with people who come with grievances. Talking to them or their representatives does not mean agreeing with them, or "giving in". It does mean starting to build bridges in a badly fractured country.
Mr. Poilievre is wrong to insist on anger and rage. But Mr. Trudeau is wrong to create the openings for him to do so.
I am no Trudeau fan. But to accuse him of "creating the openings for this kind of behaviour" is a distortion of realities. These protestors don't come with grievances -- they can't even articulate what policies they object to, because they're not complaining about policies. They are not ashamed that they have no understanding of politics or how to be legitimately heard in opposition to government. They'd rather throw tantrums. So you can't really be surprised if many of us out here, whatever our feelings about this government, feel that expecting it to "build bridges" while being held hostage is just ... a bridge too far.
I didn't say that the protestors were reacting to Mr. Trudeau's policies. I was very explicit in saying that they were reacting to what they perceived as his insults.
Put it this way. I can overlook policy differences far more easily than I can overlook ad hominem attacks. That's what's happening here. I suspect that Mr. Trudeau was trying to play "wedge politics" and it backfired.
I know you didn't suggest that the protestors were reacting to his policies -- my apologies for not being clear about that. And I agree that Trudeau was doing a Hilary Clinton in his comments; he was insulting. I find he and his government insult my intelligence all the time, and his arrogance gets up my nose. Do I react like those protestors? No. Why not? Because I know when I'm being manipulated, and those protestors have been manipulated into channeling their anger in a particular way which is entirely -- and deliberately --unproductive of anything in the way of meaningful change. Their leaders don't want them to articulate specific grievances. The Liberals know that, which is why they won't play ball. So wedge politics is the name of the game played by both teams. Who started it doesn't matter. How to stop it -- darned if I know. It is well-nigh impossible to adopt a "reasonable" position on anything now, it seems. so thoroughly reductionist have our politics become.
I agree.
As to stopping it, I suggest a try at dialogue. It is difficult, especially in today's climate. But engaging protestors individually or in small groups, away from leaders, is our best bet. That was what both the Ottawa Police Service and the Ontario Provincial Police wanted to do, according to Paul Wells in his book, An Emergency in Ottawa. And in both cases, politicians put a firm end to that. (Again, from Paul Wells' book.) Even now, when I drop in on meetings of the Liberal faithful, I hear that we must "stand up" to "those people", and that we must "call them out". That attitude is not helping.
Not to let the Conservatives off the hook. But Mr. Scrimshaw and his readers lean to the left, so that's what I'm going after here.
Have you yourself tried dialoguing with protestors like the ones we're talking about?
Yes.
I spent two mornings talking to the truckers on Parliament Hill, trying to understand what was motivating them. I found it enlightening for me. And perhaps I took the edge off the anger for a few of them. I really don't know.
The place was like a street party, the kind I remembered from my university days. The vast majority were misguided and ignorant, but non-violent and even helpful. I understand the terrible nuisance they constituted for the people living there, and certainly would not want them in my neighbourhood. But I did not get the feeling that they were a threat in any way.
Your first sentence is essentially a bald faced lie. No matter how often you repeat, adapt, vary it, defend it or pretend it’s fact or even resembles a Truth
This is BS.
Trudeau never called “working people” racist or whatever. He called racists what they are.
When hundreds of delegations came unexpectedly to a funeral in London, hotels could demand any price for a hotel room.
The current protestors (like the convoy people) don’t come with grievances, they come with demands. Demands of cancelling government and replacing it with some crazy council. You don’t build bridges with delusional people.
Your argument is a the same as defending husbands that beat their wives because their wives made them miserable. Grow up.
Thank you. That's a good example of what I was talking about -- caricaturizing people you disagree with and refusing any dialogue.
Actually, I addressed all points you were trying to make. In any case, even if your points are true (they are not), it does not justify the harassments and threats of violence. If you disagree with a politician or you think he or she insulted you, you do not get to confront them with nooses and other threats. This should be called out each and every time. The silence from Poilievre on this tells you enough about this.
For what it’s worth, I went looking for video of these often-cited egregious remarks from the PM. I think sometimes our internal biases grab hold of something and run with it, so I try seek out primary sources.
I found two videos.
https://www.cpac.ca/episode?id=a198cfec-573a-4b56-a776-47a91a28aa9a
September 2021 in Welland, ON, at a campaign event, about half-way through, he replied to a question from Hannah Thibideau about how he felt asking his supporters to put themselves and their kids at risk of harm, including from racist comments by protesters, at his campaign events. He replied that “yes, there is a small, fringe element in this country that is angry, that doesn’t believe in science, that is lashing out with racist, misogynistic attacks, but Canadians, the vast majority of Canadians are not represented by them. And I know [Canadians] will not allow those voices, those special interest groups, those protesters…I don’t even want to call them protesters, those anti-vaxxer mobs, to dictate how this country gets through this pandemic, and how we recover our economy, recover from lockdowns, where people can get back to work, and back to doing the things they want to do, and keep our kids safe. They don’t get to dictate policy of this government. So it is puzzling to people to see that on vaccines and many other things, Aaron O’Toole is at least taking some of his cues from them. Canadians need leadership, and I know Liberals across the country are willing to stand up to ensure Canadians get that.”
And one 50 second clip, shared by the Western Standard (I didn’t find the original interview) from a French tv interview in December 2021 where the interviewer asks a question (not heard on the video clip) and he says roughly the same thing: that most Canadians want to do the right things to keep everyone safe during the pandemic, but a small group of people hold racist, misogynistic, anti-science viewpoints, but they are not the majority.
Lots more spin, rage-farming, and political punditry than concrete examples of him making these comments at any other time. IMO his comments weren’t as outrageous as they’ve been portrayed, but they clearly hit a nerve. If you’re NOT racist, misogynistic, or part of an anti-vax mob during a pandemic…should you be outraged that he’s said most Canadians aren’t like that? And if you hold anti-vax (or vaccine-hesitant) views, but aren’t part of the loudly aggressive and aggrieved people who shout epithets at him wherever he goes, would you be outraged by his comments?
Lately the same people who were shouting about vaccines and mask mandates have pivoted to being outraged about LGBTQ2S+ being discussed in school, or anti-racism, or WEF, or whatever. Their fears are real, even if they’re often not based in objective reality. I understand that. But how do you build bridges with people who see the world through outrage goggles? I wish I knew, because we’ve been listening to them scream about their fears for years. My brother is part of this group…afraid of Sharia Law, Muslims, White replacement, WEP & the UN taking our sovereignty, masks, vaccines, Chinese immigrants, LGBTQ2S+ people indoctrinating kids, BLM, CRT, etc. The topics change, but the fear/outage is the same. It’s clear to me that no amount of dialogue will be enough. If you’ve got the answers to this, I’d sure like to hear them, because I’m not sure what this PM — or any future PM — is going to do to assuage these fears in any concrete, long term way.
One of the most coherent accurate & civil debunkings - I’ve come across.. & have written plenty myself.. but there’s no Quit to Misinformation Propaganda - & those in the Business Of Deception 4 Partisan Profit revel in Fabrication For The Nation.. quite a classic parasitic perversion .. & yes.. I do mean PARASITIC in the sense that Parasitology is a KNOWN SCIENCE Biologically & Behaviourally - The Country named Canada & Canadians ‘are the host’
Perhaps you should look harder. Here is Rupa Subramaya at https://twitter.com/rupasubramanya/status/1569670045684432899?lang=en
Here is John Ivison https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-trudeau-and-other-partisans-should-rein-in-the-rage
For those who understand French, here is the actual video clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I0tk6OO5sw
Lots of other times he called protestors racist or misogynist. This one is notable because it made the press in the U.K.
Brilliant, rather than understanding what Trudeau actually said, you rely on Rupa Subramaya (please, give you head a shake) and John Ivison.
Didn't you listen to the video clip at the link I provided? Perhaps your French is not up to understanding it?
My French is good enough to understand what Trudeau said. I certainly do not need to rely on Subramaya and Ivison to understand what was said.
Anyway, the people who thought that Trudeau accused them of hate and racism collected their F Trudeau, Nazi and confederate flags, got into their pick up trucks to drive to Ottawa. On the way they picked up the rope to tie them into nooses and the protest was complete.
All three links you posted were referring to, or clipped from, the same single French tv interview from 2021.
Much was written about these same comments by political pundits, especially those whose views sit decidedly right of centre, like Rupa, Iveson, Western Standard, Toronto Sun, etc.
In 2021, Trudeau campaigned on getting people vaccinated, because it seemed like the best option we had; I suspect many politicians around the world did the same. It was a wedge issue everywhere, because there were a group of people who thought getting vaccinated was the worst thing anyone could do.
In 2023 these folks are still outraged…about something. Do I think the PM is responsible for their outrage? No. Do I think he sometimes opens his mouth and steps in it? Yes. Is Poilievre helping to calm the situation? Nope. Does any of this give the perpetually aggrieved a reason to yell and scream epithets at public events? Nope. They’re all adults, and I expect them to behave like adults.
Like so much of the pretendo ‘journalism’ by Partisan ‘conservatives’ - I’ve avoided much of the Septic Tank EchoChamber by simply ‘turning off & ignoring Rupa, Ivison, Don Martin, Bob Fife, Terry Glavin, Rex Murphy et al Inc. Yes I get plenty enough just by ‘Twitter Osmosis’.. The flatulent excrement churned out is as toxic as that of Ms Candice Bergen & the nonstop lies of Poilievre. ‘Yellow Journalism’ ain’t confined to Partisan MainStreamMedia, Partisan SocialMedia & EvangelicalReligiousDross. It’s my view that Pierre Poilievre & the CPC War Room, & the entire CPC Party of Stephen Harper & Ray Novak ‘Have Now Become Media’. Certainly we know Public Relations Entities are EMBEDDED within the CPC Party & Individual MP’s Offices. Misinformation & Disinformation are among the Classic Tactics of Propaganda.. as is Yellow Journalism.. Quelle Surprise eh ! This is very evident in Alberta via the Kenney design/built UCP Secrecy Machine that Danielle Smith, her TBA Parasitic coup d’état, Big Bitumen & Methane partners + Propaganda Pimps
The ‘misogyny’ quote’ is utter horseshit.. and nobody spewed & brayed it more than Bergen & Poilievre. Yes I have exceptional access to some of the finest professional translators in Canada - French to English & vice versa. Setting the ‘Context’ & accepting that the interviewer clearly & vocally prompted the actual sentence somehow got left out of the Absurd Fantasy version now endlessly mutating.
I think it's really, really, really unwise to think no one will rememebr these missteps in 2025.
The Liberals aren't on attack now because they own the House until late 2025 but once the writ is dropped they will use EVERYTHING Poilievre has said; the attack ads will go from the shack to drug addiction to how they made inflation better to just about anything and everything.
And Poilievre going "Trudeau! Trudau!" just won't resonate and the media will just keep going after him because...he's Conservative.
And when you are Conservative in Canada, you're treated with suspicion. And the longer the LPC remains in power (as it its rightful position) federally, the less CPC will gain traction.