Trudeau and rival clash over Twitter labeling CBC 'government funded' The Star

[applegrove]

Trudeau and rival clash over Twitter labeling CBC 'government funded' | The Star

>Poilievre, who took over the party last year and is campaigning to defund the CBC, celebrated the decision, saying on Twitter that "now people know that it is Trudeau propaganda, not news". https://www.thestar.com.my/news/world/2023/04/18/trudeau-and-rival-clash-over-twitter-labeling-cbc-039government-funded039 #nomoa #cdnpoli #canpoli #Canada

Mastodon

Applegrove:

Poilievre will rue the day he got Musk to label the cbc as government. It will make his plan to defund the CBC real to most Canadians.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. Trudeau needs to slam Poilievre with 5 words or similar to every question

Next time Poilievre asks a stupid question or as a premise to a question states a stupid talking point like "now people know that it is Trudeau propaganda, not news" ...

Trudeau should, stand up, patiently wait for the House to subside and get quiet, and then answer "Mr. Speaker, CBC is not Trudeau propaganda" and sit down.

Cons would get into an absolute uproar shouting and looking like some kind of Monty Python idiots, or worse, looking like Empty Greene and Boebert. Let them carry on their antics as long as it takes the Speaker to get in control.

Then Poilievre will re-ask the same or a similar question. Do the same thing, wait for quiet, then "Mr. Speaker, CBC is not a subsidiary of George Soros" and sit down. Keep doing it until asked civil questions.

Most CON questions will be phrased as repackaged conspiracy theories or watered down magat points or like "Have you stopped beating your wife yet". Bergen did it. Much more so under Poilievre now that he defeated the more honourable O'Toole wing of his party. So play it straight and knock down the premise in as few words as possible.

The technique is to apply negative reinforcement to nonsense and respond positively to proper questions. That negative reinforcement will drive the Cons ape-shit and they will look even more stupid. It's a corollary of your comment getting more Con con-game nonsense identified as such for the Canadian public.



Another point is Poilievre is pretending the CBC doesn't play music.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

4. A NPR moment for CBC! ...quit the blue bird of birdshit! ...one man's stupid opinion in the ether!?

[Bev54]

7. Has something changed?

"Cons would get into an absolute uproar shouting and looking like some kind of Monty Python idiots, or worse, looking like Empty Greene and Boebert."

Isn't that every question period?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. It kinda is, so amp it up. Goad them into making idiotic mistakes foaming at the mouth at Trudeau

Imagine if Trudeau was waiting for the Cons to quiet down and said "When you are ready, children". Envision the exploding heads and apoplectic fits.

Then later, when he would inevitably be asked, "Weren't you disrespectful of the Opposition?" he could say "Yes I was." "But why Prime Minister?" "They asked a childish question and I answered it straight up the middle."

[Bev54]

13. Trudeau is very good at handling them and the press.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. Generally, and his speaking has gotten less stilted over the years. . . . nt

[rurallib]

2. I hope our Canadian friends can see through this fraud

they saw what his inspiration did to the US. It is scary to watch from the US and see that Pollievre is even the head of a party.

[applegrove]

3. I think Canadians will not like him when he campaigns for PM. Plus

the vast majority are left center-left in Canada. It is just that it is split between 3 parties.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

5. If any extremist RW leader thinks they can win the PMO...cray! I predict he finishes third!

The Canadian media landscape is NOT corrupted by a RW fox’s shit spreading media virus.

And there is the matter of the shield of robust hate speech laws that do not infringe on anyone’s freedom of speech…so says not me, says federal Supreme Court.

Oh, and an actual independent judiciary top to bottom, where the public still has faith in the administration of Justice. It’s all true!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. But then again, there is the "Liberal media"

[Alexander Of Assyria]

10. Who's the author? @SkepticRod??...and why is Rods opinion important? Or accurate?

The graphic is as wrong as amusing.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. Data show you are flat out wrong and falling into Fallacy of Authority (in reverse)

You are so wrong about the data that you can't attack it factually, so you attack the graphic painter by saying the painter is not an Authority. News flash: the graphic painter doesn't have to be an authority.

Of course, you didn't look at the data.

You take issue with data the Wikipedia articles? You didn't even look. Go look. You can do it, are able to do it. Copy the links by typing. I looked at 2011. Do it. You will see just how wrong you are.



What a cheap tactic to attack the painter.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

15. What data? The graphic is one persons opinion in the form of a graph.

What is the definition of conservative, and how did the graphic artist assign Winnipeg free press as conservative, cause that’s cray?! Believe me, cray conclusion right there!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. It is not "one person's opinion". It is based on many facts. What the hell fact do you dispute?

Do you dispute those are Canadian newspapers?

Do you dispute that they made those endorsements?

Do you dispute that they are basically the main newspapers in the country?

Or do you dispute all of the above?

What are your facts for your contention?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. Oh, I see, you misread and miscomprehend what seemed obvious to me.

Do you know what the word "endorsement" means? Look it up. And then look at the Wikipedia references. Notice the word "endorsement" in the references.

Notice the third word in the title of the graphic?


Now, understand that "endorsement" does not equate to one single graphic artist "assigning" paper X as conservative.

It's not subjective whether or not they endorsed the Conservative party. It's a fact that they did or not.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. What part of the fact this link shows Winnipeg Free Press endorsed Conservatives do you not?

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/editorials/2011/04/30/canada-needs-four-years-of-stability

Canada needs political stability to grow its economy and sort out its affairs, particularly its finances and soaring health-care costs. The most certain way Canada will get the stability and policies it needs now is by electing a majority Conservative government on Monday.

What part of "majority Conservative government" do you not understand? Did the word "needs" throw you?

It is not subjective that this is an endorsement.

It is a fact.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

19. One column from who? 12 years ago in an entirely different election is not data.

Present fed cons are NOT supported by Free Press, of this no doubt.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. You are not a serious person. You deny endorsement by Editorial board of the paper is endorsement.

Read it again, carefully this time.

You are not a serious person. I think I am done with your nonsense.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

21. Really? Thanks then! Canada media is not American media, it's is far more liberal and factual.

[canuckledragger]

11. I saw through him a long time ago.

And there's no way I'm letting that lying shyster put my pension into Bitcoin.

Call me when the cons AREN'T lying, projecting and attacking their political opponents over made up things.

[Bev54]

23. But but but, he is an expert, he watched a Youtube video on it.

[Bev54]

6. I hope Poilievre rues the day he ran for leadership. He is a snake.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

22. Canadians recognize snakes, Americans let them slither into power. No hate speech laws.