Just so I'm clear, then, you're asserting Trudeau is a "left-wing politician who peddles outrageous lies, demonizes and caricaturizes...political opponents, insults allied countries, and — maybe worst of all — holds to a narcissistic world view that places [his] own goals and desires above objective reality."
I'd quibble with the notion Trudeau is "left-wing." Based on his record and policies, he's a neo-liberal. He does shade the truth, but the doesn't tell 'outrageous lies.' He doesn't demonize and caricaturize political opponents. He doesn't insult allied countries. And, I'm not aware of how, exactly, he "holds to a narcissistic world view that places their own goals and desires above objective reality." I'm not even sure what that means.
Nonetheless, I would be interested in hearing examples of these behaviors, if there are some.
Personally, I think Prime Minister Trudeau is a very weak, cowardly, and ineffectual Prime Minister, and a small 'c' conservative, but I also think he should be criticized for his actual failings, not ones for which there is scant or no evidence.
I think he very much does caricaturize and demonize opponents. It's 2021, 6 years after he beat him, and Trudeau still can't go 3 breaths without blaming Harper for something. He's also done a very good job of equating the Trump style of US politics with the Conservative Party. I think that fits the bill of the first sentence, though I'd mostly agree with you for the rest of the criteria
I would not share your view that reminding people about Harper's record is demonizing. There is a similarity between Trump-style politics and the Conservative Party. Both rely heavily on dividing people and misinformation.
I think you're only seeing it through one lens. "Trump-style" cuts both ways, and I would say both of our major political parties are guilty of using the tactics.
That's demonstrably not true. While both major parties have a less than pristine relationship with truth, it's the Conservatives who depend on overt lying, disinformation, and misinformation. It's not only a feature of Canadian conservative parties, it's also true for the US, the UK, and other countries. There's no equivalency between "Conservative" messaging and "Liberal" messaging.
His failings and narcissistic behaviour abound. Numerous scandals, virtue signalling to destroy our ethical resource sector, wanton spending with direction to fiscal balance and we haven’t seen a budget in two years. Need more?
"ethical resource sector" Do you mean because it's energy produced in a democracy rather than, say, China? Well okay, but by others measures, there are ethical lapses. This is the same sector that left abandoned well cleanup in Alberta to taxpayers, practiced climate denialism for decades, and fought regulation every step of the way, only now to never shut up about how clean and ethical it all is but maybe only because a sound business model demands it. Gotta' remember the history here.
What was and what is are two separate things. We need to focus on what is happening today and where we want to be in the future. Canadian resources can be part of a transition to a greener future. Chine planning to open 60 more coal fired plants in the next two years is a problem we can help to mitigate. China releases as much GHG in a week as Canada does in 18 months.... History will teach us nothing and yes, our industry wasn't always a leader but it is now.
Yes, I would need more. None of the criticisms you have are what the article was about. That's my quibble. Trudeau is not a narcissist, like Donald Trump. Obliquely, you've answered my query. None of the 'celebrity' criticisms in the article apply to Trudeau.
By the way, I could compile a better and longer list of Trudeau's failures than you have. And, for the record, there's no such thing as an 'ethical' resource sector.
You’re clueless. Our resources are ethical and civilized countries can’t live without them. The fact we import conflict oil should be reason enough to develop our industry but we do it better, safer and cleaner than anyone. Better think hard about how your phone and computer aren’t made from hemp. Way too black and white in your world apparently which is wholly impractical. You going to power the internet with biomass? Do some reading.
You're make a false claim when you assert I am 'clueless.' I have the certificates and degrees to prove it.
Canadian resources are massively contributing to the climate emergency, and the policies of federal and provincial governments is to continue doing so. That's not ethical. Producing highly polluting oil 'cleaner' than others is not a accomplishment. The issue is the burning of the oil. I'm surprised you don't seem to be aware of that.
Everyone, I suggest, who's concerned about the climate emergency, knows very well where the products they're able to buy come from and how they're made. To suggest otherwise, means either you're misinformed or misleading people.
I note you've had to resort to denigrating people and sarcasm. That's good evidence you're having difficulty supporting your opinions with sound facts. That's not surprising. Your views are not well-considered.
I've always struggled with the oil industry being touted as the ones who lack ethics, while those who benefit from the industry via consumption have no problem turning a blind eye to their own hypocrisy.
That aside, if we assume that oil and gas consumption is going to remain relatively constant for the next 20 years, how do you propose Canada proceeds? Stopping production of our own resources won't change the usage of the fuel, it will just redistribute it to actors with far less environmental standards than ours. In the end, the environment suffers, and we lose a chance to lead the change.
Your myopic vision of the “emergency” is laughable. Canada is less than 2% of GHG’s and you’d rather China continue to build coal fired power and import dirtier oil than ours. You’d rather we import dirty conflict oil than develop our economy responsibly. That is clueless. We can’t live without energy. Until small scale nuclear and hydrogen fill the void, we should be using our own product.
Some good points here but I take issue with the author's implied distinction between celebrity and politician. Another view might be that a politician is someone with a very similar skillset (great communicator with an ability to attract and retain followers) to an actor. One just opted to run for elected office as opposed to working in media. I don't believe most of our elected officials (still mostly lawyers) have any great knowledge of, or insight into, the important issues of our time. I remember when I asked a colleague of mine in government (ADM-ish level) what made a good cabinet minister. He told me the ones who read their briefing books were usually better than the ones who "winged it".
I'd be interested in knowing who the "left wing politicians" are whom you were thinking of when you wrote "aren’t there left-wing politicians like this already today?" By "like this," I take you to mean, "left-wing politician who peddles outrageous lies, demonizes and caricaturizes their political opponents, insults allied countries, and — maybe worst of all — holds to a narcissistic world view that places their own goals and desires above objective reality."
Not at the level of Donald Trump but much the same via twitter
15 years ago, I co-led a team trying to give 100% free Internet access to all of San Francisco starting with the poorest neighborhoods first. The network would be anonymous, with no ads, no cookies, etc. Approximately a $20-25 million gift. The result? We were chased out of town.
Just so I'm clear, are you making the explicit claim that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez "peddles outrageous lies, demonizes and caricaturizes their political opponents, insults allied countries, and — maybe worst of all — holds to a narcissistic world view that places their own goals and desires above objective reality."
If so, what are lies, who has she demonized and caricaturized, what allied countries has she insulted? What are AOC's goals and desires she puts above objective reality?
Is it unreasonable of me to ask you to support your claims?
Is there some reason, I'm not aware of, why the author of the article, Daniel Tencer and now you seem unable or unwilling to actually name these politicians?
I think Daniel's reason is that it doesn't matter; his point was logically sound and getting into the waters of argument over who fits which bill would likely have been an unnecessary distraction in the article. He didn't even need the throw-away sentence that twigged your comment, but it is a quaint and acceptable writerly trope that he put it in there. For my part, I figured the reference to Trudeau was obvious and didn't require explanation, so I was cheekily not offering the name. I am aware that not everyone shares this view (is there any view that everybody shares?), but still the view is not unique (anymore) so the reference seemed obvious to me. For the record, I am not terribly inclined to relive conversations I have had about him and his approach since 2013 with those who take his side in all things (and, therefore, sometimes without rational justification), but am replying just to confirm that is the Canadian politician I was thinking of.
If Daniel Tencer's point about "left wing politicians" was logically sound, I'm sure he must have many examples to support his point. Am I asking too much to know who they are?
That is for him to answer for himself. For my part, I did not say that you were. It being not too much, however, would not make it, or any answer to it, necessary. We'll have to wait and see if Daniel will be happy to share who he might have had in mind.
Great read. You’re right, we do have a politician like this already and his name is Trudeau.
Just so I'm clear, then, you're asserting Trudeau is a "left-wing politician who peddles outrageous lies, demonizes and caricaturizes...political opponents, insults allied countries, and — maybe worst of all — holds to a narcissistic world view that places [his] own goals and desires above objective reality."
I'd quibble with the notion Trudeau is "left-wing." Based on his record and policies, he's a neo-liberal. He does shade the truth, but the doesn't tell 'outrageous lies.' He doesn't demonize and caricaturize political opponents. He doesn't insult allied countries. And, I'm not aware of how, exactly, he "holds to a narcissistic world view that places their own goals and desires above objective reality." I'm not even sure what that means.
Nonetheless, I would be interested in hearing examples of these behaviors, if there are some.
Personally, I think Prime Minister Trudeau is a very weak, cowardly, and ineffectual Prime Minister, and a small 'c' conservative, but I also think he should be criticized for his actual failings, not ones for which there is scant or no evidence.
I think he very much does caricaturize and demonize opponents. It's 2021, 6 years after he beat him, and Trudeau still can't go 3 breaths without blaming Harper for something. He's also done a very good job of equating the Trump style of US politics with the Conservative Party. I think that fits the bill of the first sentence, though I'd mostly agree with you for the rest of the criteria
I would not share your view that reminding people about Harper's record is demonizing. There is a similarity between Trump-style politics and the Conservative Party. Both rely heavily on dividing people and misinformation.
I think you're only seeing it through one lens. "Trump-style" cuts both ways, and I would say both of our major political parties are guilty of using the tactics.
That's demonstrably not true. While both major parties have a less than pristine relationship with truth, it's the Conservatives who depend on overt lying, disinformation, and misinformation. It's not only a feature of Canadian conservative parties, it's also true for the US, the UK, and other countries. There's no equivalency between "Conservative" messaging and "Liberal" messaging.
Please, the Liberals label and divide more than anyone and they hide behind vacuous virtue signaling to do it.
His failings and narcissistic behaviour abound. Numerous scandals, virtue signalling to destroy our ethical resource sector, wanton spending with direction to fiscal balance and we haven’t seen a budget in two years. Need more?
"ethical resource sector" Do you mean because it's energy produced in a democracy rather than, say, China? Well okay, but by others measures, there are ethical lapses. This is the same sector that left abandoned well cleanup in Alberta to taxpayers, practiced climate denialism for decades, and fought regulation every step of the way, only now to never shut up about how clean and ethical it all is but maybe only because a sound business model demands it. Gotta' remember the history here.
What was and what is are two separate things. We need to focus on what is happening today and where we want to be in the future. Canadian resources can be part of a transition to a greener future. Chine planning to open 60 more coal fired plants in the next two years is a problem we can help to mitigate. China releases as much GHG in a week as Canada does in 18 months.... History will teach us nothing and yes, our industry wasn't always a leader but it is now.
agreed
Yes, I would need more. None of the criticisms you have are what the article was about. That's my quibble. Trudeau is not a narcissist, like Donald Trump. Obliquely, you've answered my query. None of the 'celebrity' criticisms in the article apply to Trudeau.
By the way, I could compile a better and longer list of Trudeau's failures than you have. And, for the record, there's no such thing as an 'ethical' resource sector.
You’re clueless. Our resources are ethical and civilized countries can’t live without them. The fact we import conflict oil should be reason enough to develop our industry but we do it better, safer and cleaner than anyone. Better think hard about how your phone and computer aren’t made from hemp. Way too black and white in your world apparently which is wholly impractical. You going to power the internet with biomass? Do some reading.
You're make a false claim when you assert I am 'clueless.' I have the certificates and degrees to prove it.
Canadian resources are massively contributing to the climate emergency, and the policies of federal and provincial governments is to continue doing so. That's not ethical. Producing highly polluting oil 'cleaner' than others is not a accomplishment. The issue is the burning of the oil. I'm surprised you don't seem to be aware of that.
Everyone, I suggest, who's concerned about the climate emergency, knows very well where the products they're able to buy come from and how they're made. To suggest otherwise, means either you're misinformed or misleading people.
I note you've had to resort to denigrating people and sarcasm. That's good evidence you're having difficulty supporting your opinions with sound facts. That's not surprising. Your views are not well-considered.
I've always struggled with the oil industry being touted as the ones who lack ethics, while those who benefit from the industry via consumption have no problem turning a blind eye to their own hypocrisy.
That aside, if we assume that oil and gas consumption is going to remain relatively constant for the next 20 years, how do you propose Canada proceeds? Stopping production of our own resources won't change the usage of the fuel, it will just redistribute it to actors with far less environmental standards than ours. In the end, the environment suffers, and we lose a chance to lead the change.
Your myopic vision of the “emergency” is laughable. Canada is less than 2% of GHG’s and you’d rather China continue to build coal fired power and import dirtier oil than ours. You’d rather we import dirty conflict oil than develop our economy responsibly. That is clueless. We can’t live without energy. Until small scale nuclear and hydrogen fill the void, we should be using our own product.
This line showed up in my email preview
Our civilization has made a huge mistake confusing famous people for important ones
Brilliant summation!
Some good points here but I take issue with the author's implied distinction between celebrity and politician. Another view might be that a politician is someone with a very similar skillset (great communicator with an ability to attract and retain followers) to an actor. One just opted to run for elected office as opposed to working in media. I don't believe most of our elected officials (still mostly lawyers) have any great knowledge of, or insight into, the important issues of our time. I remember when I asked a colleague of mine in government (ADM-ish level) what made a good cabinet minister. He told me the ones who read their briefing books were usually better than the ones who "winged it".
It was Lady Diana Spencer not Diana Fraser, no?
I'd be interested in knowing who the "left wing politicians" are whom you were thinking of when you wrote "aren’t there left-wing politicians like this already today?" By "like this," I take you to mean, "left-wing politician who peddles outrageous lies, demonizes and caricaturizes their political opponents, insults allied countries, and — maybe worst of all — holds to a narcissistic world view that places their own goals and desires above objective reality."
So, who are these "left wing politicians?"
His name is Justin Trudeau.
Xi Jinping and , much earlier, Vladimir Lenin come to mind...
Not at the level of Donald Trump but much the same via twitter
15 years ago, I co-led a team trying to give 100% free Internet access to all of San Francisco starting with the poorest neighborhoods first. The network would be anonymous, with no ads, no cookies, etc. Approximately a $20-25 million gift. The result? We were chased out of town.
https://twitter.com/sacca/status/1375962440303661057?s=20
US's AOC would be one that comes to mind.
Just so I'm clear, are you making the explicit claim that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez "peddles outrageous lies, demonizes and caricaturizes their political opponents, insults allied countries, and — maybe worst of all — holds to a narcissistic world view that places their own goals and desires above objective reality."
If so, what are lies, who has she demonized and caricaturized, what allied countries has she insulted? What are AOC's goals and desires she puts above objective reality?
Is it unreasonable of me to ask you to support your claims?
Don't care. Have a nice day.
I'm wondering if you've watched that famous Monty Python sketch and thought to yourself, "But, he's right, that *is* an argument!" ;)
I can think of one prominent Canadian politician who fits this description.
Is there some reason, I'm not aware of, why the author of the article, Daniel Tencer and now you seem unable or unwilling to actually name these politicians?
I think Daniel's reason is that it doesn't matter; his point was logically sound and getting into the waters of argument over who fits which bill would likely have been an unnecessary distraction in the article. He didn't even need the throw-away sentence that twigged your comment, but it is a quaint and acceptable writerly trope that he put it in there. For my part, I figured the reference to Trudeau was obvious and didn't require explanation, so I was cheekily not offering the name. I am aware that not everyone shares this view (is there any view that everybody shares?), but still the view is not unique (anymore) so the reference seemed obvious to me. For the record, I am not terribly inclined to relive conversations I have had about him and his approach since 2013 with those who take his side in all things (and, therefore, sometimes without rational justification), but am replying just to confirm that is the Canadian politician I was thinking of.
If Daniel Tencer's point about "left wing politicians" was logically sound, I'm sure he must have many examples to support his point. Am I asking too much to know who they are?
That is for him to answer for himself. For my part, I did not say that you were. It being not too much, however, would not make it, or any answer to it, necessary. We'll have to wait and see if Daniel will be happy to share who he might have had in mind.