The Greens shouldn’t be in the debate either. Their level of support doesn’t justify it, they’ve shown no ability to grow their national support over several elections, and they’re currently in the middle of a bizarre fight where their national executive is trying to oust their own leader.
I don't know why anybody cares about the "debates". They aren't debates; they are collaborative infomercials. I attended the 2019 debate in Gatineau in hopes of determining whom I might vote for. It was a surreal waste of my time.
First it was announced that the questioners were not selected because of their talent, but because of they met the Leaders' Debate Commission's gynaecological requirements within 5 days after the announcement of the election (just in case Rex Murphy was considering pulling a Jenner to qualify).
Next, the answers were forced to be timed short answers with a large digital countdown like a continuous round of final Jeopardy. I appreciate the contemporary Youtube business model aimed at Twittered attention spans, but their scripted short answers didn't come with an option to skip the ads and I didn't have a paid subscription.
Then the only person on stage to lose track of how many times he's worn black face called Maxine Bernier a racist for his suggestions for adjusting immigration levels and thought-policed Andrew Sheer as a racist for ideas he undoubtedly had but never said out loud.
The icing on the cake was Elizabeth May finger-wagging at Yves-Francois Blanchet for les Québécois having the Gaul to judge people based on race, ethnicity, and what they look like via Bill 21 -- which was a provincial bill, but all Quebeckers are the same to May -- and, oh yes, all of you white people have white privilege, you bastards.
The only things I learned were that Blanchet was a funny guy, that he wasn't one of the ushers, and that I couldn't vote for him as an Ontarian. Not that I wanted to.
I witnessed more obtuse behaviour at that event than could be inscribed in a heptogon.
No thank you this time. I'd read their platforms, but what political party every lived up to their pre-election platform? I think I'll just vote based on which leader acts the most professionally and least like a schoolyard bully. At least I know what to do with bullies, even the ones that are invited by the cool kids to come to the party. I have to wash my hair that night anyway.
I am a firm believer that you shouldn't try and hide stupid and/or hate speech, and allow it to fester under a rock, instead always expose it to the clear light of day. This will allow everyone to see it what it is.
Sorry, I have no idea, I was only running on the riff that Singh had said about hate speech. I pay about as much attention to the PPC as I do to the Marxist-Leninist Party.
That’s quite a comparison! Are those two parties equivalent?? I think it’s tough to compare: ‘Worker’s Paradise after the dictatorship of the Proletariat’ to ‘ smaller government, less spending and more provincial and municipal autonomy and responsibility’. Maybe there are similarities I’m not seeing?
The debate should only have 3 leaders involved, Cons, Libs, and NDP. Every single debate over the last several elections has been marred with insignificant leaders talking over the people that most Canadian want and need to hear speak. Elizabeth May did great things for her party, but she sure knew how to ruin a debate.
I agree with the author that the Greens shouldn't be allowed, but I don't see why PPC should be either. Make the rules consistent, and stick by them.
Being neither a supporter of the Greens or PPC there is a huge difference between the two regardless of the discord the Greens find themselves in. The committee set down the rules with a pretty low bar for parties without incumbents to gain access to the debates. By Jamie's own admission his party did not reach that bar while the Greens easily clear the first two.
The rest of the post comes across as finger pointing and a bit of sour grapes.
I have no dog in this hunt, if the PPC are allowed on the stage their ideas as they've articulated them should ensure another fruitless election, but if you can't consistently make 4% after an election where your party received less than 300,000 votes and your leader couldn't hold onto his own seat then perhaps it's not the debate commission out to get you.
I think you may have missed the point: the rules for Debates Commission changes every election cycle based on the committee's whims. This could be (and certainly is) a great method for keeping newer start-up parties from ever joining the debates. I thought we were a nation that valued plurality and diversity rather than keep the little guy down?
The Green Party is a joke party on par with the Rhinoceros Party -- certainly their platform ambitions seem equally as likely. Yet, because MPs from the Green Party have been elected in the past by Canadians who like the colour green (certainly this is the highest level of deliberation and thought that I've seen with a Green Party voter) the Green Party is perpetually invited to the debates to act as Joker/Wildcard.
Please stop giving blatant partisans a platform. the MSM and the punditry shows do enough of this. I appreciate the variety of voices that The Line usually has but active party membership or overtly shilling for one party over the next really shouldn't be the focus here. Just my two cents (or $5 per month as it where)
We can't and won't promise that — partisan activity or affiliation is not, and here, never will be, an instant disqualifier. This piece was thoughtful, well-argued and timely, and the author's partisan affiliation was properly disclosed. Your Line editors are most decidedly NOT PPC partisans, and we agreed with this take, and that's why we ran it. No regrets. Thank you for your support, and we do hope you stick around ... but we won't lie to you to keep you. (Deleted and reposted to correct typo.)
As an aside I expect the PPC party support to evaporate as voters go to the polls, especially as there is a real chance of the Conservatives getting elected. I know I changed my vote (non resident voter). Personally I'd like to see a few PPC MPs elected.
I suppose it was just more we have to left wing parties, we should have two right wing parties (note the word right wing is becoming a slur now in the same way the right made liberal a negative) but having watched the PPC closer I'm not so sure
The party started because of the leader's victimhood. He got beat for leadership of the Conservatives and then pouted his way into starting a new party.
Bernier got 49% of the leadership vote— he wasn’t exactly demolished. You could say Bernier lost his job with the CPC. We can argue endlessly about whether he was fired or he quit. He then found another job (more like started his own business). Is this how a victim acts? Where is the victimhood?
I’ve asked once already for examples of ‘meanness’ or ‘hatefulness’ from the PPC and I’m still waiting for specific examples. I would think since many people feel this way it would be easy to list examples. Do you have any I can look at?
You have Google, right? It’s hateful to embrace anti immigrant sentiments. It’s hateful to pose with hate groups. Figure it out for yourself. The guy is a dime store populist.
I think it’s safe to assume that you have nothing at this point.
Wanting the immigration quota to be lower is now anti-immigrant sentiment? I’m an immigrant so that’s news to me. So the number of immigrants the PPC want is hateful? What is the proper safe number to not be considered anti immigrant? I also believe that too much ice cream can be detrimental to me; I wasn’t aware I had anti-ice cream sentiment.
‘It’s hateful to pose with hate groups.’ —I’m sorry but this sounds like a sentence a child would write, akin to ‘you’re hateful because you hate things’ It’s a tautology— perhaps a word you yourself ‘can Google’.
A populist is someone who tries to appeal to a broad base of people, sometimes referred to as a democracy. I guess you would prefer an aristocracy?
I'm concerned more than that the PPC will use their exclusion as a tool to garner further support. I'm overly interested in who is at the debates, personally I find them hard to watch, and they have little impact on my opinion. The impact of the debates on voting or opinion poll would have been an nice piece of data to include with the article.
If anyone in the PPC had a clue, they would realize that having the Greens in the debate is a good thing for those that want a chance that the Liberals will be voted out of government. Members of the PPC may mean well and be honest and earnest in their beliefs, but they clearly all failed at mathematics. The PPC's very existence cuts the throat of their nearest ideological cousins, the Conservative Party, taking votes away from them and essentially handing them to the Liberals in general, the NDP in some ridings, and the Liberals or the Bloc in Quebec. Rational left leaning political party operatives who did not fail mathematics should be (and likely are) quietly cheering on and financially supporting the continued existence of the PPC to undermine the Conservative Party vote. Conservatives should learn from this, and quietly prop up NDP and Green candidates in ridings where they are competitive with the Liberals, and attempt to sneak up the middle of vote splits on the left in these ridings. They won't, because they, like their PPC cousins, also apparently failed at mathematics and/or seem content to lose to the Liberals yet again. Understanding vote splitting in the Canadian electorate on a riding by riding basis should be lesson #1 for political operatives in all parties.
Thank you. I seem to be the only person who read Maxime Bernier's piece in the National Post that he wrote when he announced the formation of his party. He declared that he was a proponent and supporter of Public Choice Theory. I've never heard him asked about that. I wouldn't know what it was if I hadn't read the book "Democracy in Chains" by Prof. Nancy Maclean. PCT is an economic theory developed by the Nobel Laureate economist James Buchanan with the support of the Koch brothers. It states that the problem with democracy is that it enables the majority to bully minorities. The minority that they worry about is that small group of helpless people known as the ultra-rich. These wretched victims are FORCED to pay taxes for things they don't need. The solution to this horrific situation is to reduce democracy so that the ultra-rich have a much bigger voice and can protect themselves from persecution. They knew this would not be a big vote-getter so stealth measures would be necessary. It's working out well for them in the USA with Citizen's United and the flurry of new voter suppression laws.
As I said, I've never heard Bernier questioned on this. A poorly briefed Wendy Mesley went at him about his connections to the Koch brothers but he easily deflected her because he may have no direct dealings with them. I suspect that most People's Party supporters have no idea about any of this either. Max intends to turn (more) power over to the ultra-rich and, I can only surmise, pocket a little something for himself.
So let me get this straight: the guy who hates and wants to undermine democracy has endeavored to start his own political party where his ultimate goal will be to win broad electoral support across our country before his party can implement a single policy. He wants to undermine democracy by wholly participating in it and by encouraging as many Canadians as possible to freely vote for his party. I couldn't imagine a more difficult and time consuming way of gaining dictatorial powers. Bernier wants to decentralize federal power and allow for provinces and municipalities to have more freedoms and responsibilities. The tyrant!
Here is an excerpt from Bernier's own words that you mention:
'As I said when I resigned, I have come to the conclusion that the Conservative party cannot be reformed and that if I want to do politics differently, I need to do it elsewhere.
How do I plan to do this? By systematically reversing the dynamic described by public choice theory. That is, by taking positions based on principles I believe in and that accord with what I think is the public interest; and by resisting pressure from interest groups seeking favours, despite the short-term political cost.'
Then at the end of the article he says:
'I know many Canadians are fed up with the traditional way of doing politics. We’ll see if enough of them are ready to follow me.'
Does this sound like a tyrant?
Our current Prime Minister literally said that he 'admires China's basic dictatorship'. You'd think this would make people quake in their boots more so than a guy saying he wants your vote because there are too many special interests in politics.
Trudeau is the model for a politician dishing financial and political kickbacks to the rich elite, and subverting the democratic process as much as possible. But he's fine -- I should be worried about the guy starting his own political party polling at (allegedly) fewer than 4%. Ok then ....
I'm not saying that Bernier is a would-be tyrant or we have any reason to be afraid of him but I am saying it's odd (more likely sloppy and lazy journalism) that no one questioned him on his philosophy. I suspect Max is none too bright but the fact that he's fielded so many candidates is impressive. I wonder who is actually doing the work.
Also Trudeau did NOT say that he admired China's dictatorship. That was a quote that was taken out of context and right-wingers jumped on it because they thought it proved he was a commie. LOL. I believe the topic was global warming and Trudeau said something to the effect that we can't order our economy to turn on a dime like the CCP can. Why read the whole sentence when you can grab a phrase and make a bat out of it.
I agree that it was weak journalism (if we even have real journalists anymore) that is partially responsible for the media completely ignoring Bernier and his party. I think it’s important to ask — why would they ignore him with a media blackout? Surely the best way to discredit an ‘extremist’ party is to show them for all to see. Perhaps they are afraid he will have more support than they’re ready for.
I think yours is a very charitable interpretation of Trudeau’s words on China. I’d be curious to see if you’d offer the same charity for your political opponents. My interpretation of his words is: Trudeau laments the fact that Canada is not a dictatorship where he can simply turn around its economy on his whim. Instead, he’ll have to rely on extreme political and financial coercion. I find this side of Trudeau reprehensible and more dangerous than anything about Bernier.
The biggest reason the media ignore the PPC is that they don't have a chance virtually anywhere and the media love a horse race. If a race heats up I predict there will be some actual coverage.
I'm not being charitable to Trudeau. That's what he said. It bothers me when people deliberately take things out of context and make a noise with it. It's dishonest and not helpful. It's like Obama and his "you didn't build that." He uncharacteristically stumbled when he said that and broke the sentence up and the piggies pounced on the second half of it. "They" didn't build that. The big 4 major sports leagues in the US are net welfare cases when you figure in all the tax-payer subsidies they get.
I try to be charitable with my opponents. In fact, Trudeau is often an opponent for me. I gave up on "Sunny Ways" after he caved on electoral reform. At least he got the government out of my stash box. ;)
I see your point about the media covering what they believe will drive ratings. But in terms of political support it’s circular reasoning. I could argue (and Bernier does) that the PPC has such low support because no big media is covering them. How are they meant to gain support with a media blackout?
I guess I’m still an old dreamer by believing that media should keep us informed about the political options out there, instead of catering to parties they know will fund them with our money (looking at you CBC).
By your stash box you mean cannabis?
Hah, what do you mean he got government out of your stash box? Legalizing marijuana is the ultimate government intervention. It’s now heavily taxed and regulated. Government calls the shots and takes a big chunk out of every dollar you spend on weed, only making it more expensive for you. Are you sure government isn’t deeper in your stash box than every before? ;)
I was attempting to respond to the thread as a whole but I could flip my response over to J Rock, certainly. Yes I would like to see examples of your claim. I had assumed you meant the National Post article written by Bernier himself from which I've quoted as well, but if there are more, please share.
The Greens shouldn’t be in the debate either. Their level of support doesn’t justify it, they’ve shown no ability to grow their national support over several elections, and they’re currently in the middle of a bizarre fight where their national executive is trying to oust their own leader.
I don't know why anybody cares about the "debates". They aren't debates; they are collaborative infomercials. I attended the 2019 debate in Gatineau in hopes of determining whom I might vote for. It was a surreal waste of my time.
First it was announced that the questioners were not selected because of their talent, but because of they met the Leaders' Debate Commission's gynaecological requirements within 5 days after the announcement of the election (just in case Rex Murphy was considering pulling a Jenner to qualify).
Next, the answers were forced to be timed short answers with a large digital countdown like a continuous round of final Jeopardy. I appreciate the contemporary Youtube business model aimed at Twittered attention spans, but their scripted short answers didn't come with an option to skip the ads and I didn't have a paid subscription.
Then the only person on stage to lose track of how many times he's worn black face called Maxine Bernier a racist for his suggestions for adjusting immigration levels and thought-policed Andrew Sheer as a racist for ideas he undoubtedly had but never said out loud.
The icing on the cake was Elizabeth May finger-wagging at Yves-Francois Blanchet for les Québécois having the Gaul to judge people based on race, ethnicity, and what they look like via Bill 21 -- which was a provincial bill, but all Quebeckers are the same to May -- and, oh yes, all of you white people have white privilege, you bastards.
The only things I learned were that Blanchet was a funny guy, that he wasn't one of the ushers, and that I couldn't vote for him as an Ontarian. Not that I wanted to.
I witnessed more obtuse behaviour at that event than could be inscribed in a heptogon.
No thank you this time. I'd read their platforms, but what political party every lived up to their pre-election platform? I think I'll just vote based on which leader acts the most professionally and least like a schoolyard bully. At least I know what to do with bullies, even the ones that are invited by the cool kids to come to the party. I have to wash my hair that night anyway.
I am a firm believer that you shouldn't try and hide stupid and/or hate speech, and allow it to fester under a rock, instead always expose it to the clear light of day. This will allow everyone to see it what it is.
I agree with this. However I would like to know what Bernier or his official platform have said that is 'hateful' ?
Sorry, I have no idea, I was only running on the riff that Singh had said about hate speech. I pay about as much attention to the PPC as I do to the Marxist-Leninist Party.
That’s quite a comparison! Are those two parties equivalent?? I think it’s tough to compare: ‘Worker’s Paradise after the dictatorship of the Proletariat’ to ‘ smaller government, less spending and more provincial and municipal autonomy and responsibility’. Maybe there are similarities I’m not seeing?
2 fringe parties that are not going to win a seat, I would say they are pretty much not worth my time.
The debate should only have 3 leaders involved, Cons, Libs, and NDP. Every single debate over the last several elections has been marred with insignificant leaders talking over the people that most Canadian want and need to hear speak. Elizabeth May did great things for her party, but she sure knew how to ruin a debate.
I agree with the author that the Greens shouldn't be allowed, but I don't see why PPC should be either. Make the rules consistent, and stick by them.
Being neither a supporter of the Greens or PPC there is a huge difference between the two regardless of the discord the Greens find themselves in. The committee set down the rules with a pretty low bar for parties without incumbents to gain access to the debates. By Jamie's own admission his party did not reach that bar while the Greens easily clear the first two.
The rest of the post comes across as finger pointing and a bit of sour grapes.
I have no dog in this hunt, if the PPC are allowed on the stage their ideas as they've articulated them should ensure another fruitless election, but if you can't consistently make 4% after an election where your party received less than 300,000 votes and your leader couldn't hold onto his own seat then perhaps it's not the debate commission out to get you.
I think you may have missed the point: the rules for Debates Commission changes every election cycle based on the committee's whims. This could be (and certainly is) a great method for keeping newer start-up parties from ever joining the debates. I thought we were a nation that valued plurality and diversity rather than keep the little guy down?
The Green Party is a joke party on par with the Rhinoceros Party -- certainly their platform ambitions seem equally as likely. Yet, because MPs from the Green Party have been elected in the past by Canadians who like the colour green (certainly this is the highest level of deliberation and thought that I've seen with a Green Party voter) the Green Party is perpetually invited to the debates to act as Joker/Wildcard.
Please stop giving blatant partisans a platform. the MSM and the punditry shows do enough of this. I appreciate the variety of voices that The Line usually has but active party membership or overtly shilling for one party over the next really shouldn't be the focus here. Just my two cents (or $5 per month as it where)
We can't and won't promise that — partisan activity or affiliation is not, and here, never will be, an instant disqualifier. This piece was thoughtful, well-argued and timely, and the author's partisan affiliation was properly disclosed. Your Line editors are most decidedly NOT PPC partisans, and we agreed with this take, and that's why we ran it. No regrets. Thank you for your support, and we do hope you stick around ... but we won't lie to you to keep you. (Deleted and reposted to correct typo.)
That's fair. The whole point of the site is to see varied view points, so I'm not about to take my ball and go home.
As an aside I expect the PPC party support to evaporate as voters go to the polls, especially as there is a real chance of the Conservatives getting elected. I know I changed my vote (non resident voter). Personally I'd like to see a few PPC MPs elected.
I suppose it was just more we have to left wing parties, we should have two right wing parties (note the word right wing is becoming a slur now in the same way the right made liberal a negative) but having watched the PPC closer I'm not so sure
Hey friend - this will allow the meanest and most hateful party on the scene to now claim victimhood. Well done.
The party started because of the leader's victimhood. He got beat for leadership of the Conservatives and then pouted his way into starting a new party.
Bernier got 49% of the leadership vote— he wasn’t exactly demolished. You could say Bernier lost his job with the CPC. We can argue endlessly about whether he was fired or he quit. He then found another job (more like started his own business). Is this how a victim acts? Where is the victimhood?
Yeah pretty much!
I’ve asked once already for examples of ‘meanness’ or ‘hatefulness’ from the PPC and I’m still waiting for specific examples. I would think since many people feel this way it would be easy to list examples. Do you have any I can look at?
You have Google, right? It’s hateful to embrace anti immigrant sentiments. It’s hateful to pose with hate groups. Figure it out for yourself. The guy is a dime store populist.
I think it’s safe to assume that you have nothing at this point.
Wanting the immigration quota to be lower is now anti-immigrant sentiment? I’m an immigrant so that’s news to me. So the number of immigrants the PPC want is hateful? What is the proper safe number to not be considered anti immigrant? I also believe that too much ice cream can be detrimental to me; I wasn’t aware I had anti-ice cream sentiment.
‘It’s hateful to pose with hate groups.’ —I’m sorry but this sounds like a sentence a child would write, akin to ‘you’re hateful because you hate things’ It’s a tautology— perhaps a word you yourself ‘can Google’.
A populist is someone who tries to appeal to a broad base of people, sometimes referred to as a democracy. I guess you would prefer an aristocracy?
Okay. Good luck.
Well it certainly has given them a boost
I'm concerned more than that the PPC will use their exclusion as a tool to garner further support. I'm overly interested in who is at the debates, personally I find them hard to watch, and they have little impact on my opinion. The impact of the debates on voting or opinion poll would have been an nice piece of data to include with the article.
If anyone in the PPC had a clue, they would realize that having the Greens in the debate is a good thing for those that want a chance that the Liberals will be voted out of government. Members of the PPC may mean well and be honest and earnest in their beliefs, but they clearly all failed at mathematics. The PPC's very existence cuts the throat of their nearest ideological cousins, the Conservative Party, taking votes away from them and essentially handing them to the Liberals in general, the NDP in some ridings, and the Liberals or the Bloc in Quebec. Rational left leaning political party operatives who did not fail mathematics should be (and likely are) quietly cheering on and financially supporting the continued existence of the PPC to undermine the Conservative Party vote. Conservatives should learn from this, and quietly prop up NDP and Green candidates in ridings where they are competitive with the Liberals, and attempt to sneak up the middle of vote splits on the left in these ridings. They won't, because they, like their PPC cousins, also apparently failed at mathematics and/or seem content to lose to the Liberals yet again. Understanding vote splitting in the Canadian electorate on a riding by riding basis should be lesson #1 for political operatives in all parties.
Nobody cares.
The PPC have zero seats!
Thank you. I seem to be the only person who read Maxime Bernier's piece in the National Post that he wrote when he announced the formation of his party. He declared that he was a proponent and supporter of Public Choice Theory. I've never heard him asked about that. I wouldn't know what it was if I hadn't read the book "Democracy in Chains" by Prof. Nancy Maclean. PCT is an economic theory developed by the Nobel Laureate economist James Buchanan with the support of the Koch brothers. It states that the problem with democracy is that it enables the majority to bully minorities. The minority that they worry about is that small group of helpless people known as the ultra-rich. These wretched victims are FORCED to pay taxes for things they don't need. The solution to this horrific situation is to reduce democracy so that the ultra-rich have a much bigger voice and can protect themselves from persecution. They knew this would not be a big vote-getter so stealth measures would be necessary. It's working out well for them in the USA with Citizen's United and the flurry of new voter suppression laws.
As I said, I've never heard Bernier questioned on this. A poorly briefed Wendy Mesley went at him about his connections to the Koch brothers but he easily deflected her because he may have no direct dealings with them. I suspect that most People's Party supporters have no idea about any of this either. Max intends to turn (more) power over to the ultra-rich and, I can only surmise, pocket a little something for himself.
So let me get this straight: the guy who hates and wants to undermine democracy has endeavored to start his own political party where his ultimate goal will be to win broad electoral support across our country before his party can implement a single policy. He wants to undermine democracy by wholly participating in it and by encouraging as many Canadians as possible to freely vote for his party. I couldn't imagine a more difficult and time consuming way of gaining dictatorial powers. Bernier wants to decentralize federal power and allow for provinces and municipalities to have more freedoms and responsibilities. The tyrant!
Here is an excerpt from Bernier's own words that you mention:
'As I said when I resigned, I have come to the conclusion that the Conservative party cannot be reformed and that if I want to do politics differently, I need to do it elsewhere.
How do I plan to do this? By systematically reversing the dynamic described by public choice theory. That is, by taking positions based on principles I believe in and that accord with what I think is the public interest; and by resisting pressure from interest groups seeking favours, despite the short-term political cost.'
Then at the end of the article he says:
'I know many Canadians are fed up with the traditional way of doing politics. We’ll see if enough of them are ready to follow me.'
Does this sound like a tyrant?
Our current Prime Minister literally said that he 'admires China's basic dictatorship'. You'd think this would make people quake in their boots more so than a guy saying he wants your vote because there are too many special interests in politics.
Trudeau is the model for a politician dishing financial and political kickbacks to the rich elite, and subverting the democratic process as much as possible. But he's fine -- I should be worried about the guy starting his own political party polling at (allegedly) fewer than 4%. Ok then ....
I'm not saying that Bernier is a would-be tyrant or we have any reason to be afraid of him but I am saying it's odd (more likely sloppy and lazy journalism) that no one questioned him on his philosophy. I suspect Max is none too bright but the fact that he's fielded so many candidates is impressive. I wonder who is actually doing the work.
Also Trudeau did NOT say that he admired China's dictatorship. That was a quote that was taken out of context and right-wingers jumped on it because they thought it proved he was a commie. LOL. I believe the topic was global warming and Trudeau said something to the effect that we can't order our economy to turn on a dime like the CCP can. Why read the whole sentence when you can grab a phrase and make a bat out of it.
I agree that it was weak journalism (if we even have real journalists anymore) that is partially responsible for the media completely ignoring Bernier and his party. I think it’s important to ask — why would they ignore him with a media blackout? Surely the best way to discredit an ‘extremist’ party is to show them for all to see. Perhaps they are afraid he will have more support than they’re ready for.
I think yours is a very charitable interpretation of Trudeau’s words on China. I’d be curious to see if you’d offer the same charity for your political opponents. My interpretation of his words is: Trudeau laments the fact that Canada is not a dictatorship where he can simply turn around its economy on his whim. Instead, he’ll have to rely on extreme political and financial coercion. I find this side of Trudeau reprehensible and more dangerous than anything about Bernier.
The biggest reason the media ignore the PPC is that they don't have a chance virtually anywhere and the media love a horse race. If a race heats up I predict there will be some actual coverage.
I'm not being charitable to Trudeau. That's what he said. It bothers me when people deliberately take things out of context and make a noise with it. It's dishonest and not helpful. It's like Obama and his "you didn't build that." He uncharacteristically stumbled when he said that and broke the sentence up and the piggies pounced on the second half of it. "They" didn't build that. The big 4 major sports leagues in the US are net welfare cases when you figure in all the tax-payer subsidies they get.
I try to be charitable with my opponents. In fact, Trudeau is often an opponent for me. I gave up on "Sunny Ways" after he caved on electoral reform. At least he got the government out of my stash box. ;)
I see your point about the media covering what they believe will drive ratings. But in terms of political support it’s circular reasoning. I could argue (and Bernier does) that the PPC has such low support because no big media is covering them. How are they meant to gain support with a media blackout?
I guess I’m still an old dreamer by believing that media should keep us informed about the political options out there, instead of catering to parties they know will fund them with our money (looking at you CBC).
By your stash box you mean cannabis?
Hah, what do you mean he got government out of your stash box? Legalizing marijuana is the ultimate government intervention. It’s now heavily taxed and regulated. Government calls the shots and takes a big chunk out of every dollar you spend on weed, only making it more expensive for you. Are you sure government isn’t deeper in your stash box than every before? ;)
I was attempting to respond to the thread as a whole but I could flip my response over to J Rock, certainly. Yes I would like to see examples of your claim. I had assumed you meant the National Post article written by Bernier himself from which I've quoted as well, but if there are more, please share.