Yes, it's very strange. There are, by my count, fifteen political parties contesting seats in this election, two of which seriously contend to form government. It seems to me that we've decided to recognize five, and also decided that those five should get equal speaking time in the debates / media coverage / etc. I don't get it. For me, there are either two or there are fifteen.
Thanks Paul. You mention with Helene that there are now some long interviews available on-line that show him as more approachable. Oddly, and I have followed Poilievre for years and identified him as a future PM just through his speeches in the HOC...I had never seen him as not approachable at all. So statements like that, that to me are personal and just an opinion of whoever is being interviewed...fair enough, but to have no particular impact for me. Helene speaks about why do the Conservatives not talk more about what interests those in Quebec. Well, in opposition to that, why don't Quebecers show a little interest in the rest of Canada? Perhaps I'm missing something as I live on the west coast.
Enjoyed the somewhat esoteric info from Mr. Owens very much as well. I wonder if those whose interests lie on taking a high level view of politics in Canada miss the content available to us, whose view is everyday close to the ground and whose views are from lived experience.
Aside from all that, I have come out of the Trudeau/Liberal government years weary of the lies and inability of the government to address even, to me, the simplest issues. Hearing the non-statement answers to serious question over and over again from people who have access to taxpayer funds and have betrayed it. Some of these people are way over their heads and are still in government...doing what? Trust in government is for me in an all time low.
What frightens me are the people willing to let some bureaucrats (or political operatives in the bureaucracy) decide what is/is not acceptable content.
Enjoyed the podcast Paul. I disagree with Ms. Buzzetti on her assertion that Mr. Poilievre is pushing against a glass ceiling that he has created. I think he is trying to make Liberals see the logic and common sense of the conservative argument and agenda, he is unwilling to set aside his firmly held conservative beliefs. In order to appeal to Liberal voters, and break that glass ceiling, he would have to move left and abandon his principles. We had ten years of Liberal mismanagement, and a group that held left wing views and gave us endless condescending speeches about how we are living our lives, then suddenly reversed course on a large number of policies and started adopting Conservative ideas. They essentially said that Mr. Poilievre was right about quite a few things. Liberals don't appear to have any core beliefs, other than say whatever they need to get elected. They are great at elections, but suck at governing. So my question for Liberals is: Why not just vote Poilievre and get good governance and bypass the Liberals who just keep changing their minds?
Dr. Michael Geist, Law, U of Ottawa, was highly critical of the Trudeau efforts to regulate the digital world in Canada. A debate between Owen and Geist would be quite informative.
Honestly my own opinions on the legislation are probably closer to Geist's than Taylor's, by a proportion of maybe 60-40, but Geist is sometimes the only voice that gets amplified. Besides, the online watchdog role is also important, and Taylor and his team are careful not to be alarmist in performing it.
The only group under observation that Tyler mentioned was the 51st state group. There’s a group on FB called “Canadians Against Pierre Poilievre” that people I know follow, and the amount of misinformation it propagates is disturbing. I’m a free speech advocate and support the right of people to say what they think but would be interested in knowing how Tyler’s organization views this type of online discourse.
Fred, this seems to be too late, but if you start the video @ 1.75 speed and click on the transcript link (which will highlight the currently spoken text), the simulcasting will give you 2 senses stimulated simultaneously.
I'm also generally in the "like writing, don't do videos/audio" camp, though I've watched a couple of the recent videos. It's worth noting that Paul's written piece today covers a lot of the same topics and themes of recent video/audio posts. Which is to say, there's still plenty here to read if someone just wants to read.
Hélène mentions that the Greens don't technically qualify for the debates. Turns out the debates commission agrees. News release went out at 8 am:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/leaders-debate-commission-green-party-removed-1.7511447
Yet M. Blanchet can participate, but only voters in Québec can cast a ballot for the Bloc? I call foul here. That is hardly national.
Yes, it's very strange. There are, by my count, fifteen political parties contesting seats in this election, two of which seriously contend to form government. It seems to me that we've decided to recognize five, and also decided that those five should get equal speaking time in the debates / media coverage / etc. I don't get it. For me, there are either two or there are fifteen.
Nice work! Interesting guests and thoughtful questions.
So much to contemplate after both discussions. I found the Taylor Owen segment valuable. I learned a lot and appreciate the nuance.
Thanks Paul. You mention with Helene that there are now some long interviews available on-line that show him as more approachable. Oddly, and I have followed Poilievre for years and identified him as a future PM just through his speeches in the HOC...I had never seen him as not approachable at all. So statements like that, that to me are personal and just an opinion of whoever is being interviewed...fair enough, but to have no particular impact for me. Helene speaks about why do the Conservatives not talk more about what interests those in Quebec. Well, in opposition to that, why don't Quebecers show a little interest in the rest of Canada? Perhaps I'm missing something as I live on the west coast.
Enjoyed the somewhat esoteric info from Mr. Owens very much as well. I wonder if those whose interests lie on taking a high level view of politics in Canada miss the content available to us, whose view is everyday close to the ground and whose views are from lived experience.
Aside from all that, I have come out of the Trudeau/Liberal government years weary of the lies and inability of the government to address even, to me, the simplest issues. Hearing the non-statement answers to serious question over and over again from people who have access to taxpayer funds and have betrayed it. Some of these people are way over their heads and are still in government...doing what? Trust in government is for me in an all time low.
I admit to some confusion when people tell me that the things I say are opinions. Yes... they... are? Ya got me.
What frightens me are the people willing to let some bureaucrats (or political operatives in the bureaucracy) decide what is/is not acceptable content.
Enjoyed the podcast Paul. I disagree with Ms. Buzzetti on her assertion that Mr. Poilievre is pushing against a glass ceiling that he has created. I think he is trying to make Liberals see the logic and common sense of the conservative argument and agenda, he is unwilling to set aside his firmly held conservative beliefs. In order to appeal to Liberal voters, and break that glass ceiling, he would have to move left and abandon his principles. We had ten years of Liberal mismanagement, and a group that held left wing views and gave us endless condescending speeches about how we are living our lives, then suddenly reversed course on a large number of policies and started adopting Conservative ideas. They essentially said that Mr. Poilievre was right about quite a few things. Liberals don't appear to have any core beliefs, other than say whatever they need to get elected. They are great at elections, but suck at governing. So my question for Liberals is: Why not just vote Poilievre and get good governance and bypass the Liberals who just keep changing their minds?
Dr. Michael Geist, Law, U of Ottawa, was highly critical of the Trudeau efforts to regulate the digital world in Canada. A debate between Owen and Geist would be quite informative.
Honestly my own opinions on the legislation are probably closer to Geist's than Taylor's, by a proportion of maybe 60-40, but Geist is sometimes the only voice that gets amplified. Besides, the online watchdog role is also important, and Taylor and his team are careful not to be alarmist in performing it.
I was in the same space as you, Paul, but after listening to the podcast I am thinking hard about that. Very good and thoughtful podcast - both parts.
The only group under observation that Tyler mentioned was the 51st state group. There’s a group on FB called “Canadians Against Pierre Poilievre” that people I know follow, and the amount of misinformation it propagates is disturbing. I’m a free speech advocate and support the right of people to say what they think but would be interested in knowing how Tyler’s organization views this type of online discourse.
I like your writing but I don't like and don't do videos, which seems to be your thing.
I paid $84 for your subscription. How can I get my money back?
You just did. Enjoy! (I filed 5,000 words worth of new writing last week, but the customer is always right.)
Fred, this seems to be too late, but if you start the video @ 1.75 speed and click on the transcript link (which will highlight the currently spoken text), the simulcasting will give you 2 senses stimulated simultaneously.
I'm also generally in the "like writing, don't do videos/audio" camp, though I've watched a couple of the recent videos. It's worth noting that Paul's written piece today covers a lot of the same topics and themes of recent video/audio posts. Which is to say, there's still plenty here to read if someone just wants to read.