I'm a little surprised at all the delicate flowers here who get the vapours when a candidate for — hang on, I'm just getting word that he advertises himself as a candidate for Prime Minister — gets asked hard or edgy or snarky or, in the words of one reader, poo-based questions.
Pierre Poilievre's *entire shtick* during the two years before he announced his candidacy for the office of Prime Minister was that he was the guy who asked questions. Just asking questions! Why won't the minister just answer a simple question! Answer the question, Jean! Answer the question, Mr. Carney! Just asking questions!
Now. I know this is tricky, but try to stick with me. He is trying to get from a place where he... *asks questions*... to a place where he would... *get asked questions*. And it's been a while since I checked the rules, but in my experience, a prime minister usually gets asked questions by (a) members of political parties he doesn't like; (b) snarky poo-based journalists; (c) most importantly, the cold and heartless universe, which sometimes hands leaders a two-year global calamity, and which is, for instance, less interested in the Bank of Canada governor you just fired, and more interested in the one you'd hire. The aforementioned universe asks its questions whether a leader is glib or not. It's unimpressed, this cold and heartless universe, by people on comment boards making excuses. The questions keep coming, no matter what.
Being Prime Minister means being (sometimes unfairly) expected to have the answers, not only to hard questions, but to hard problems. He may not be interested in your hard questions but, if he wants to be Prime Minister, the hard questions will certainly be interested in him.
Paul I would love to see you do a hard hitting interview with Justin Trudeau. The only media who attempted to do it during the last election was a woman from Global news. Otherwise his abysmal record, his lack of accountability and transparency, his scandals was not discussed by the MSM. They were too busy denigrating O'Toole. Double Dog Dare You. Trudeau answers nothing and the MSM just lets it slide.
Reading the comments I get flashbacks from that article you published all that time ago(yesterday), offering commentary on Scanlan's testimony.
Poilievre's press reaction is eerily close to that of the RCMP, but the tables are turning on the press, not the subject. This illustrates the importance of the zeitgeist. This much should be, at the minimum, understandable to people coming to defense of Poilievre, especially when they do so by shifting the blame to Trudeau.
The more journalists asks Pierre the type of questions they would ask a Prime minister, the more it's getting clearer that Pierre's footing is better when he's in opposition of something, ie: an unpopular Prime Minister.
Good thing there's no chance we'll find out! Look, I've been asking questions for 30 years and it takes very close to zero effort to find literally hundreds of examples. So I'm sorry if you're feeling all delicate. I'm going to keep doing my work.
Paul, love your newsletter and I am a paying customer! I don't know the news/media business, but perhaps you should look back at your post of yesterday with respect to Lia Scanlan's thoughts on the state of the business to get some insight into why Pierre won't speak with you. I am indifferent as to your position on Poilievre, but your questions give a pretty good sense of which way you are leaning.
Firstly Paul, keep in mind that the questions you hypothetically posed to Pierre Poilievre were very confrontational in nature. Politicians especially are aware that journalists with a particular bias will definitely record any response with a negative spin. It is human nature. Sure, it would be interesting to see how Poilievre can respond to such confrontational questions; but I can well appreciate his reluctance to not.
Secondly, as for Rachel Gilmore, did she pose questions directly to Pierre Poilievre or simply go on a rant labelling him as guilty by association of association. You read the news reports. You know that Pierre joined James Topp for two blocks and he made it clear he was there supporting James Topps' right to protest. Rachel clearly misinformed and skewed the facts. Pure fearmongering.
Back on January 14, 2021, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau when referring to passports/mandates, made it clear he was against mandates as they would be divisive and unfair. The man could not have been more right. The mandates clearly have been divisive, and definitely unfair. Now it seems there has been a complete reversal of that thinking, and anyone who still has that mindset is a racist, a misogynist and someone who should not be tolerated. How quickly the swords were drawn.
When one is a critical thinker biases are usually formed. There may be some open-minded journalists, but most come with their preconceived mindset. Yours is obviously against Pierre Poilievre. Mine is in favour of him. For me he is a breath of fresh air. He is holding the government and its departments accountable to the people. Now that is a democracy.
I've known Pierre Poilievre since about 2000 and I've interviewed him many times, including for one of my books, at his request (https://medium.com/@InklessPW/page-314-of-right-side-up-56b88e442ef4) and last October at the Banff Forum, a secretive elite organization at which, unfortunately, he was speaking only to participants, with no record of his comments (or mine!) available to the broader public. We've had as many off-the-record conversations, always friendly and sociable, usually over strong coffee. I've never heard him complain about the treatment he received from me, either to my face or to anybody else. When a member of my family showed up at one of his events to buy a party membership, Pierre cheerfully told my relative that I'm "one of the best journalists in Canada." Fair enough. He had memberships to sell, I guess. But I'm going to keep doing the job, out here in public, the way I learned to do it. He can do what he wants. I get to notice. Honestly his behaviour in this campaign, all of it, surprises me.
I have not met Pierre and I think it's unlikely that I ever will. But I've watched him over the years and I suspect he is very much like my father. This is not a good thing.
Demanding and belittling, charming when it suits and never more happy than when he is the centre of attention and scrapping over perceived slights.
Also, my father never told the truth when a lie was more interesting, colourful or complicated. With just a dollop of real information, he could convince you that brown cows gave chocolate milk and exactly how that worked. Charming, funny, and often self-deprecating he could sell, himself or anyone else on anything.
Pierre is a bit young but he's got the basics down quite well. I do hope he goes no higher in politics. He thinks he has the answers to everything when he has solutions for nothing. A shame Pierre never got out into the real world. Staying in the HoC has stunted him.
Isn't The Banff Forum rather like WEF?
"Each year we convene a national forum that brings together leaders from across Canada and leading thinkers from around the world to share their knowledge, enhance their leadership skills, build national networks, and discuss and debate the most pressing issues facing Canada today."
And attending is much more difficult than at WEF: "Delegates are selected through a rigorous application process. Referral by an existing Banff Forum member is not mandatory but is highly recommended. Due to limited capacity, only a small number of invitations are granted annually to new delegates."
The fact that your questions were all a variation on the theme of "tell us sir, when did you stop beating your wife?" likely had something to do with why you are being ignored.
Perhaps you could give examples of questions that would be probing and adversarial, but otherwise acceptable.
Compare to this list. Is this list similarly unacceptable? It strikes me as QUITE adversarial, but there are none I wouldn't like to hear and answer for, myself.
" is it true that the Prime Minister has (twice) been found guilty of contravening federal ethics laws?"
That's not adversarial, that's submitting an ad hoc fallacy to the public record, with a gross breach of parliamentary process. At the time the question was asked the CIEC was still investigating the breach of ethics in relation to the SNC Lavalin Scandal, and Ed Falk here jumped the shark to tie these accusations(guilt was not found yet) with Trudeau's lack of response to Chinese hostage situation, IN PARLIAMENT.
Don't compare THAT to asking Poilievre why he's a hypocrite with the media.
When Pierre was in Harper's governing cabal, he would never have supported the Occupation. Just sayin'...he was good with the Barbaric Cultural Snitch Line though....so much for freedom.
Perhaps when you speak with young trudeau at the Munk Centre -who funds that establishment again?- and his associate Jagmeet , would you ask them why they did not speak to those who are the less than a "fringe " majority ? I was really excited when you actually had an interview with True North - thought I saw something that looked very brave indeed but then after your last post , I thought it looked suspiciously like something CBC would do . Just suspect Pierre , is watching and waiting - like they all do - to protect himself from someone who is obviously on the "other side " with a transparent bias - that is, at least honest looking to me. Will always read your posts and look forward to seeing what you deem important .
Thank you Lou for your comment . Over these past few years because of my age and curiosity I have been privileged to be able to do a fair bit of research since this virus event began and I noticed main stream media all around the world had the same lockstep talking points with no dissenting voices re : health and treatment. Donations to institutions / businesses are absolutely necessary , however, I think big pharma , with their "few" dollars (not to mention many law suits ) can have a tremendous influence on incentivizing the "results" of studies .
As for right wing rags - at this point with world events- I learn more from this type of reporting because it offers another view point . I have listened to CBC all my life and have become horrified about what they "don't" report - could it be the infusion of so much $ from this current government's mandated talking points? I like to think I have the ability to pick and choose from many sides - as for a casino (?) I'd rather take my risks and thrills by doing my Wim Hof Method of self empowerment.
You asked who funded the Munk Centre, and I answered. I suppose you could have done a bit of research, as I did, but what does your privilege or age got to do with it?
MSM is such a lazy catch-all thing don't you think? Individual countries have different "established" media and different professional health institutions, I highly doubt that they were all in lockstep with each other except where independent science eventually led to a provable conclusion, and they are still working on it as we speak.
There have been dissenting voices, some of who have yet to take responsibility for their bad advice. But instead of indulging in NWO and Big Pharma Bad, ask yourself why? Why do you think that you have ferreted out scams and secrets (you and your buds on FB)? Why would pharmaceutical companies need to be bribed for what they already do? Hell, the pandemic has been the best thing since Viagra. Should these private companies who answer to shareholders not pursue profit? They aren't socialist you know.
I have read and watched TN and it is too anti-everything that is not true blue conservative. They have a headline that the CBC stole their story even tho the CBC actually did the story months earlier. It's all so obvious and poorly done. Yes, I watched Paul's interview with Candace Malcolm. She was tickled. And of course, she got lots of her POV tucked in. Mostly TN is juvenile. They have a guest op-ed, Greg Tobin of Canada Strong and Free (so original, oh shit, it used to be the Manning Centre. Who was responsible for a lousy name change?) and I quote him, "Totalitarian and gross." Which of course picks Greg out as an adult no matter what he was talking about (/s). He was getting hysterical about the Libs taking over the entire Canadian internet. They can't even if they wanted to. We know Rogers can take a large chunk of it down and if you use a smartphone everyone knows pretty much everything about you anyway. So why the histrionics? The truth is bad enough without extra BS. Why do these con "platforms" shove their donate buttons, paragraphs, etc, in your face constantly!
How can you be getting a different view if you don't read established rags first? What was CBC not reporting and how would you know? Has this happened once or often? Did you take down names? The CBC is Canada's Public Broadcaster. That means it is supported by government (taxpayer) funds. Always has from the day before Hockey Night In Canada first aired. Just because a company receives money from the gov does not mean they are reporting or not reporting what the gov wants. It sure wouldn't be a secret for long. It's too cheap and easy to say otherwise.
Of course, you can pick and choose whatever you like but if you tell us about it here in the sub stacks you may have to listen to dissenting views.
Wim Hof? LOL, he's my 2nd cousin, no, 3rd cousin on my mother's side. Total loon, but whatever revs your engine. Is he running another "cure"?
It's a crazy mixed-up world out there and COVID made it crazier. Sad, because the crazies are making it worse.
Oh, and PP is not waiting and watching anything except maybe his late-night bitcoin master. (I wonder how much PP has lost) He is out there calling people names, insinuating all sorts of crap, and having the time of his life at the Stampede. Brand new white hat, brand new jeans, brand new belt with a big buckle (you know what they say about that) and a brand new plaid shirt, these pols crack me up.
Thank you Louise . In my little life of many seasons ,I have never before felt the need to look at other countries and a variety of news options in order to make sense with what is happening all around the world ,that was always there perhaps, but has been ushered in on the backs of this virus situation . In my opinion, I believe our constitution, as we knew, it is being dismantled - that gives me great pause and it's not easy to be on such shifting sands.
He's adorable. He doesn't look old enough to have a driver's licence. If he would behave in an intelligent manner more people might take him seriously.
After 20 years of interviews, I suppose one might get a sense of what makes the other tick and as Paul is a journalist it counts. You never said anything about parameters.
I’m still an undecided Conservative leadership voter. I want to pick a leader that will win the next election. That’s how the Liberal Party picks their leader. Just ask David Herle 😉
My issue, with politics in general, is the hypocrisy and lack of integrity. As a CPA, my entire career has been about professional judgement & ethics. What Justin Trudeau has done to the Liberal Party & the Canadian political landscape has been a disgrace (said by a lifelong Conservative voter). His constant stream of non-answer after non-answer has, in large part, created the vacuum of leadership which has created Pierre (in his current form).
The media has a role to play in all of this. I look forward to reading your critical thinking on these issues. I often feel like the old man from The Simpsons who yells at the clouds ☁️ but at least I’m not alone 😜
Poilievre seems to have been swept away by this campaign to the point where anything incoming is an attack on him and anything outgoing has to be an attack on someone else.
Disappointing because he has enough to actually win some meaningful arguments.
Paul - your questions are at the least very weighted. And I get the other's point that Trudeau will never be subjected to questions that he has to answer.
But your point is on the money: Poilievre is throwing a lot of mud around and should be held to account for it.
Like most things Louise, the world is upside down and with respect to what is happening in the Ukraine I think there are probably many sides to this very complicated issue . As far a political issues go , I feel as if I am in a football game with no equipment but know enough not to trust what any one is saying on either side. I did thoroughly enjoy Ben MacIntyre's :The Spy and the Traitor and how Thatcher and Regan, at that time ,worked with a Russian spy and was able to forge diplomatic relationships with Russia . Now I think, there is a real desire for a greater war and lots of provocation for just that... in my opinion.
I'm a little surprised at all the delicate flowers here who get the vapours when a candidate for — hang on, I'm just getting word that he advertises himself as a candidate for Prime Minister — gets asked hard or edgy or snarky or, in the words of one reader, poo-based questions.
Pierre Poilievre's *entire shtick* during the two years before he announced his candidacy for the office of Prime Minister was that he was the guy who asked questions. Just asking questions! Why won't the minister just answer a simple question! Answer the question, Jean! Answer the question, Mr. Carney! Just asking questions!
Now. I know this is tricky, but try to stick with me. He is trying to get from a place where he... *asks questions*... to a place where he would... *get asked questions*. And it's been a while since I checked the rules, but in my experience, a prime minister usually gets asked questions by (a) members of political parties he doesn't like; (b) snarky poo-based journalists; (c) most importantly, the cold and heartless universe, which sometimes hands leaders a two-year global calamity, and which is, for instance, less interested in the Bank of Canada governor you just fired, and more interested in the one you'd hire. The aforementioned universe asks its questions whether a leader is glib or not. It's unimpressed, this cold and heartless universe, by people on comment boards making excuses. The questions keep coming, no matter what.
Maybe he'd like to practice some.
Being Prime Minister means being (sometimes unfairly) expected to have the answers, not only to hard questions, but to hard problems. He may not be interested in your hard questions but, if he wants to be Prime Minister, the hard questions will certainly be interested in him.
Paul I would love to see you do a hard hitting interview with Justin Trudeau. The only media who attempted to do it during the last election was a woman from Global news. Otherwise his abysmal record, his lack of accountability and transparency, his scandals was not discussed by the MSM. They were too busy denigrating O'Toole. Double Dog Dare You. Trudeau answers nothing and the MSM just lets it slide.
Reading the comments I get flashbacks from that article you published all that time ago(yesterday), offering commentary on Scanlan's testimony.
Poilievre's press reaction is eerily close to that of the RCMP, but the tables are turning on the press, not the subject. This illustrates the importance of the zeitgeist. This much should be, at the minimum, understandable to people coming to defense of Poilievre, especially when they do so by shifting the blame to Trudeau.
The more journalists asks Pierre the type of questions they would ask a Prime minister, the more it's getting clearer that Pierre's footing is better when he's in opposition of something, ie: an unpopular Prime Minister.
Maybe you could work the subject of wood into the questions?
I think Canadian journalists don't ask questions, and when they do, they're snarky like yours. How would answering any of them edify the debate?
Good thing there's no chance we'll find out! Look, I've been asking questions for 30 years and it takes very close to zero effort to find literally hundreds of examples. So I'm sorry if you're feeling all delicate. I'm going to keep doing my work.
Three-year global calamity.
When Justin starts taking questions maybe Pierre will😀
Because one has something something to do with the other?
Paul, love your newsletter and I am a paying customer! I don't know the news/media business, but perhaps you should look back at your post of yesterday with respect to Lia Scanlan's thoughts on the state of the business to get some insight into why Pierre won't speak with you. I am indifferent as to your position on Poilievre, but your questions give a pretty good sense of which way you are leaning.
Good afternoon,
Firstly Paul, keep in mind that the questions you hypothetically posed to Pierre Poilievre were very confrontational in nature. Politicians especially are aware that journalists with a particular bias will definitely record any response with a negative spin. It is human nature. Sure, it would be interesting to see how Poilievre can respond to such confrontational questions; but I can well appreciate his reluctance to not.
Secondly, as for Rachel Gilmore, did she pose questions directly to Pierre Poilievre or simply go on a rant labelling him as guilty by association of association. You read the news reports. You know that Pierre joined James Topp for two blocks and he made it clear he was there supporting James Topps' right to protest. Rachel clearly misinformed and skewed the facts. Pure fearmongering.
Back on January 14, 2021, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau when referring to passports/mandates, made it clear he was against mandates as they would be divisive and unfair. The man could not have been more right. The mandates clearly have been divisive, and definitely unfair. Now it seems there has been a complete reversal of that thinking, and anyone who still has that mindset is a racist, a misogynist and someone who should not be tolerated. How quickly the swords were drawn.
When one is a critical thinker biases are usually formed. There may be some open-minded journalists, but most come with their preconceived mindset. Yours is obviously against Pierre Poilievre. Mine is in favour of him. For me he is a breath of fresh air. He is holding the government and its departments accountable to the people. Now that is a democracy.
I've known Pierre Poilievre since about 2000 and I've interviewed him many times, including for one of my books, at his request (https://medium.com/@InklessPW/page-314-of-right-side-up-56b88e442ef4) and last October at the Banff Forum, a secretive elite organization at which, unfortunately, he was speaking only to participants, with no record of his comments (or mine!) available to the broader public. We've had as many off-the-record conversations, always friendly and sociable, usually over strong coffee. I've never heard him complain about the treatment he received from me, either to my face or to anybody else. When a member of my family showed up at one of his events to buy a party membership, Pierre cheerfully told my relative that I'm "one of the best journalists in Canada." Fair enough. He had memberships to sell, I guess. But I'm going to keep doing the job, out here in public, the way I learned to do it. He can do what he wants. I get to notice. Honestly his behaviour in this campaign, all of it, surprises me.
I have not met Pierre and I think it's unlikely that I ever will. But I've watched him over the years and I suspect he is very much like my father. This is not a good thing.
Demanding and belittling, charming when it suits and never more happy than when he is the centre of attention and scrapping over perceived slights.
Also, my father never told the truth when a lie was more interesting, colourful or complicated. With just a dollop of real information, he could convince you that brown cows gave chocolate milk and exactly how that worked. Charming, funny, and often self-deprecating he could sell, himself or anyone else on anything.
Pierre is a bit young but he's got the basics down quite well. I do hope he goes no higher in politics. He thinks he has the answers to everything when he has solutions for nothing. A shame Pierre never got out into the real world. Staying in the HoC has stunted him.
Isn't The Banff Forum rather like WEF?
"Each year we convene a national forum that brings together leaders from across Canada and leading thinkers from around the world to share their knowledge, enhance their leadership skills, build national networks, and discuss and debate the most pressing issues facing Canada today."
And attending is much more difficult than at WEF: "Delegates are selected through a rigorous application process. Referral by an existing Banff Forum member is not mandatory but is highly recommended. Due to limited capacity, only a small number of invitations are granted annually to new delegates."
The fact that your questions were all a variation on the theme of "tell us sir, when did you stop beating your wife?" likely had something to do with why you are being ignored.
Ask a facetious question, get no answer.
Reading is hard.
Read them all. Understood what you were going for, too.
Try asking actual questions next time, rather than flinging poo and putting a question mark on the end.
Perhaps you could give examples of questions that would be probing and adversarial, but otherwise acceptable.
Compare to this list. Is this list similarly unacceptable? It strikes me as QUITE adversarial, but there are none I wouldn't like to hear and answer for, myself.
https://tedfalk.ca/en/questions-for-justin-trudeau/
You're joking right?
" is it true that the Prime Minister has (twice) been found guilty of contravening federal ethics laws?"
That's not adversarial, that's submitting an ad hoc fallacy to the public record, with a gross breach of parliamentary process. At the time the question was asked the CIEC was still investigating the breach of ethics in relation to the SNC Lavalin Scandal, and Ed Falk here jumped the shark to tie these accusations(guilt was not found yet) with Trudeau's lack of response to Chinese hostage situation, IN PARLIAMENT.
Don't compare THAT to asking Poilievre why he's a hypocrite with the media.
When Pierre was in Harper's governing cabal, he would never have supported the Occupation. Just sayin'...he was good with the Barbaric Cultural Snitch Line though....so much for freedom.
Perhaps when you speak with young trudeau at the Munk Centre -who funds that establishment again?- and his associate Jagmeet , would you ask them why they did not speak to those who are the less than a "fringe " majority ? I was really excited when you actually had an interview with True North - thought I saw something that looked very brave indeed but then after your last post , I thought it looked suspiciously like something CBC would do . Just suspect Pierre , is watching and waiting - like they all do - to protect himself from someone who is obviously on the "other side " with a transparent bias - that is, at least honest looking to me. Will always read your posts and look forward to seeing what you deem important .
The Munk School? They are part of UoT.and is the result of a generous gift from Peter and Melanie Munk in 2010. Is that ok?
True North is a right-wing rag. And then you dis the CBC? And that is how you rate your journalists, who they write for.
So everyone is on a "side". Does the other side always have a transparent bias? Get to a casino as quickly as you can if you read people that well.
Thank you Lou for your comment . Over these past few years because of my age and curiosity I have been privileged to be able to do a fair bit of research since this virus event began and I noticed main stream media all around the world had the same lockstep talking points with no dissenting voices re : health and treatment. Donations to institutions / businesses are absolutely necessary , however, I think big pharma , with their "few" dollars (not to mention many law suits ) can have a tremendous influence on incentivizing the "results" of studies .
As for right wing rags - at this point with world events- I learn more from this type of reporting because it offers another view point . I have listened to CBC all my life and have become horrified about what they "don't" report - could it be the infusion of so much $ from this current government's mandated talking points? I like to think I have the ability to pick and choose from many sides - as for a casino (?) I'd rather take my risks and thrills by doing my Wim Hof Method of self empowerment.
You asked who funded the Munk Centre, and I answered. I suppose you could have done a bit of research, as I did, but what does your privilege or age got to do with it?
MSM is such a lazy catch-all thing don't you think? Individual countries have different "established" media and different professional health institutions, I highly doubt that they were all in lockstep with each other except where independent science eventually led to a provable conclusion, and they are still working on it as we speak.
There have been dissenting voices, some of who have yet to take responsibility for their bad advice. But instead of indulging in NWO and Big Pharma Bad, ask yourself why? Why do you think that you have ferreted out scams and secrets (you and your buds on FB)? Why would pharmaceutical companies need to be bribed for what they already do? Hell, the pandemic has been the best thing since Viagra. Should these private companies who answer to shareholders not pursue profit? They aren't socialist you know.
I have read and watched TN and it is too anti-everything that is not true blue conservative. They have a headline that the CBC stole their story even tho the CBC actually did the story months earlier. It's all so obvious and poorly done. Yes, I watched Paul's interview with Candace Malcolm. She was tickled. And of course, she got lots of her POV tucked in. Mostly TN is juvenile. They have a guest op-ed, Greg Tobin of Canada Strong and Free (so original, oh shit, it used to be the Manning Centre. Who was responsible for a lousy name change?) and I quote him, "Totalitarian and gross." Which of course picks Greg out as an adult no matter what he was talking about (/s). He was getting hysterical about the Libs taking over the entire Canadian internet. They can't even if they wanted to. We know Rogers can take a large chunk of it down and if you use a smartphone everyone knows pretty much everything about you anyway. So why the histrionics? The truth is bad enough without extra BS. Why do these con "platforms" shove their donate buttons, paragraphs, etc, in your face constantly!
How can you be getting a different view if you don't read established rags first? What was CBC not reporting and how would you know? Has this happened once or often? Did you take down names? The CBC is Canada's Public Broadcaster. That means it is supported by government (taxpayer) funds. Always has from the day before Hockey Night In Canada first aired. Just because a company receives money from the gov does not mean they are reporting or not reporting what the gov wants. It sure wouldn't be a secret for long. It's too cheap and easy to say otherwise.
Of course, you can pick and choose whatever you like but if you tell us about it here in the sub stacks you may have to listen to dissenting views.
Wim Hof? LOL, he's my 2nd cousin, no, 3rd cousin on my mother's side. Total loon, but whatever revs your engine. Is he running another "cure"?
It's a crazy mixed-up world out there and COVID made it crazier. Sad, because the crazies are making it worse.
Oh, and PP is not waiting and watching anything except maybe his late-night bitcoin master. (I wonder how much PP has lost) He is out there calling people names, insinuating all sorts of crap, and having the time of his life at the Stampede. Brand new white hat, brand new jeans, brand new belt with a big buckle (you know what they say about that) and a brand new plaid shirt, these pols crack me up.
Thank you Louise . In my little life of many seasons ,I have never before felt the need to look at other countries and a variety of news options in order to make sense with what is happening all around the world ,that was always there perhaps, but has been ushered in on the backs of this virus situation . In my opinion, I believe our constitution, as we knew, it is being dismantled - that gives me great pause and it's not easy to be on such shifting sands.
Le Monde and Le Figaro are both well established papers, Radio Canada is CBC even if you are watching in Quebec. Be careful of the UK rags.
Reading French newspapers from other than France or Quebec would be weird wouldn't it?
Radio Canada is the CBC. The CBC is Radio Canada. CBC/Radio-Canada is Canada's national public broadcaster.
I don't care where you live.
He prefers holding other politicians to account under a blow torch, Paul. Give the poor guy a break! Ease up on the logical questions.
He's adorable. He doesn't look old enough to have a driver's licence. If he would behave in an intelligent manner more people might take him seriously.
No doubt! He knows his constituents. And he's brutal with his opponents.
"Knowing" him, in your capacity as a journalist, doesn't count.
Why not?
I was inquiring after the nature of Paul's relationship with Poilievre. Its parameters.
After 20 years of interviews, I suppose one might get a sense of what makes the other tick and as Paul is a journalist it counts. You never said anything about parameters.
"Knowing" certainly does count.
I doubt any paid subscribers are whining about you doing your job.
I’m still an undecided Conservative leadership voter. I want to pick a leader that will win the next election. That’s how the Liberal Party picks their leader. Just ask David Herle 😉
My issue, with politics in general, is the hypocrisy and lack of integrity. As a CPA, my entire career has been about professional judgement & ethics. What Justin Trudeau has done to the Liberal Party & the Canadian political landscape has been a disgrace (said by a lifelong Conservative voter). His constant stream of non-answer after non-answer has, in large part, created the vacuum of leadership which has created Pierre (in his current form).
The media has a role to play in all of this. I look forward to reading your critical thinking on these issues. I often feel like the old man from The Simpsons who yells at the clouds ☁️ but at least I’m not alone 😜
Poilievre seems to have been swept away by this campaign to the point where anything incoming is an attack on him and anything outgoing has to be an attack on someone else.
Disappointing because he has enough to actually win some meaningful arguments.
Paul - your questions are at the least very weighted. And I get the other's point that Trudeau will never be subjected to questions that he has to answer.
But your point is on the money: Poilievre is throwing a lot of mud around and should be held to account for it.
Keep up the great work. Pleased to support you
Like most things Louise, the world is upside down and with respect to what is happening in the Ukraine I think there are probably many sides to this very complicated issue . As far a political issues go , I feel as if I am in a football game with no equipment but know enough not to trust what any one is saying on either side. I did thoroughly enjoy Ben MacIntyre's :The Spy and the Traitor and how Thatcher and Regan, at that time ,worked with a Russian spy and was able to forge diplomatic relationships with Russia . Now I think, there is a real desire for a greater war and lots of provocation for just that... in my opinion.
Whining is a good look....said no one ever. Just stop it, Paul.
Maybe that is all there was for now!
This post here is, indeed, only four paragraphs long. Yesterday's was awfully wordy. I figured people deserved something shorter.
I finally realized that. Thank you for responding so quickly.