I didn't think we had a thread for this. 

Is Trudeau this out of touch or does he just not care?

 

Elections decide who's right and wrong? Interesting. That's a new one. 

8 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

An election will settle who is right and who is wrong.

WHo are you referencing and right or wrong about what?

1 minute ago, JCon said:

Elections decide who's right and wrong? Interesting. That's a new one. 

Well, we know who's right based on the **** they spew in this thread.

20 minutes ago, JCon said:

Elections decide who's right and wrong? Interesting. That's a new one. 

Yes, I believe they do. I am a strong proponent of democracy. Bad governments lose, and are replaced. Just as it should be. 

24 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Okay, Mr. Centrist Voter who said he'd vote for Poilievre*.

* you don't even live in his riding, though

Are you dense or something or just trying to play a game of silly bugger? 

22 minutes ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

WHo are you referencing and right or wrong about what?

See above.

It's like he doesn't even try. LOL

1 hour ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Pretty scathing read from Brodbeck this

I have a theory.... Harper promoted polievre. 

"Former prime minister Stephen Harper says Pierre Poilievre is the Conservative leadership candidate with the best shot at leading the party to victory in the next federal election."

after polievre  bombs out, Harper will return to lead the reform/conservative party.

 

 

Edited April 17, 20232 yr by Mark F

33 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Yes, I believe they do. I am a strong proponent of democracy. Bad governments lose, and are replaced. Just as it should be. 

Are you dense or something or just trying to play a game of silly bugger? 

See above.

Ok, so elections decide who is right and who is wrong in terms of candidates? 

That is an interesting take... I whole heartedly disagree with that assessment. It's a popularity contest- not thorough vetting of party policies, comportment, nor actual visions of governing.

You give too much stock to stupid people. 

28 minutes ago, Mark F said:

...Harper will return to lead the reform/conservative party.

35 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

It's like he doesn't even try. LOL

I'm a strong proponent of democracy but will hold my nose and vote for a party led by someone who is following the Trump playbook to a tee.

Narrators voice: This playbook has strategies to circumvent and erode democracy.

Counter: I'm a moderate, everyone's bad, F Trudeau, he's more of a criminal than anyone else, this Liberal government will go down as the worst ever. My life and a large portion of Canadians lives will get better with PP leading the charge.

1 hour ago, GCn20 said:

Yes, I believe they do. I am a strong proponent of democracy. Bad governments lose, and are replaced. Just as it should be. 

Are you dense or something or just trying to play a game of silly bugger? 

See above.

As a PP supporter, can you point to 1 single policy change/update/addition/subtraction that you think will improve lives in the country? Ideally with how it will improve life...as in don't just say he will defund the CBC, and not explain why that would be good etc.

I'm not trying to be a smart ass or catch you. I'm honestly interested in why you think the PCs under PP will be an improvement. As I have yet to see anything other than "Jt bad" "cbc bad" "more freedom" from them/him.

Minority Parliament and Singh's accomplishment is getting dental care for lower income Canadians, while Pollievre's accomplishment is having Twitter label the CBC state funded media.

6 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Pretty scathing read from Brodbeck this morning: https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/2023/04/17/poilievre-political-tactics-built-on-fabrication

I can't imagine the lack of intellect and critical thinking it would have to take to buy into the preposterous notion that this uncouth, perfidious, reprehensible turd has this country's best interests in mind.

AKA Alberta and Saskatchewan voters.

7 hours ago, rebusrankin said:

Minority Parliament and Singh's accomplishment is getting dental care for lower income Canadians, while Pollievre's accomplishment is having Twitter label the CBC state funded media.

One leader looks out for disadvantaged Canadians and the other looks out for himself. Not surprising. The more Pollievre can dissuade people from legitimate news sources like CBC, the more they rely on uncritically accepting what he says or listening to NP, Rebel, etc. I'm not sure how Canadians don't shake their heads en masse when he claims it is Trudeau's propaganda machine. The Trumpist tactics aren't even being veiled anymore.

Just going to drop this here for no apparent reason.

 

 

"Also notable is the dramatic correlation between Conservative support and disinformation, a link that is even stronger among People’s Party supporters. Among the fully informed (i.e., those who score 0 on our disinformation index), Conservative support sits at just 12 per cent. Among the least informed cohort, Conservative support soars to 68 per cent. Likewise, People’s Party support rises from literally 0 per cent to 12 per cent along the disinformation spectrum."

https://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2023/03/polarized-gridlock/

(continued:)

Description of disinformation index:

For this research, we tested five separate indicators of disinformation and we have constructed a disinformation index, a 15-point scale that measures how strongly respondents have bought into four pieces of disinformation and how strongly they reject one piece of correct information:

• Vaccine-related deaths are being concealed from the public;
• COVID-19 vaccines can cause infertility;
• COVID-19 vaccines can alter a patient’s DNA;
• Inflation is much higher in Canada than in the United States; and
• Climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

The index is constructed as follows:

• A respondent receives three points for every statement they rate as completely true (or completely false in the case of greenhouse gases causing climate change);
• A respondent receives two points for every statement they rate as mostly true (or mostly false in the case of greenhouse gases causing climate change); and
• A respondents receives one point for every statement they skip (in other words, every statement they are unable to correctly categorize as true or false); respondents do not receive a point for skipping the statement on inflation.

Methodology:

This survey was conducted using EKOS’ unique, hybrid online/telephone research panel, Probit. Our panel offers exhaustive coverage of the Canadian population (i.e., Internet, phone, cell phone), random recruitment (in other words, participants are recruited randomly, they do not opt themselves into our panel), and equal probability sampling. All respondents to our panel are recruited by telephone using random digit dialling and are confirmed by live interviewers. Unlike opt-in online panels, Probit supports margin of error estimates.

Edited April 18, 20232 yr by Wideleft

Half of Conservatives polled would rather not exercise their democratic right than vote for another party.

I feel like I am too dumb to understand why I should be outraged by this. 

 

6 minutes ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

I feel like I am too dumb to understand why I should be outraged by this. 

 

Apparently, the key to success in politics is to not come from a family whose namesake foundation has donated millions of dollars in scholarships to students in need.

16 minutes ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

I feel like I am too dumb to understand why I should be outraged by this. 

 

Agreed, I am trying to get outraged by this... but... I can't. 

**** Trudeau! For not facilitating my rage!

1 hour ago, Wideleft said:

Just going to drop this here for no apparent reason.

 

 

Open question - what qualifies someone as “informed” or “misinformed” As the baseline for trust in certain news sources. I think those numbers probably correlate with education level, but what objective stats establish that someone is labelled as “misinformed” to create the table’s “truth outcome” that the misinformed follow right-wing sites?

Edited April 18, 20232 yr by TrueBlue4ever

27 minutes ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

I feel like I am too dumb to understand why I should be outraged by this. 

 

Trudeau authorized this coverage? It is on the CBC. 

13 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Open question - what qualifies someone as “informed” or “misinformed” As the baseline for trust in certain news sources. I think those numbers probably correlate with education level, but what objective stats establish that someone is labelled as “misinformed” to create the table’s “truth outcome” that the misinformed follow right-wing sites?

Answer is in the second post.

13 minutes ago, JCon said:

Trudeau authorized this coverage? It is on the CBC. 

Duhhh it was the 31% that authorized it.

7 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Duhhh it was the 31% that authorized it.

5 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Answer is in the second post.

I thought that was for a separate graph. But either way it seems to be a flawed methodology. This is the problem with how some of these surveys are done, and they just feed the “fake news” disinformation confirmation bias.  And this is a survey I would tend to agree with.