[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

I think what you have done here is as reprehensible as what the Conservatives did in the election.  And you won't even admit that what you did was an attack on his character.

Clear enough?

So you've answered none of my questions, and instead decided to label me as "reprehensible".

Yeah, I think I read you loud and clear.

Back to the ignore list with you.


Although just to be clear - I questioned whether stating facts was an "attack", but absolutely I am questioning his character.  Just like bringing up Trump's "grab them by the pussy" is questioning Trump's character.

Character matters.

[viper37]

I think what you have done here is as reprehensible as what the Conservatives did in the election.  And you won't even admit that what you did was an attack on his character.

Clear enough?

Was it a factual statement or not?

[Jacob]

Stating facts is probably the most single most common form of attack in politics. Seems a bit weird to pretend it's not, but you do you Beeb.

Back to the ignore list for me too, I suppose.

[viper37]

Stating facts is probably the most single most common form of attack in politics. Seems a bit weird to pretend it's not, but you do you Beeb.

Back to the ignore list for me too, I suppose.

Again, I don't understand the outrage against BB here.

You guys totally lost me with the outrage to his original message.  It seems like it's not innocuous and pretty relevant to his political career.  If he was conservative, you'd both be using it against him.

I mean, just like BB said, we don't criticize Trump solely for his ideas.  Lauren Boebert has been recently criticized for actions totally irrelevant to her political career.  And I certainly will be the first to throw stones her way.

[crazy canuck]

Stating facts is probably the most single most common form of attack in politics. Seems a bit weird to pretend it's not, but you do you Beeb.

Back to the ignore list for me too, I suppose.

Again, I don't understand the outrage against BB here.

You guys totally lost me with the outrage to his original message.  It seems like it's not innocuous and pretty relevant to his political career.  If he was conservative, you'd both be using it against him.

I mean, just like BB said, we don't criticize Trump solely for his ideas.  Lauren Boebert has been recently criticized for actions totally irrelevant to her political career.  And I certainly will be the first to throw stones her way.

It was so laughably ineffective as an attack during the election that I was really surprised BB repeated the same attack here.


But what really surprise me was his denial that he was even engaging in an attack.

And then, to further my surprise, he characterized my characterization of his actions as a characterization of him as an individual.

There may be too big of a communication gulf for there to be any meaningful discussion at this point. And I'm OK with that.

Edit: to give you an idea of how much of an embarrassment the conservative campaign was, they had to come out with a new slogan at the end of the election, which was "vote like nobody's watching"

Even they realized how ridiculous they were, and that nobody would actually want to publicly admit supporting them.

[Grey Fox]

I really don't understand how using demonstrable facts has an attack is inherently bad?

It wasn't effective but it was...true?

The ignore list should be removed, it's a really bad idea for this small community. I wish it was never implemented.

[crazy canuck]

I really don't understand how using demonstrable facts has an attack is inherently bad?

It wasn't effective but it was...true?

The ignore list should be removed, it's a really bad idea for this small community. I wish it was never implemented.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember the attack ads that conservatives ran against Chrétien.  Factual yes and complete political suicide.


Seems the new generation of conservative bright bulbs forgot the lessons learned by the past generation.

[Grey Fox]

Not old enough and didn't understand english when I was 8 years old.

[crazy canuck]

Not old enough and didn't understand english when I was 8 years old.

I would say look it up, but this happened pre-Internet and so I doubt that there is much available without going into news archives.

Long story short, the conservatives ran attack ads making fun of Chrétien's facial deformity. It was entirely factually true. He does have the deformity which impacts his speech.

The attack implied that he was not up to the job because of his deformity.

It backfired spectacularly.

In the present case, it is entirely true that the current premier of Manitoba has had trouble with the law in his past. The implication that, as a result, he was not morally qualified to hold office also backfired spectacularly.

Edit: I am not sure why BB thought it was important to repeat the failed attack, other than to besmirch the character of the premier of Manitoba.

[Jacob]

Again, I don't understand the outrage against BB here.

You guys totally lost me with the outrage to his original message.  It seems like it's not innocuous and pretty relevant to his political career.  If he was conservative, you'd both be using it against him.

I mean, just like BB said, we don't criticize Trump solely for his ideas.  Lauren Boebert has been recently criticized for actions totally irrelevant to her political career.  And I certainly will be the first to throw stones her way.

I'm not outraged

Stating negative facts about a politician is the most common form of attack.

[HVC]

Would you classify it as a reprehensible attack?

[Barrister]

Again, I don't understand the outrage against BB here.

You guys totally lost me with the outrage to his original message.  It seems like it's not innocuous and pretty relevant to his political career.  If he was conservative, you'd both be using it against him.

I mean, just like BB said, we don't criticize Trump solely for his ideas.  Lauren Boebert has been recently criticized for actions totally irrelevant to her political career.  And I certainly will be the first to throw stones her way.

I'm not outraged

Stating negative facts about a politician is the most common form of attack.

"Wab Kinew beat his girlfriend and was charged with domestic violence".

Call that an attack if you wish.  I'm not offended.

The question is whether or not that impacts whether he should be premier of a Canadian province.  A certain poster on my ignore list seemed to think it's somehow offensive to even raise that as a question.

[garbon]

Again, I don't understand the outrage against BB here.

You guys totally lost me with the outrage to his original message.  It seems like it's not innocuous and pretty relevant to his political career.  If he was conservative, you'd both be using it against him.

I mean, just like BB said, we don't criticize Trump solely for his ideas.  Lauren Boebert has been recently criticized for actions totally irrelevant to her political career.  And I certainly will be the first to throw stones her way.

I'm not outraged

Stating negative facts about a politician is the most common form of attack.

"Wab Kinew beat his girlfriend and was charged with domestic violence".

Call that an attack if you wish.  I'm not offended.

The question is whether or not that impacts whether he should be premier of a Canadian province.  A certain poster on my ignore list seemed to think it's somehow offensive to even raise that as a question.

I'll admit I'm also confused by CC's stance. Clearly he was bothered by ineffective election tactics but yeah I don't see why that means it is reprehensible to consider whether that disqualifies a politician for them.

But then I heard he is such a smooth orator.

[crazy canuck]

Again, I don't understand the outrage against BB here.

You guys totally lost me with the outrage to his original message.  It seems like it's not innocuous and pretty relevant to his political career.  If he was conservative, you'd both be using it against him.

I mean, just like BB said, we don't criticize Trump solely for his ideas.  Lauren Boebert has been recently criticized for actions totally irrelevant to her political career.  And I certainly will be the first to throw stones her way.

I'm not outraged

Stating negative facts about a politician is the most common form of attack.

"Wab Kinew beat his girlfriend and was charged with domestic violence".

Call that an attack if you wish.  I'm not offended.

The question is whether or not that impacts whether he should be premier of a Canadian province.  A certain poster on my ignore list seemed to think it's somehow offensive to even raise that as a question.

Oh, fuck off. That's not what I said and you know it.

Also, I have to laugh at how conservative the rent so much about cancel culture, but you snowflakes are so sensitive that you need to cancel people rather than face what they say.

[crazy canuck]

Again, I don't understand the outrage against BB here.

You guys totally lost me with the outrage to his original message.  It seems like it's not innocuous and pretty relevant to his political career.  If he was conservative, you'd both be using it against him.

I mean, just like BB said, we don't criticize Trump solely for his ideas.  Lauren Boebert has been recently criticized for actions totally irrelevant to her political career.  And I certainly will be the first to throw stones her way.

I'm not outraged

Stating negative facts about a politician is the most common form of attack.

"Wab Kinew beat his girlfriend and was charged with domestic violence".

Call that an attack if you wish.  I'm not offended.

The question is whether or not that impacts whether he should be premier of a Canadian province.  A certain poster on my ignore list seemed to think it's somehow offensive to even raise that as a question.

I'll admit I'm also confused by CC's stance. Clearly he was bothered by ineffective election tactics but yeah I don't see why that means it is reprehensible to consider whether that disqualifies a politician for them.

But then I heard he is such a smooth orator.

I am not surprised that you have weighed in, and that you've completely misunderstood the point. The point is that the attack BB made was already made by the conservatives and it failed. BB, for some reason decided to repeat the attack here after the election, and after he knew the attack and failed to swear the electorate. There can be only one reason he did that.

The fact that he was so intellectually dishonest, and to know that he was attacking the Premier, is what I responded to. Appointment be too nuanced for those who don't understand what was actually happening.