Next time Poilievre asks a stupid question or as a premise to a question states a stupid talking point like "now people know that it is Trudeau propaganda, not news" ...

Trudeau should, stand up, patiently wait for the House to subside and get quiet, and then answer "Mr. Speaker, CBC is not Trudeau propaganda" and sit down.

Cons would get into an absolute uproar shouting and looking like some kind of Monty Python idiots, or worse, looking like Empty Greene and Boebert. Let them carry on their antics as long as it takes the Speaker to get in control.

Then Poilievre will re-ask the same or a similar question. Do the same thing, wait for quiet, then "Mr. Speaker, CBC is not a subsidiary of George Soros" and sit down. Keep doing it until asked civil questions.

Most CON questions will be phrased as repackaged conspiracy theories or watered down magat points or like "Have you stopped beating your wife yet". Bergen did it. Much more so under Poilievre now that he defeated the more honourable O'Toole wing of his party. So play it straight and knock down the premise in as few words as possible.

The technique is to apply negative reinforcement to nonsense and respond positively to proper questions. That negative reinforcement will drive the Cons ape-shit and they will look even more stupid. It's a corollary of your comment getting more Con con-game nonsense identified as such for the Canadian public.



Another point is Poilievre is pretending the CBC doesn't play music.

"Cons would get into an absolute uproar shouting and looking like some kind of Monty Python idiots, or worse, looking like Empty Greene and Boebert."

Isn't that every question period?

Imagine if Trudeau was waiting for the Cons to quiet down and said "When you are ready, children". Envision the exploding heads and apoplectic fits.

Then later, when he would inevitably be asked, "Weren't you disrespectful of the Opposition?" he could say "Yes I was." "But why Prime Minister?" "They asked a childish question and I answered it straight up the middle."

they saw what his inspiration did to the US. It is scary to watch from the US and see that Pollievre is even the head of a party.

the vast majority are left center-left in Canada. It is just that it is split between 3 parties.

The Canadian media landscape is NOT corrupted by a RW fox’s shit spreading media virus.

And there is the matter of the shield of robust hate speech laws that do not infringe on anyone’s freedom of speech…so says not me, says federal Supreme Court.

Oh, and an actual independent judiciary top to bottom, where the public still has faith in the administration of Justice. It’s all true!

The graphic is as wrong as amusing.

You are so wrong about the data that you can't attack it factually, so you attack the graphic painter by saying the painter is not an Authority. News flash: the graphic painter doesn't have to be an authority.

Of course, you didn't look at the data.

You take issue with data the Wikipedia articles? You didn't even look. Go look. You can do it, are able to do it. Copy the links by typing. I looked at 2011. Do it. You will see just how wrong you are.



What a cheap tactic to attack the painter.

What is the definition of conservative, and how did the graphic artist assign Winnipeg free press as conservative, cause that’s cray?! Believe me, cray conclusion right there!

Do you dispute those are Canadian newspapers?

Do you dispute that they made those endorsements?

Do you dispute that they are basically the main newspapers in the country?

Or do you dispute all of the above?

What are your facts for your contention?

Do you know what the word "endorsement" means? Look it up. And then look at the Wikipedia references. Notice the word "endorsement" in the references.

Notice the third word in the title of the graphic?


Now, understand that "endorsement" does not equate to one single graphic artist "assigning" paper X as conservative.

It's not subjective whether or not they endorsed the Conservative party. It's a fact that they did or not.

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/editorials/2011/04/30/canada-needs-four-years-of-stability



What part of "majority Conservative government" do you not understand? Did the word "needs" throw you?

It is not subjective that this is an endorsement.

It is a fact.

Present fed cons are NOT supported by Free Press, of this no doubt.

Read it again, carefully this time.

You are not a serious person. I think I am done with your nonsense.

And there's no way I'm letting that lying shyster put my pension into Bitcoin.

Call me when the cons AREN'T lying, projecting and attacking their political opponents over made up things.