Politalk.ca

Pick your Trumpy talking point and scapegoat immigrants PP. Keep catering to the bigots, the fascists and the stupid.

He's sticking to what he knows.

And he knows if they did separate his party would cease to exist.

Critique of Poilievre’s Narrative (0:00 - 1:16): The video focuses on Poilievre's claim that there was no separation movement in Alberta during the Stephen Harper era, labeling this argument as populist and intellectually dishonest.
Analysis of Cause and Effect (1:49 - 8:31): The creator argues that Poilievre uses a deceptive strategy of linking unrelated events. The video breaks down the actual reasons behind the current political climate in Alberta:
Political Shifts: The evolution of the Progressive Conservative Party into the United Conservative Party (3:35 - 4:42).
Role of Danielle Smith: The video argues that Premier Danielle Smith has actively promoted the separation agenda to appease specific factions within her base (4:42 - 5:35, 10:06 - 11:30).
Misleading Logic: The creator provides an analogy involving measles (6:18 - 7:25) and Alberta's fiscal deficit (7:46 - 8:31) to illustrate why the Poilievre correlation logic is flawed.
Criticism of Populist Rhetoric (8:45 - 10:06): The narrator challenges Poilievre's political performance, noting that he has faced significant electoral defeats despite his party's promises, and suggests that his "Captain Canada" persona is merely a platform to attack the current government.
Conclusion:
The creator concludes by expressing strong disdain for Poilievre’s political tactics, questioning the honesty of his "unity" campaign, and suggests that the separation talk is a strategic choice by the current Alberta government rather than a reaction to federal leadership.



pp afk? Shocked I tell you SHOCKED!!

In much the same way as the GOP use Jim Crow to use the interpretation of law to oppress minorities and give power to the elites, the cons in Canada use the interpretation of truth the same way as they do not have the competency to make laws. Gaslighting is there way of keeping the plebs in line.


The Normalization of Misinformation: Gilmore argues that while politicians across the spectrum may occasionally mislead, the Conservative Party stands out for its consistent use of dog whistles, conspiracy theories, and the amplification of individuals known for spreading debunked claims (0:57 - 1:04).
The Case of Mario Zelaya: She highlights how Caroline Elliot (a BC Conservative leadership hopeful) and Pierre Poilievre have lent credibility to Mario Zelaya, an influencer who has been fact-checked by AFP for spreading misleading content (1:05 - 2:13).
Misrepresentation of Media Outlets: The video critiques Conservative MPs for mischaracterizing a satirical show—produced by CBC Entertainment and an arm of APTN—as an attack on conservatives by the news media. She points out that the show actually addressed figures who have been accused of downplaying the horrors of residential schools (2:49 - 3:34).
Critique of Political Ethics: Gilmore expresses frustration that politicians are prioritizing "political wins" over shared reality, noting that sitting MPs have granted one-on-one interviews to figures like Harrison Faulkner, who has been associated with controversial online behavior (4:57 - 5:22).
Gilmore concludes by calling for a return to a baseline of ethics in politics, emphasizing that meaningful debate is impossible if politicians refuse to operate within a shared reality or take responsibility for the figures they choose to elevate (5:27 - 6:52).

Case in point:



If she was a liberal they would be SCREAMING about her being a US agent but because she is one of theirs... not a peep. Rules for thee but never for me.They also assume that anyone that makes laws will also do what they would do when in power so will never trust their intent or fairness and will always look to skirt the law or to ignore it/bury it in endless appeals. In their eyes laws are only a tool to oppress the underclasses thus undermining the legitimacy of laws and institutions unless they expressly and exclusively control them.

The Project: The announcement centers on a proposed floating LNG liquefaction, production, storage, and offloading facility (0:31 - 0:38), supported by a 750 km pipeline collecting gas from northeast BC and northwest Alberta (0:40 - 0:47). Having a locked-in buyer is described as a critical step for the project's viability (0:52 - 0:58).
Criticism of Pierre Poilievre: The creator harshly criticizes Pierre Poilievre for his response to the deal, which Poilievre described as a "headline without a deadline" (1:14 - 1:17). The creator argues that Poilievre ignored the geographic and economic realities of shipping, noting that Poilievre suggested the project should have been based on the East Coast to be closer to Germany (2:53 - 3:00, 6:23 - 6:40).
Logistical Analysis: The creator uses Google Maps to refute Poilievre's claims (5:15 - 5:35), explaining that once LNG is loaded onto ships, they can navigate via the Panama Canal to reach global markets, including Europe and Asia, regardless of which coast the terminal is on (4:38 - 5:10, 6:08 - 6:20).
Economic Context: The creator contends that Poilievre's opposition is politically motivated and aimed at his base, rather than based on sound logistics, noting the extreme costs associated with building a 6,000 km pipeline across Canada compared to the proposed route (7:28 - 7:55, 8:15 - 8:40).

That's why I like Klaus. He just laughs at the obvious mistakes. Hmmm. A trillion dollars for a pipeline, or we just float the boat.

Or better yet, send Asia gas from Kitimat, and send Germany gas from Texas. Direct routes and both are shorter.