Great chat! I'm on the same island Tim is from. My view Poilievre Is in first place. He is the Titanic. The rest of them are the icebergs. Also at times he is his own iceberg, out shaking hands with the truckers, not a good idea. He can be prone to sticking his foot in it at times.
May I disagree. Poilievre is getting the crowds to show up because he demonstrated he wasn't scared of the twitter bubble narrative in his engagement with Canadians who were showing their frustrations, however crassly. As educated peoples (assuming here that's us), I think we are rapidly losing the ability to cut through the crassness and get to the heart of why people are frustrated. People in democracies have always been crass, it's just that today everyone has an outlet to blast out what they think rather than keep most of the rudeness to conversations in the bar. That doesn't delegitimate their thinking (and especially not their vote) and so why are we criticizing politicians for going out to hear what people have to say? The major criticism should be for those politicians who run away and refuse to engage.
I think that's total nonsense. Why meet some and not others who are protesting on the Hill? Crippling the capital happened after the gov't and pretty much anybody in power refused to meet with the so-called deplorables.
Great chat! I'm on the same island Tim is from. My view Poilievre Is in first place. He is the Titanic. The rest of them are the icebergs. Also at times he is his own iceberg, out shaking hands with the truckers, not a good idea. He can be prone to sticking his foot in it at times.
May I disagree. Poilievre is getting the crowds to show up because he demonstrated he wasn't scared of the twitter bubble narrative in his engagement with Canadians who were showing their frustrations, however crassly. As educated peoples (assuming here that's us), I think we are rapidly losing the ability to cut through the crassness and get to the heart of why people are frustrated. People in democracies have always been crass, it's just that today everyone has an outlet to blast out what they think rather than keep most of the rudeness to conversations in the bar. That doesn't delegitimate their thinking (and especially not their vote) and so why are we criticizing politicians for going out to hear what people have to say? The major criticism should be for those politicians who run away and refuse to engage.
I think it is a dangerous precedent to set that if your not getting your way you need to cripple the nations capital.
No PM would be able to go out and meet with any group like that
I think that's total nonsense. Why meet some and not others who are protesting on the Hill? Crippling the capital happened after the gov't and pretty much anybody in power refused to meet with the so-called deplorables.
Very enjoyable discussion. Nice combination with Catherine adding the reporter's view of an informed non-partisan observer.