"under ASSUMPTION".
Assumption.
So I should have used assumed rather than presumed. My bad.
Point still stands.
If you're getting on me for not being 'clear', then where's your standing up against PP for the same?
I don’t see the word “Presumed” but OK.
View attachment 20109
You do realize that Poilievre is the leader of the official opposition to the government in Parliament, right?
... yes, Ron.
Trudeau is currently the PM & leader of the government. Should Poilievre have asked these questions directed towards Jagmeet Singh or Elizabeth May or Yves-François Blanchet?
He shouldn't have asked the questions AT ALL until more was known. THAT is my point.
"Mr. Speaker, we just heard media reports about a terrorist attack at the border in Niagara."
A lie.
What he SHOULD have said was "Mr. Speaker, we've just heard media reports about an incident at the Niagara crossing of the Canada-US border. The media is reporting a possible terrorist attack," or "The media is reporting it is an assumed terrorist attack".
"Can the prime minister give us any information about this terrorist attack?" Poilievre asked first in French, in a question that began at 2:23 p.m. ET, according to ParlVu.
The federal government confirmed Thursday there is 'no evidence of terrorism at this time,' in regards to the Rainbow Bridge vehicle explosion on Wednesday, and are now accusing Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre for jumping to conclusions in raising the spectre of a 'terrorist attack,' early on.
apple.news
"
Can the prime minister give us any information about this terrorist attack"
1. It was NOT a fucking terrorist attack. Again, my fucking point; you DON'T throw this kind of statement out as if it's fact UNLESS YOU KNOW FOR SURE IT WAS, otherwise you are pushing people into emotional states that aren't necessary (like panic, fear, anger, and stupid fucking idiocy when they think they "know who did it" as many on this board like to do when an incident happens and they're quick to blame "Muzzies" if it's terrorism related)
2. It was 3 HOURS after the incident; Canada was treating it like it could be terrorism, the US was not. Considering it takes time for cops to investigate and there was uncertainty, come the fuck on, 3 hours is NOT enough time to know more than the basics. He left the House TO get information... and they complained about that after. Make a fucking choice, did they want Trudeau to have info or not?
“Mr. Speaker, we’ve just heard media reports of a terrorist attack, an explosion at the Niagara crossing of the Canada-U.S. border. At least two people are dead, one is injured. It is the principal responsibility of government to protect the people. Can the Prime Minister give us an update on what he knows, and what action plan he will immediately implement to bring home security for our people?” Poilievre asked.
Yes, see alllllll the above.
He stoked fears by making it look like it WAS a terrorist attack, when the media was not reporting that, it was reporting it might be, it was assumed, etc.
Trudeau has made his own bed, & ours, for at least a generation.
Yes, he has.
But do people need to constantly remind the world of it? Or do they need to continually convince themselves because they lack a memory?
Or is it just that PP is trying SO HARD to appear better than Trudeau, when he's NOT and this is clear evidence of it.
Here’s the exact quote, again:
I don't need the exact quote again.
If you’re talking about something else, & I’m putting out the wrong quote, can you post a link please? Keep in mind that CTV has already corrected their story three times since yesterday apparently. I could very well be wrong here and very off-track.
I've used the exact quote every time. The only thing I did was use presume instead of assume.
That's it.
Again, if you're getting on me for that - to which I again admit my fault in wording - then why are you not on PP for claiming it was a terrorist attack when it was not, IN THE HOUSE?
Wouldn’t be the first time, & probably won’t be the last that I’ve been very wrong here, but I’m just not finding what you’re describing above. Maybe this?:
I don't know what you're getting vs. what I am referring to in the exact thing PP said..
Look, Ron, there's a LOT of issues that this one story has pointed out problems with the media and Government and in the end that's my biggest issue and frustration.
1. The media, in a rush for clicks, makes the most outthere, reactive posts about a story to get attention so it generates $$. As a society, we've pushed the media to be like this because that's all that generates money now is sensationalism. We all know that, it's bitched about constantly. But when there are stories like this, we all know how bad reporting or bad need for clicks can throw things into chaos. It's why the media isn't as trusted now as it used to be.
2. You do NOT stand up in the fucking HOUSE and claim terrorism unless you are CERTAIN IT'S FUCKING TERRORISM. As part of Government, PP should NOT just be throwing out there assumptions, ESPECIALLY if he wants to be the P-fucking-M. But because he said "media reports", he now has a backup of "Oh my bad, it wasn't terrorism at all, but blame the media, not ME for suggesting it".
And if you're truthful you would readily admit that had Trudeau done the same (and likely has, his fuckery is long) he'd be ROASTED for it. So why the fuck is PP getting a pass? I mean, you have people claiming that PP is EXACTLY what this country needs but is he, when he would do shit like this? How is THAT any better than fucking Trudeau?
3. Politicians, like the media, are now living off of clicks, of sensationalism. If you are going to call out one person for doing it, you call them all out. No exceptions. My issue isn't that Trudeau is being called out for his stupidity - actually it's great he is - my issue is that when PP does it, it somehow gets a fucking pass. Trudeau has made a lot of his own fucking Drama, yes, but PP seems to be following his footsteps. Yet Trudeau does it, it's a fucking disgrace. PP does it, it's somehow the best thing for Canada.
And if the leader you want is someone who would use any excuse to be sensationalist over a non-issue, what the HELL is it going to be like when something REAL comes along? What if it was a REAL terrorist threat and PP was leader?
I'd rather not live in a country that panic's at the drop of a hat thanks to a leader who wants to be a media whore (which is something considering Trudeau's media whoring)
nationalpost.com
