Can you watch the video were Justin says I never forced anyone to get the vaccine? So they are not making it up


How about the National Post

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/oth...b1e9e8d2&ei=11

I do not doubt he said those words, but watching 15 seconds does not give the context of the whole situation. That is where the people who create content like you consume come in. They create narratives for you that you want to hear. They also color grade the videos to make him look worse, and pick a frame to use as a still photo where he looks awkward. Look, I get it. They create stuff for people like you to consume and they are very good at it. They are a machine. However your sources are always very biased and it is clear they create their stuff to monetize people like you (though odds are those creating it also share your beliefs). You are fully entitled to be a passive consumer of their content, nothing illegal about that, but it is what it is.

I will not go into a debate with you when you use as a foundation an inherently biased source, because it is a waste of time, and I cannot figure out every way they manipulate the information to feed you. Yeah I can see how they manipulate the video and photos at times, though they are hardly subtle on that and odds are you do not even care when their manipulation is pointed out to you. You are fully entitled to be an alt right consumer of their entertainment based media. Just do not expect others to take you seriously when you regurgitate it and the sources clearly have extreme agendas.

All the best.

Engaging with you is a waste of time if I had said the sky is blue you would say I got that from a right wing media source. Bottom line is he said it and lied and folks like you just believe him

This sums up Trudeau quite well

I link your sources and their history of articles. Stop trying to pretend your biased, derpy sources are an indifferent form of news coverage. If you want your alt right agenda sources to not be pointed out for what they are then learn to get better sources before repeating the stuff they feed you. This really is not that hard.


No, bottom line is you are as anti-Trudeau as it gets and will latch onto any story to feed that hunger of yours. You may be technically correct in some of your stuff, but why should anyone bother to wade through all the biased manipulated nonsense you repeat to figure out what parts may have some validity to them. That is on you to better present your angry little agenda in a more effective manner using better source material and reasoning.

This sums up your extremely biased view of him as fed to you by as derpy and biased a source as it gets. That's all. Nothing more. You trying to pretend that politically biased stuff is factual is part of the issue you have with how you present the sources of your material that is created to feed you and monetize you as a passive consumer of their content. You absorb and repeat things that are told to you that you want to hear and believe, which shows how well they are doing their job. Great business model.

All the best.

I disagree .
There is a vast distinction between the 2 statements.

Fwiw I think he was wrong to do so but not in all jobs .
Let’s not forgot it was a health emergency that occurs once per century .
Unfortunate necessity are sometimes needed in extraordinary events ?
Like conscription during a world war ?
The mistake is to try to use everyday policies as a base line to judge on extraordinary event policies aka populism ….

This is a really weird assertion. Why would anyone need to "just believe him"? We were all there, we're all aware of what JT did and did not do. This is an obvious difference in framing, and I think you know that. Some people will say that requiring vaccination to continue working for their job in the federal government is forcing them, and others will say they had a choice and could leave their jobs.

I never said vaccine mandates were wrong but for him to say he didn't force people to take vaccines is crap.
Your a federal worker choose between feeding your family and paying your bills

That's forced to me . It's just another stupid comment by a self absorbed politician

Degenerate Doug at it again with removing post secondary requirements to be a popo. Guess you don't need to many brain cells to hand out speeding tickets but still.

Doesn’t change the fact people aren’t force too .
They could go to a doctor and ask a leave of absence I suppose ?
Fwiw we were in a “war time period” against covid .
U can disagree with that statement and critic jt for his actions .
Many Québécois still to this day were against the circonscription in WW2 impose on them ( not many ties to England for us ) , were they wrong ?
U decide …

Leave of absence for what ? Doc I don't want the vaccine.

I'm not criticizing him for the mandates just don't lie and say you didn't force vaccines on folks

We get it - you do not like Trudeau. Don't vote for his party the next time around. You may as well go full PPC at this point as the leader says things you like to be told. Shifty will be happy!

All the best.

Would you say he didn't force anyone who wasn't a federal worker? As in, in your weird semantic word game faux outrage land, it is only the federal workers you think he "forced", right?

I would only think federal workers were strictly under the government instructions.
If I wanted to travel or eat dinner at a restaurant I was forced to get a vaccine. So flying would be under the federal mandate while a restaurant was under provincial
Let me repeat I don't have an issue with the requirements but at least be honest about it

Fwiw I will give u this lozen , jt could have done much better
IF people were fired instead of staying home unpaid for example .
Unable to take a leave of absence from doctors , etc.

Because

Government keep accommodating people for religious reason , I don’t see why it wouldn’t have try first to accommodate its workers for a much “real” concern in my view ….

But that is about all I can do jt did wrong considering the crisis we were in .

Ah great. I just wanted to check that you are taking a such an extreme version of language that you think vaccine requirements to eat at a restaurant is equivalent to "forcing" someone to get a vaccine. That's pretty silly, but I guess anything goes to find an interpretation of things Trudeau says that casts him in the negative.

ask 100 people on the street

--- at least 50 say they have been coerced in some way or another.

at least be honest about it.

btw what have these truckers protested for?

So you think that choosing between being employed at a federal job or taking the vaccine is choice ?
You just defend the man when he blatantly lies to CDNs all in the defence of a carbon tax

I guess he could shoot someone on the corner of Bloor Street and you would still vote for him

This is kind of hilarious. The first "lie" is just silly word games about what one means by "force". The second, presumably, is Trudeau truthfully observing that the fiscal impact of the carbon tax is a net benefit for most Canadians. Despite earlier in this thread you agreeing that Poilievre's lie (where he ignores the 90% rebates entirely) was much more egregious, you seem to term it "blantant lie" to not also always mention secondary economic effects from one report in addition to the fiscal effects. Yet somehow you jump from this to shooting someone on bloor street. Amazing.

Let's not forget that embarassing bit just the other day when you (confusing Poilievre for Musk) agreed that Poilievre was lieing when he falsely described the CBC as trudeau propanda, not news. Yet you are still going to vote for his party, so I dunno if I would be making shooting analogies if I were you.

That would be a whataboutism oh right your allowed to use them while you chastise others for using them

For someone who uses dozens or hundreds of whatabouts each week you are not really good at identifying them in others. Kind of strange.

Note, you are welcome to use whatabouts as much as you want, even if you say something silly like the Democrats are avoiding debates in the primaries (with a sitting President) as you try your best to pretend you are not a full alt-right passive consumer, but when you use them over and over all they do is weaken any argument you are trying to make. Add to it you generally always use really bad source material and, well, here we are.

He was not using a whatabout on you, he was pointing out your conflicting past statements, which happens often as you tend to be a poster that is in the moment with whatever the latest alt-right talking point is on FOX news. A few days ago it was China/Biden for instance, so not that uncommon you will say things that directly conflict with something else you say. When that is pointed out you do the redirection thing instead of just owning up, when again owning up would increase your credibility moving forward.

All of the above is genuine advice as to how you can be a more effective poster, though I have a reasonable assumption it will not be appreciated and will be mistaken as trolling. You probably have some interesting things to offer, but hard to really find those amid all the repeating alt right opinion pieces and whatabouts. In the end that is your problem to sort out or not.

Gee looks like a whatabout to me and not factual . I never said I agreed with what Pierre Polliviere said I just agreed that CBC is Government funded media source and biased

Actually I do not take this post as a trolling post

One of the challenges with talking with you is that you use whataboutisms so frequently, so inherently in your posts that unless you reject the structure of your whataboutism use each and every time you end up having to buy into the structure. Wallowing with pigs and all that. YOU did the ridiculous whataboutism jumping from vaccine mandates to "whatabout the carbon tax" in back to back lines. Of course, it can and should be pointed out that you had just last week admitted that Poilievre's lies about the carbon tax were far more deceptive than the truthful statement by Trudeau that the fiscal costs are a net benefit. Is that a whataboutism? A bit. But if someone is playing the whataboutism game so intrinsically it is I think worth pointing out when they do a horrible job of it.

I admitted that ? Ill never agree that the way the carbon tax program administered now is a net benefit. I have been clear its a targeted tax on Conservatives. I applaud Pierre if elected the first thing I am assume he will do is scrap the carbon tax

I may have admitted that Pierre does mis state the truth but that is politics . The serial liar is none other than Justin Trudeau

Yes. Here is you previously admitting Poilievre tells the greater lie:
It isn't close. Poilievre entirely ignore the 90% rebate. Trudeau ignores that beyond his truthful fiscal impact statements there is also secondary economic effects. One is just a bold faced lie, the other a sort of contextual omission of all possible facts.


As for your "it's a targeted tax on Conservatives", this is just nonsense. It does no such thing. Firstly, it is structured equally on every province in the program, and costs the exact same amount per tonne for every person. It's completely politically neutral. Here is the best part: it actually has a REDUCTION for small rural communities and a REDUCATION for various agricultural things. That is, it is neutral for everybody with the exception of being BETTER for some mostly conservative groups. Want to know who pays the most? Rich people who predominantly live in urban areas because they spend a lot.

The carbon tax hits rural familes harder, It hits trades harder. These folks generally vote conservative The real only folks buying electric cars are the rich and they get the rebates.




Is it possible there both lying?