I'm sorry, I'm going to roll a Disbelief check on that article. Unless someone can find me something from the Elections Canada website that says this, I'm going to disregard it as a right-wing ploy to sow FUD around climate change activism.
There's nothing on the Environmental Defense website about this, and the only other newspapers reporting on this have copied the article verbatim.
Given that it was a National Post article, skepticism is certainly warranted. I feel like I'm just in a frame of mind to assume the worst about such things these days.
I'm sorry, I'm going to roll a Disbelief check on that article. Unless someone can find me something from the Elections Canada website that says this, I'm going to disregard it as a right-wing ploy to sow FUD around climate change activism.
There's nothing on the Environmental Defense website about this, and the only other newspapers reporting on this have copied the article verbatim.
The reason they have is that it is a The Canadian Press syndicated article. I mean, it's entirely possible that it could be wrong, but it would have to be an error, and a pretty big one. The Canadian Press is a legit organization.
I'm sorry, I'm going to roll a Disbelief check on that article. Unless someone can find me something from the Elections Canada website that says this, I'm going to disregard it as a right-wing ploy to sow FUD around climate change activism.
There's nothing on the Environmental Defense website about this, and the only other newspapers reporting on this have copied the article verbatim.
The reason they have is that it is a The Canadian Press syndicated article. I mean, it's entirely possible that it could be wrong, but it would have to be an error, and a pretty big one. The Canadian Press is a legit organization.
I'm sorry, I'm going to roll a Disbelief check on that article. Unless someone can find me something from the Elections Canada website that says this, I'm going to disregard it as a right-wing ploy to sow FUD around climate change activism.
There's nothing on the Environmental Defense website about this, and the only other newspapers reporting on this have copied the article verbatim.
The reason they have is that it is a The Canadian Press syndicated article. I mean, it's entirely possible that it could be wrong, but it would have to be an error, and a pretty big one. The Canadian Press is a legit organization.
Damn.
I've seen it reported in two Québec newspapers, neither of which are owned by the Irvings or Posmedia.
Perrualt also confirmed an Elections Canada investigation into a 10-year-old’s school project on endangered polar bears for illegal third party advertising against the People’s Party of Canada.
“We’ve checked with what Maxime Bernier’s opinions are on the menstrual cycle and now he’s denying women exist,” said Perrault revising policy in real-time. “So we’re warning everyone not to refer to themselves in the feminine pronoun or else they could be indirectly advocating against the a PPC candidate throughout the election period.
…Also, do not use the word ‘period.’”
Meanwhile at the Kremlin, Russian President Vladmir Putin sat back in a comfortable chair to watch Canada destroy its democracy without his help.
"For or against an issue with which at least one candidate or registered party is associated" basically applies to all possible human thoughts and endeavours.
How does that mean anything other than "the CPC exists, therefore third parties can't talk about climate change or evolution during an election campaign without jumping through regulatory hoops?"
And I get their reasoning, I just disagree with their conclusions.
They key is we now need to politicize everything conservatives say. Start a party that says, no, Trudeau does not have nice hair.
No Trudeau did not commit ethics violations with regards to SNC Lavalin.
I would now like the ethics commissioner to investigate whether the ethics commissioner violated ethics by investigating this partisan issue at a cost over $500 without registering with Elections Canada.
+7
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Quick, someone get a Flat Earther on the phone to the CBC.
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
I feel like we're getting carried away here over the wrong thing. This isn't about what you can turn into a farce, it's that organizations involved in trying to have us not burn down the world are directly harmed by this particular farce. I don't think there's an equivalent argument/cause/joke that comes near what the reality represents?
Even in the current bothsiiiiiiiides day and age I'd like to think that if a servicemember is actively recruiting for an openly neo-Nazi paramilitary organization whose name translates into Arabic as "al-Qaeda" people might possibly think it's worth acting on rather than the usual handwringing about "but people just call everyone they don't like Nazis these days!"
You know, with how many annoying and terrible things are going on in the world of politics these days, I do appreciate that they occasionally find fresh new ways to make things stupid.
Alberta based country singer George Canyon will be the CPC candidate in the Nova Scotia riding of Central Nova. This comes after candidate Roger MacKay mysteriously dropped out recently. I'm guessing the CPC first checked to see if they were allowed to run a non-MacKay in the riding, with Peter MacKay and Elmer MacKay having represented it previously.
If you're wondering, no, he doesn't live in the province and hasn't for years. No, he isn't going to cancel any tour dates occurring during the election. Yes, a bunch of people in that riding are going to vote for him if he and Peter MacKay stand next to each other on camera at any point in the next few months.
So that's a thing.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
You know, with how many annoying and terrible things are going on in the world of politics these days, I do appreciate that they occasionally find fresh new ways to make things stupid.
Alberta based country singer George Canyon will be the CPC candidate in the Nova Scotia riding of Central Nova. This comes after candidate Roger MacKay mysteriously dropped out recently. I'm guessing the CPC first checked to see if they were allowed to run a non-MacKay in the riding, with Peter MacKay and Elmer MacKay having represented it previously.
If you're wondering, no, he doesn't live in the province and hasn't for years. No, he isn't going to cancel any tour dates occurring during the election. Yes, a bunch of people in that riding are going to vote for him if he and Peter MacKay stand next to each other on camera at any point in the next few months.
So that's a thing.
I mean, a US transplant represented my home riding of Wild Rose for a long ass time.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
It might be tyrannical and reactionary of me, but "actually live in the riding you're trying to get elected in" as a requirement doesn't strike me as that unreasonable a thing to ask. Especially given the Harper years involved so much idiocy re: senators abusing that kind of thing.
(Also, his wiki entry's fun. "His wife worked three jobs during the day so he could sing at night" is, I suppose, one way to spin that arrangement...)
"The resurfacing of Andrew Scheer's disgusting prejudice against LGBTQI2S+ people and families is very painful for many Canadians," Singh said in his statement.
"This is exactly why, if Canadians deliver a minority government in October, I will not prop up Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives. We can't trust Mr. Scheer or his caucus to champion the fundamental rights of Canadians."
The funny thing about the Conservative response to this video is that they are just pointing to scheer pushing to remove the shit from the Conservative platform as if that is a defense.
He only did it (explicitly) because the public wasn't on board.
We all still know you hate gays you dickheads.
"we don't explicitly seek to curtail gay rights in our platform anymore!" isn't a good take.
This is a mitt Romney 47% moment for Scheer in my opinion.
"The resurfacing of Andrew Scheer's disgusting prejudice against LGBTQI2S+ people and families is very painful for many Canadians," Singh said in his statement.
"This is exactly why, if Canadians deliver a minority government in October, I will not prop up Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives. We can't trust Mr. Scheer or his caucus to champion the fundamental rights of Canadians."
It's what I expect of them but it's good to see it being said out loud.
I definitely hope there's enough backlash that these kinds of companies think twice before giving a platform to this kind of racist bullshit.
I know they like money, but there are surely plenty of buyers of ad space out there who aren't openly bigoted.
I'm pretty sure it is actually illegal for a company to allow advertising for one party but deny it (or even charge more) for another. Either you allow all parties the opportunity to advertise on the same terms, or you deny them all.
At the very least, I wonder if they could at least reject a specific ad, telling the party in question, "You can buy ad space, but we're not running that one".
I know this gets into murky territory pretty quickly, (and honestly, if it came down to it, I'd rather no political billboards), but it feels like there has to be a line.
It's not illegal for a company to do whatever they want with spaces they own. This is not a thing.
The company made a choice to allow it for $$$ and are rightly getting shit for it.
I definitely hope there's enough backlash that these kinds of companies think twice before giving a platform to this kind of racist bullshit.
I know they like money, but there are surely plenty of buyers of ad space out there who aren't openly bigoted.
The company in question's refused to run environmentalism-related ads while also hosting some pretty gross anti-abortion billboards in the past, so I'm pretty sure they've chosen their camp here.
+3
Options
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
I'm pretty sure it is actually illegal for a company to allow advertising for one party but deny it (or even charge more) for another. Either you allow all parties the opportunity to advertise on the same terms, or you deny them all.
This only applies to advertising falling under the CRTC's purview: radio and television broadcasters. They're required to offer equitable coverage.
Online advertising now has to submit to a digital ad registry if they sell space for political ads during an election campaign, but do not have to adhere to equitable coverage provisions. A large number of online platforms opted to instead simply not sell any political ads during the election season to avoid having to spend any effort or expense at having to comply with the new regulations.
Private individuals can deny/promote whomever they want. Unless they start broadcasting and would fall under CRTC purview. A billboard wouldn't count for this.
I'm pretty sure it is actually illegal for a company to allow advertising for one party but deny it (or even charge more) for another. Either you allow all parties the opportunity to advertise on the same terms, or you deny them all.
This only applies to advertising falling under the CRTC's purview: radio and television broadcasters. They're required to offer equitable coverage.
Online advertising now has to submit to a digital ad registry if they sell space for political ads during an election campaign, but do not have to adhere to equitable coverage provisions. A large number of online platforms opted to instead simply not sell any political ads during the election season to avoid having to spend any effort or expense at having to comply with the new regulations.
Private individuals can deny/promote whomever they want. Unless they start broadcasting and would fall under CRTC purview. A billboard wouldn't count for this.
Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification!
As requested, Bernier has produced a list of five PPC candidates he thinks can win in the next election . (link in French)
More interesting though is his argument that he is a legitimate candidate because he gets more media coverage than legitimate candidates:
You'll note that I've received 1.5 times more media coverage than Elizabeth May, 25 times more than Yves-François Blanchet, and more than half that of Jagmeet Singh.
Why yes, Maxime, I had noticed that. But thank you for quantifying the obvious alt-right bias of our MSM for me.
+4
Options
JacobyOHHHHH IT’S A SNAKECreature - SnakeRegistered Userregular
People also pay a lot of attention to a rotting carcass, Max.
As requested, Bernier has produced a list of five PPC candidates he thinks can win in the next election . (link in French)
More interesting though is his argument that he is a legitimate candidate because he gets more media coverage than legitimate candidates:
You'll note that I've received 1.5 times more media coverage than Elizabeth May, 25 times more than Yves-François Blanchet, and more than half that of Jagmeet Singh.
Why yes, Maxime, I had noticed that. But thank you for quantifying the obvious alt-right bias of our MSM for me.
Posts
Given that it was a National Post article, skepticism is certainly warranted. I feel like I'm just in a frame of mind to assume the worst about such things these days.
The reason they have is that it is a The Canadian Press syndicated article. I mean, it's entirely possible that it could be wrong, but it would have to be an error, and a pretty big one. The Canadian Press is a legit organization.
Damn.
I've seen it reported in two Québec newspapers, neither of which are owned by the Irvings or Posmedia.
Elections Canada concerned facts may interfere with federal election
And I get their reasoning, I just disagree with their conclusions.
They key is we now need to politicize everything conservatives say. Start a party that says, no, Trudeau does not have nice hair.
Start a party that says you cannot cut taxes, maintain services, and reduce the deficit all at the same time.
The CPC would no longer be able to run any ads at all that werent culture war bs
MWO: Adamski
"For or against an issue with which at least one candidate or registered party is associated" basically applies to all possible human thoughts and endeavours.
How does that mean anything other than "the CPC exists, therefore third parties can't talk about climate change or evolution during an election campaign without jumping through regulatory hoops?"
No Trudeau did not commit ethics violations with regards to SNC Lavalin.
I would now like the ethics commissioner to investigate whether the ethics commissioner violated ethics by investigating this partisan issue at a cost over $500 without registering with Elections Canada.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Even in the current bothsiiiiiiiides day and age I'd like to think that if a servicemember is actively recruiting for an openly neo-Nazi paramilitary organization whose name translates into Arabic as "al-Qaeda" people might possibly think it's worth acting on rather than the usual handwringing about "but people just call everyone they don't like Nazis these days!"
Alberta based country singer George Canyon will be the CPC candidate in the Nova Scotia riding of Central Nova. This comes after candidate Roger MacKay mysteriously dropped out recently. I'm guessing the CPC first checked to see if they were allowed to run a non-MacKay in the riding, with Peter MacKay and Elmer MacKay having represented it previously.
If you're wondering, no, he doesn't live in the province and hasn't for years. No, he isn't going to cancel any tour dates occurring during the election. Yes, a bunch of people in that riding are going to vote for him if he and Peter MacKay stand next to each other on camera at any point in the next few months.
So that's a thing.
I mean, a US transplant represented my home riding of Wild Rose for a long ass time.
Huh.
(Also, his wiki entry's fun. "His wife worked three jobs during the day so he could sing at night" is, I suppose, one way to spin that arrangement...)
Singh says he won't prop up a con minority.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/singh-scheer-minority-1.5256647
"The resurfacing of Andrew Scheer's disgusting prejudice against LGBTQI2S+ people and families is very painful for many Canadians," Singh said in his statement.
"This is exactly why, if Canadians deliver a minority government in October, I will not prop up Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives. We can't trust Mr. Scheer or his caucus to champion the fundamental rights of Canadians."
He only did it (explicitly) because the public wasn't on board.
We all still know you hate gays you dickheads.
"we don't explicitly seek to curtail gay rights in our platform anymore!" isn't a good take.
This is a mitt Romney 47% moment for Scheer in my opinion.
It's what I expect of them but it's good to see it being said out loud.
On the other hand the advertising company that put it up is catching hell this afternoon, it seems..
I know they like money, but there are surely plenty of buyers of ad space out there who aren't openly bigoted.
I know this gets into murky territory pretty quickly, (and honestly, if it came down to it, I'd rather no political billboards), but it feels like there has to be a line.
A private business can absolutely say Fuck off to whomever they want.
The company made a choice to allow it for $$$ and are rightly getting shit for it.
The company in question's refused to run environmentalism-related ads while also hosting some pretty gross anti-abortion billboards in the past, so I'm pretty sure they've chosen their camp here.
https://www.mint.ca/store/coins/pure-silver-coin---transformers-optimus-prime---mintage-3500-2019-prod3570093?rcmiid=ban|homepage|trendingcoins|Pure_Silver_Coin_-_TRANSFORMERS_OPTIMUS_PRIME_-_Mintage_3500_2019_-_15995|storecoinspure-silver-coin---transformers-optimus-prime---mintage-3500-2019-prod3570093&
hell yeah Peter Cullen appreciation represent
This only applies to advertising falling under the CRTC's purview: radio and television broadcasters. They're required to offer equitable coverage.
Online advertising now has to submit to a digital ad registry if they sell space for political ads during an election campaign, but do not have to adhere to equitable coverage provisions. A large number of online platforms opted to instead simply not sell any political ads during the election season to avoid having to spend any effort or expense at having to comply with the new regulations.
Private individuals can deny/promote whomever they want. Unless they start broadcasting and would fall under CRTC purview. A billboard wouldn't count for this.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Oh my god I want that. I can't justify spending $160 for it though.
Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification!
More interesting though is his argument that he is a legitimate candidate because he gets more media coverage than legitimate candidates:
Why yes, Maxime, I had noticed that. But thank you for quantifying the obvious alt-right bias of our MSM for me.
That doesn’t make it good.
Switch: nin.codes/roldford
This potentially Alt-Right Bias?
Edit: I can't seem to get it to just show the one tweet... Sorry.