How’s Carney doing, Canada?

Seriously. I don’t trust any of them, but some I trust less than others. Those on the right will slant stories their way, those in the left will do it their way. You have to fact check both.

You can not seriously think that a ‘public’ broadcaster, supported by left leaning parties, and likely to be axed by right leaning parties, isn’t going to be biased in a certain direction? The same broadcaster who directed their divisions to not use the word terrorist when talking about Hamas, a recognized terrorist group. It is certain that no one on the right would tell them to not do that.

The CBC was founded in 1936, using the public yet famously-neutral BBC as a model. It is not something that Trudeau (either), Pearson, Martin, Chretien, Carney, or any other Liberal PM made up because the Liberals needed a mouthpiece. In the 89 years since 1936, there have been a number of Conservative governments. All of those funded the CBC when they were in power, and not one of those Conservative governments ever made moves to axe the CBC, nor even considered it.

If you think the CBC has some sort of bias, write your MP and complain.

The CBC is probably one of the most balanced and objective news organizations on the planet. The fact that right-wing nutjobs hate it is just more evidence of that, similar to the way that right-wing nutjobs in the US have shut down the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Public broadcasting is the lifeblood of healthy democracies, so obviously RWNJs won’t tolerate it, because it deals in things like objective facts, and facts usually undermine the RWNJ ideology.

As for your link to “don’t call terrorists terrorists”, that article is, plainly and simply, a deceptive hit job from a right-wing rag well known for its deceptions. They’re grossly misrepresenting a memo to CBC journalists, in the aftermath of a tragic event that triggered high emotions, reminding them of a long-standing CBC policy about objective journalism. The kind of dedication to objectivity and journalistic integrity that of course we never see – and never will – from right-wing rags like the National Post, or Fox News, or Breitbart, or the other cesspools favoured by RWNJs.

I think it’s rather telling that Uzi hasn’t named even one news source he goes to, and yet he goes on a rampage about how unreliable the MSM is. I mean, he must be getting his objective facts from SOMEwhere.

A lie from your article, “CBC News is independent of any and all governments,… “. They are financially dependent on the Canadian government. Or, more correctly, on a liberal government in Canada. So, you agree that they present what you think is correct so you support them?

I think it’s rather telling that Canada really doesn’t have any right-wing news sources. At least not in the American form that Uzi might like. Back in the day, there was the Toronto Star, which was ever-so-slightly left, and the Toronto Telegram, which morphed into the Toronto Sun, but the Sun maintained the Tely’s ever-so-slightly-right-of-centre position. The Sun chain has swung hard right in the years since Peter Worthington died, sadly. Point is, that views were balanced, and not really different from each other, in the end.

But if the majority of Canadian media is left-of-centre according to American rightists, then really, what is it? It is centrist, in accordance with Canadians’ views. Why? Because most Canadians like it that way. That includes the CBC. I’ve had my complaints about CBC before, mostly in shoving Canadian content down our throats in original content drama and comedy programming, but I have never had a quibble with CBC’s news.

If you measure conservatism, by Uzi’s definition according to American standards, then yes, there are few to no reputable Canadian media sources. But if you measure current Canadian conservatism according to American standards, then you will find a centrist middle. Different countries, different standards.

I usually read Flipboard with a generic Canada feed and msn on my computer.

Give us a fucking break. You hate the CBC. You’re allowed to. But fercrissake, stop saying that it is some kind of propaganda arm of the Liberal Party. As you well know, it is not.

Did Conservative Diefenbaker kill the CBC? No. Did Conservative Mulroney kill the CBC? No. Did Conservative Harper kill the CBC? No.

Suggest you find a different point of attack if you wish to claim that Conservatives are shut out while Liberals have a government-funded mouthpiece.

Thank you.

Maybe read what I’m saying rather than trying to pigeon hole me, and 40% of Canadians who are not liberal/ndp, in with those you obviously despise in the US.

That I think Do Nothing Carney isn’t doing Canada any favours doesn’t mean I’m Maga.

“I’m not a Trump supporter but I’ll carry his water for him anyway” is always a fun take.

The problem with Trump isn’t that he’s a “blowhard”. It’s that he’s a deranged babyman with no understanding of economics or diplomacy and who is basing all his policies, economic and otherwise, on a mixture of greed, fear and petty spite. Carney is right not to be bullied into signing up to agreements that are not remotely in Canada’s best interest and which Trump will change his mind about next week anyway.

“Both sides are the same” - another classic. Are they, though?

And that’s all you’ve got? That the (alleged) left prefers to use more neutral language in its reporting while the right will happily use all the inflammatory rhetoric it wants?

Your rationales for characterizing him as “Do Nothing Carney” certainly look, walk and quack in a familiar way.

Yes, I’d suggest it does, actually.

I am looking forward to signing the “Forever in Canada” petition in Alberta. No 51st State crap, no independent Alberta, just Canadian, now and always. If I have to line up for three hours, I’m signing that thing.

As this thread is about Carney, tell me what he’s done? Not making a deal is something any of us can do, so I’d like the salary please.

Doubling the debt, yep I can do that easily as well.

I can approve a whole bunch of projects and remove a whole bunch of red tape preventing them from happening… Carney not so much it seems.

In five months? Well, he’s got a 64% approval rating for starters. There’s the One Canada Economy Act, with lots of new infrastructure projects being launched and federal trade barriers removed. There’s a middle class tax cut. Canada’s on track to hit its required NATO spending five years ahead of schedule. He’s recognized Palestine and supported Ukraine. And the fact that he’s working to decouple Canada economically from the dumpster fire that is the current US is a good thing.

Is it all unmitigated positives? Of course not - that’s not how politics (or reality) work. But it’s a decent start.

…says the person who keeps telling us how he’d cave to Trump.

Can you do it while achieving something?

This is literally what Carney is doing.

This is the kind of disingenuous bullshit that makes the right wing such a joke these days. You’re deliberately reading that wrong just so you can claim they’re “lying”, when anyone with a modicum of knowledge and a willingness to read to understand knows that when they say “independent of any and all governments”, they’re not talking about Canada vs. the US, or some other foreign nation. They’re talking about different Canadian governments, like the Harper Government, or the Chretien Government, which change over time. This is a perfectly normal usage of the term, and their point is, they report the news the same way, no matter who is Prime Minister in the moment.

But he’s not doing it in quite the way that conservatives want, so it doesn’t count. See also: buying and completing pipelines to convey Albertan oil to the west coast doesn’t count because Trudeau didn’t ride roughshod over indigenous groups hard enough when building it, so it cost more than it would if he had.

White Collar crime - nothing done

Money Laundering - nothing done…well maybe some more oversight through CFCA and the Financial Crime Coordination Centre is still around which I guess is something. No idea why it’s not been brought into the RCMP.

Environment - active backsliding. Had the focus been on interprovincial electrical grid enhancement/expansion instead of pipelines to the sunrise/sunset I might call it even

Resource extraction - some progress but I’d argue that ripping stuff out of the ground instead of shooting for enabling higher value services/products is a poor choice

Infrastructure - haven’t really seen anything about expanding ports/freight rail capacity but then again I dont think I’ve ever heard anyone go on about it

Higher Education - absent. Increasing funds to NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR would seem like a way to go. And we have a country right next door throwing brilliant people out or work/school and you don’t immediately make financial (or other incentives) space to lure them here?

Housing - meh. Really a provincial thing

Military - pay increase is nice, Australia radar was good, icebreaker still on track and ambiguity over F-35 is understandable.

Civil Defence - gaping hole. A no longer trustworthy country below us that threatens colonial type resource exploitation screams for a civil defence service. Hell, use it as a way to address youth unemployment and trades/skills apprenticeship training at the same time.

Foreign affairs - Meh but could be worse. I would like to see stronger linkages to Japan/Australia and coordination with the EU. Honestly acting as a link between the CPTPP and CETA would seem to be an obvious role but i doubt we’ve built enough connections to make that work

You think that a pipeline cost $34B, $27B more than the private contractor would have built it and who had already done much work in that area, because of indigenous consultations? Even if true, you think that makes sense? What private company would ever build anything similar ever again?

Where are you deriving that second number from? And what are you blaming the difference on? Be specific.

~$7B original estimated cost to build the pipeline from Kinder Morgan. $34B is what it cost to finally build by the government.

$34-$7=$27. A difference of $27B that the taxpayers paid for.

Your claim was that Trudeau didn’t ride roughshod over indigenous groups thus the difference in cost is related to that. Of course, ignoring the fact that Kinder Morgan had dozen of indigenous groups signed up and supporting the pipeline, so much of the government’s work had already been done for them.