The Candice Malcolm Show - Poilievre derangement syndrome has begun!

00:00:00.000 Pierre Polyev derangement syndrome has begun. It's Fake News Friday. I'm Candice Malcolm,

00:00:04.880 and this is a very special live edition of The Candice Malcolm Show.

00:00:20.840 Hi, everyone. Thank you so much for tuning into a live edition of Fake News Friday. I'm joined by

00:00:25.920 my producer and true-north journalist, Harrison Faulkner. Harrison, how are you doing this Friday?

00:00:30.280 Pretty good, Candice. I'm just getting over a bit of a sickness, so I hope my voice isn't too bad,

00:00:34.480 but after watching all the stories come through this week, the anticipation of the show has been

00:00:39.100 building, so I'm looking forward to getting into it. Well, it was really quite the news week,

00:00:43.300 and there's so much going on in the country. This is just a total aside. I have a Google Home,

00:00:48.220 and usually in the morning I'll say, hey, Google, what's the news? And it'll first play me CBC and

00:00:53.140 then CTV. And it's just like unbelievable how out of touch the CBC is in the stories that they select,

00:01:00.340 the things that they choose to show me. Like the top story was some monkey virus is apparently

00:01:05.420 causing like all this fear and consternation. It's like they're drumming up the fear machine over

00:01:10.900 another mysterious illness that's coming out. And then it goes right to more Ukraine, more Russia 0.96

00:01:16.560 stuff like nothing involving inflation, the rising cost of living, nothing really covering the

00:01:21.840 political turmoil in Alberta that's going on, nothing on the big leadership race in the country.

00:01:27.680 It was like I couldn't believe how out of touch the stories that they chose were with the things

00:01:32.740 that we talk about here at True North. It's really like two totally different countries. We're showing

00:01:37.900 a totally different side of Canada that the CBC doesn't even really recognize or acknowledge.

00:01:43.860 It's super interesting. And that's why it's so much fun doing what we do, Harrison. And I think

00:01:49.560 Fake News Friday is everybody's favorite show on the Candace Malcolm show, because it gives us an

00:01:54.960 opportunity to draw that distinction, talk about what the legacy media is talking about, and just how

00:01:59.780 sort of out of step it is with the way that we see it, with our coverage, with our audience. And I think

00:02:07.260 really the defining news story this week was just that this anti-Pierre Poliev sentiment in the media is just out

00:02:15.540 of control. Like it's, they're so deranged already. Now, this term derangement syndrome, I know, it was used

00:02:21.140 against George W. Bush down in the US, it was used as the Harper derangement syndrome. And it really just

00:02:27.060 describes a media that is just so off put, and so filled with hatred about a conservative politician that they can't

00:02:35.860 be objective in any way, shape, or form. Like the way that they view it, the lens that they have

00:02:39.980 is just so void of reality. And we'll show you a bunch of examples of that here on the show today.

00:02:46.620 But really, you know, their hatred of conservatives just clouds their vision so much that they can't

00:02:52.760 provide a neutral analysis. Any kind of fact-based analysis, you just can't, you can't get that from

00:02:58.720 the mainstream media because they just hate conservatives so much. And it comes out. So I'm going to start

00:03:04.300 by showing this Globe and Mail article written by Gary Mason. And look, this is an opinion piece,

00:03:09.120 and he's entitled to his opinion. He's a national affairs columnist over there. He's been doing it

00:03:13.540 for a long time. And he can have opinions about politicians as part of his job, as part of why

00:03:18.780 the Globe and Mail pays him. But the problem is, you know, even a opinion columnist, and I was an

00:03:24.000 opinion columnist over at the Toronto Sun for almost a decade, you know, your pieces still have to be

00:03:28.760 based in fact. You have to be able to articulate your logic and explain why you got to the position

00:03:35.300 you did. You can't just say, you can't just lie. Just because you're an opinion columnist, you can't

00:03:39.220 just put out falsehoods. You know, you still have to back it up. It's still journalism. You still have to

00:03:42.960 back it up with facts and the truth. And I think this piece is pretty egregious, and it's just blatant

00:03:49.740 anti-peer-poly of hatred. So I'll read a little bit from the article here, Harrison, and I'll get your reaction.

00:03:55.380 So he starts off by saying the Ottawa MP didn't organize the protest in Peterborough, but his

00:04:02.160 campaign to become Tory leader has legitimized the anger that was on display there. Now, of course,

00:04:06.340 we're talking about this incident that happened last week where Jagmeet Singh, the NDP leader,

00:04:10.460 showed up in Peterborough, and there was like three or four pretty aggressive hecklers. And look,

00:04:15.080 no one condones the treatment of Jagmeet Singh. I think that, you know, people with that kind of

00:04:21.780 anger towards a politician, it's unjustified, it's unbecoming for us as Canadians. However,

00:04:26.760 it was a very, very small group of people. Politicians probably face this stuff all the time.

00:04:31.300 It sort of reflects the anger and the rhetoric that we see online, and it's just sort of spilling

00:04:35.800 over into in person. But the media made such hay about this and tried to make it into this, like,

00:04:41.280 you know, this idea that it was really about Jagmeet Singh's race and his ethnicity,

00:04:46.000 and it wasn't really about his policies and his politics. Look, his politics. Look, I think that

00:04:51.000 people are angry at Jagmeet Singh because he enables Justin Trudeau, and they don't feel

00:04:56.100 accountability. They feel like their country's being taken away. They feel like, you know,

00:04:59.860 we elected Justin Trudeau as a minority leader, and now all of a sudden he's been given the super

00:05:03.800 majority because of the NDP. So there's, I think, legitimate anger. And obviously, no, you shouldn't

00:05:09.820 let that spill out in terms of, like, harassing someone and yelling at them and screaming at them.

00:05:15.360 But there's underlying issues there. And so the media just gloss over all of that, of course,

00:05:19.640 and just turn it into, like, oh, Jagmeet Singh, he's the victim, and how dare these Canadians do 0.63

00:05:24.360 that, kind of ignoring all of the anger that was legitimate. Anyway, that's an aside. I'll

00:05:29.220 continue reading from Gary Mason's piece. He says, in many ways, it's also his anger,

00:05:34.960 talking about Pierre Polyev, and it reflects the contempt he holds for the prime minister.

00:05:39.160 He has given these people reason to believe Mr. Trudeau is one of the most despicable people in the 0.74

00:05:44.800 country. So somehow, you know, the anger towards Jagmeet Singh, and the belief that Justin Trudeau

00:05:50.400 is the most despicable person in the country, it's all Pierre's fault. Like, forget about Justin

00:05:54.140 Trudeau's record over the last seven years in office. Forget about all the things he's done.

00:05:58.800 Forget about his horrendous treatment of the unvaccinated and his horrendous treatment 1.00

00:06:02.600 of the truckers and his refusal to even acknowledge them as human beings. You know, nothing is Justin

00:06:09.320 Trudeau's fault. It's all Pierre Polyev's fault, somehow. I mean, this is just, this is just so

00:06:14.680 outrageous. I'll continue. Just to quote Gary Mason here, he says, about Pierre, he's done this by

00:06:22.160 running the most dishonest and contemptible political campaigns ever seen in Canada. Every day, he seems to

00:06:30.800 find a new low, accusing the prime minister of sinister things that the so-called freedom convoy, 1.00

00:06:36.860 in scare quotes, folks lap up like mindless fools. So what is his evidence here, Harrison, 0.99

00:06:44.140 for calling Pierre Polyev the most dishonest and contemptible political campaigns ever seen in

00:06:50.100 Canada, really? Like, that is a shocking accusation. And, you know, I looked through the piece,

00:06:57.680 trying to find facts to justify this and to back this up. It seems to me not fact-based whatsoever,

00:07:02.980 just purely rage, purely, you know, anti-conservative bigotry on full display. I hate

00:07:09.560 Pierre Polyev. I hate him so much. I don't even have to explain why I hate him, but he is so 0.98

00:07:14.480 dishonest and so contemptible. And the Globe and Mail just turns around and publishes it up. No big 0.95

00:07:20.120 deal. That's the answer of conservatives over there. No, and here's the thing. Gary Mason's

00:07:26.300 language here, one of the most dishonest, contemptible political campaigns ever seen in Canada. Well, 0.79

00:07:31.700 Gary, I can think of a campaign that was run last year by our prime minister that might fit that

00:07:38.020 bill more accurately than Pierre Polyev's campaign. One that I believe is barely even a quarter

00:07:43.900 complete, Candace. We're a few months into this, and already it's the most contemptible campaign,

00:07:51.120 apparently. And this is the thing that really gets under my skin about this, is that he says,

00:07:58.240 one of the reasons why Pierre Polyev's campaign is apparently one of the most contemptible

00:08:04.240 he's ever seen is because he accused Trudeau of basically running a surveillance state and spying

00:08:13.340 on Canadians. Well, it turns out, Candace, that actually the feds did do that during the pandemic.

00:08:20.240 They did track cell phone data. They did figure out when you were going to the pharmacy and

00:08:25.440 went where you were going, and they admitted to it. So again, it's by calling out the prime minister

00:08:33.540 for the problems that the country is currently facing, and by being one of the only candidates,

00:08:40.000 in my opinion, that articulates the issues Canadians are facing, apparently that, according to the Globe

00:08:44.680 and Mail, is contemptible and dishonest. But when you run a political campaign intentionally trying to

00:08:50.980 wedge Canadians, wedge the unvaccinated out of the society and pin the blame of COVID on the 0.98

00:08:59.520 unvaccinated, as Justin Trudeau did during the federal election, no, of course, that doesn't get

00:09:04.360 any mention. It's only when candidates who actually articulate the feelings of Canadians and do so in a

00:09:12.400 way that grabs attention, it's only then that it becomes contemptible. Really, it's a classic example

00:09:18.980 of an opinion piece that lacks any grounding in reality, Candace.

00:09:23.140 Well, yeah, I mean, just a matter of fact, listening, this is the most dishonest,

00:09:27.940 contemptible political campaign ever seen in Canada. I mean, you raise a great point. What

00:09:30.740 about what Justin Trudeau did to the unvaccinated? He went on TV in Quebec and said, these people,

00:09:35.940 we shouldn't tolerate them. They're racist and xenophobic, and they don't believe in science.

00:09:39.520 We have to ask ourselves, should we tolerate them? Like, what do you mean, should we tolerate them? 0.51

00:09:43.080 Like, you live in a society with other people that you don't agree with. Yes, you tolerate them.

00:09:47.180 What's the alternative? Like, expelling them or worse? I mean, and you could even go back,

00:09:51.980 Harrison, to the 2019 election, where the Liberals just essentially said that Andrew Scheer was a

00:09:57.200 white nationalist without any basis in reality, without any facts. That was their line of attack

00:10:03.080 against it, that he was a white nationalist, because he once went to a park someday and stood

00:10:08.600 by someone who said something else, and then that person three years later did this. Like,

00:10:12.460 that, like, keep trying to keep up with the logic of the rationale of the arguments from the Liberal

00:10:18.080 Party. You know, you don't have the Globe and Mail shining a light on that. They just kind of take

00:10:23.380 his back and say, oh, yeah, this guy, Winston, nods at white nationalists. And we'll see in this show

00:10:29.100 that now they're pulling out that exact same line of attack, again, against Pierre Polyev. So,

00:10:34.300 so, you know, it's not just Gary Mason over in the Globe and Mail that's doing this. We saw this

00:10:39.300 interesting piece over at CTV News. So we all saw that Pierre Polyev was on with Jordan Peterson,

00:10:46.640 and they did an interesting hour and a half discussion on Peterson's podcast, which has

00:10:52.880 5 million subscribers. Well, CTV parsed through that podcast and tried to find, you know, something

00:11:00.120 controversial. This is the best they could come up with. So the headline says, Polyev faces 0.98

00:11:04.420 backlash for comments on Jordan Peterson's podcast. I just love the way that they describe it. So

00:11:10.460 here's reading from the piece. He says, this is Glenn McGregor writing. He says,

00:11:15.540 some are calling attention to a comment conservative leadership candidate Pierre Polyev made while

00:11:20.840 appearing as a guest on the controversial psychologist Jordan Peterson's podcast. I like,

00:11:26.560 I love that phrase of, of, of, uh, speech there, the controversial psychologist. Uh, how about like

00:11:32.200 the incredibly influential and popular, uh, you know, one of the bestselling Canadian authors in,

00:11:37.040 in history, uh, you know, outside of the entertainment sphere, probably the most famous Canadian,

00:11:41.780 uh, and the most influential living public intellectual. Uh, but instead, no, they call him

00:11:46.700 controversial because they don't like what he has to say, uh, regardless. So, so the controversy

00:11:51.980 is that Pierre supposedly was using a dog whistle. Uh, I think we have a clip of this. So we will play

00:11:58.280 the, um, allegedly controversial clip and, and, and that he's supposedly receiving backlash for.

00:12:04.880 Here's that clip.

00:12:08.160 Makes you credible on the hope front. Do you think in terms of your, what you're offering and who you are?

00:12:14.540 Um, because I speak clear, plain language that makes sense to people. So, you know, I'm, I'm a believer in

00:12:27.580 using simple, um, Anglo-Saxon words that strike right at the, uh, the meaning, uh, that I'm trying to

00:12:42.220 Okay, Harrison. So that, that's supposedly the source of all kinds of controversy. Pierre

00:12:49.780 Poliev saying that he speaks in plain language and that he's a believer in using simple Anglo-Saxon

00:12:56.400 words. Anglo-Saxon is a synonymous with old English. Like it's, it just means English basically in,

00:13:03.140 in, in the literature sense. Um, but, but him, him saying those words apparently just caused a huge

00:13:08.860 backlash. So, uh, what, why don't, why don't you walk us through the rest of the story, Harrison?

00:13:14.300 Well, I mean, of course, when, when you've got the entire legacy media, uh, paying attention to

00:13:20.900 any potential thing that they can misconstrue as whatever you want to call it a dog wist, or you

00:13:26.140 want to call it, uh, whatever else you want to call it racism or whatever. Um, they're going to find

00:13:31.580 anything they can and try and make it out to be that way. So of course, when, uh, Poliev said this,

00:13:37.640 they immediately jumped on the, the, the fact that, oh, this is, this is a word that is used

00:13:44.660 also along with the far right. So in the CTV article, uh, there's a part here where they talk

00:13:51.680 about, um, they talk about the Republicans that have used it and how it's, uh, it's made of this

00:13:59.700 dog whistling. And, um, and then of course, of course, any, any, uh, hit piece, uh, in relation

00:14:07.440 to the freedom convoy wouldn't be complete without a connection to Pat King, Candace,

00:14:12.100 who I know you've talked about on the show before. Uh, but of course they tie that into

00:14:16.840 Pierre's comments by somehow saying that using the words Anglo-Saxon while describing clearly

00:14:23.780 the fact that he is talking about using plain English and speaking directly to the people

00:14:28.940 instead of using academic language or whatever kind of language, the way that other politicians

00:14:35.180 speak, um, they, they jump on that and they try and make it seem as though by, by, by Poliev saying

00:14:42.500 he uses Anglo-Saxon plain language, which I think he, as, as we talked about before the show,

00:14:47.600 Candace was perhaps a way for him to try and appeal to Jordan Peterson, um, and, and speak in an

00:14:53.640 academic sense. Um, of course it was, it immediately created this storm because everyone's looking for

00:14:59.520 anything they can jump on. So another, just a classic CTV, uh, hit piece. This is also from

00:15:05.160 Glenn McGregor, uh, who played quite a, uh, played quite a role during the freedom convoy, uh, trying

00:15:11.900 to demonize and slander the people attending that protest. If, uh, if some of our viewers remember.

00:15:18.280 Well, yeah, they went out and they interviewed the, you know, some, uh, a founder of a group

00:15:24.800 called Canadians against Canadians United against hate, uh, who basically comes out and says that,

00:15:29.900 uh, for, for far right people, uh, Anglo-Saxon is, is a, is a dog whistle. Uh, and, uh, it really

00:15:38.040 just means a way to set apart white Canadians from racialized society. Like, I mean, it's got all the 1.00

00:15:44.540 woke nonsense, um, built right into this piece, but I, I have, I have, uh, three, three points from

00:15:49.140 this. Uh, the first one is I watched the podcast and I've interviewed Pierre myself. And I, I think

00:15:55.580 that Pierre during, throughout the course of the podcast, he, he, what you just said, he, he was

00:16:00.760 trying to sort of impress Dr. Peterson and, and show his own intellectual depth. He, he went much deeper

00:16:07.880 in terms of like quoting poets and talking about philosophy, um, than he wouldn't normally ever do.

00:16:14.180 I mean, and, and that's the point, right? It's an hour and a half, uh, open, open dialogue.

00:16:18.520 And so I think that there were several times throughout the podcast where Pierre did this,

00:16:22.520 where he would sort of try to flex his intellectual capacity and, and try to like, you know, be on the

00:16:29.200 same level as Dr. Peterson. Dr. Peterson clearly has a very deep intellect. And so at that point,

00:16:34.800 when he said, I use Anglo, I, I, um, I'm a believer in simple Anglo-Saxon. To me, that was him

00:16:40.400 trying to like show how smart he was by, by, by showing his depth of knowledge about the English

00:16:45.520 language. I don't think that it was a nod to racism, right? I don't, I just can't imagine that

00:16:51.200 was going, what was going through Pierre's mind when he said that. Um, the second problem is when

00:16:55.820 journalists try to interpret what was going into someone's mind and saying that it was a racist

00:17:01.180 intent, like, like deciding that in Pierre's mind, when he said that word, that he was trying to signal

00:17:08.320 something racist. And this is a whole problem with the idea of a dog whistle, right? It's like we used

00:17:13.240 to hold people accountable for things that they said. If someone said something racist, you could

00:17:18.840 hold them accountable for the racist thing that they said. Um, the reality is that there isn't a lot

00:17:23.880 of racism in political discourse in Canada. There's actually probably none. And so journalists have to go

00:17:29.840 ahead and invent a racist discourse and they do that through the dog whistle. So the dog whistle

00:17:34.940 is supposedly blaming someone or holding someone accountable for something that they did not say,

00:17:40.540 but reading in meaning of what they could have meant by that. And this is just such a disingenuous

00:17:46.300 line of attack. Like anytime I hear the left saying dog whistle, dog whistle, dog whistle, it's like,

00:17:51.380 you're basically saying that you don't have anything. You don't have anything that the person that you're

00:17:55.660 trying to attack didn't say anything wrong. But if you put on your detective hat and you try to read

00:18:01.540 their mind, um, you can, you can draw layers into what they said and what they really meant was this.

00:18:07.880 And it's like, you know, you know, in politics, you say what you really mean that that that's what

00:18:12.280 Pierre is talking about. We say what we mean. We don't say, you know, we don't try to use flowery

00:18:18.300 language to try to confuse the issue. We just, we speak in simple language, plain language. And again,

00:18:23.540 this is, this is the media making things up, inventing stories. Like the whole light, every time you hear

00:18:28.420 the term dog whistle, you basically just stop reading the article or turn off the television

00:18:32.720 or turn off the radio, because basically what the, what the critics are saying is that you didn't say

00:18:37.640 anything bad, but I'm going to interpret it to mean something bad. And it's just total nonsense in,

00:18:42.940 in terms of persuasiveness. I think this is one of those idiotic stories, uh, Harrison, that is just 1.00

00:18:48.760 going to, going to fade away. And then I said, I said three points. The third point is that this is a 1.00

00:18:53.360 kind of common sentiment among conservatives is that, you know, in political language,

00:19:00.520 there are a lot of people who try to complicate the issue, but if you want to be effective at

00:19:04.640 communicating, you try to simplify it and you try to make it resonate to as many people as humanly

00:19:10.180 possible. And, and this is something that conservatives teach each other and they learn.

00:19:13.780 Like for me personally, I had more of an academic background. I used to work in think tanks and then

00:19:17.800 I started writing for the newspaper and I had to learn to write in a totally different way. Like it's not

00:19:22.680 academic writing anymore. It's writing that is clear, concise, use short words. And, and you

00:19:27.860 realize that writing for me, writing for an audience like the Toronto sun, it's, it's an amazing

00:19:32.040 opportunity because you can reach so many people. And when you write an academic coded language,

00:19:36.260 you can really only communicate to other academics and other people don't understand it or they don't

00:19:40.200 care, which is why nobody reads white papers and nobody reads academic papers. Whereas, you know,

00:19:44.480 when you, when you talk about like popular sites where, where a lot of, you know, people read it,

00:19:49.920 it's like, you want to make it as simple as possible. And so the point that Pierre was making

00:19:53.360 is, is a really common sentiment in terms of, in terms of writers, conservative writers,

00:19:59.100 specifically, Anglican politicians and Garnett Janis, who's an MP out in Edmonton. He makes

00:20:04.060 this point. He says on Twitter, critics of Pierre Polyev are really reaching here. English derives

00:20:09.340 predominantly of a combination of Anglo-Saxon, in other words, old English and Latin words. Anglo-Saxon

00:20:15.140 words tend to be shorter and sharper than Latin words. Many writers and speakers know that when

00:20:20.640 considering word choice. And it's absolutely true. Never, we have this rule at True North with

00:20:25.780 writing, never use a long word when a short word will do. And that's, that's, that's the idea. It's

00:20:31.360 like, don't try to complicate things, right? Instead of saying, we're going to terminate your contract,

00:20:36.040 you say you're fired, right? It's like, don't, don't complicate it. Don't use long words when you

00:20:40.620 can use short words. Garnett goes on to say, it's hard to believe that people who write for a living

00:20:46.020 wouldn't know this. And yet Glenn McGregor, Alexandra May, who wrote this article for CTV,

00:20:51.300 makes no mention of what Pierre was clearly talking about when he used the term Anglo-Saxon words,

00:20:56.020 right? Like they didn't go to the basic obvious thing that he was talking about. Instead, they tried

00:21:01.300 to complicate it and do this whole dog whistle thing by interpreting in something that he didn't

00:21:05.640 say. And he didn't actually mean this is, this is fake news. This is like absolutely completely

00:21:11.420 nonsense. Every single part of it is just absurd. Yeah. And one thing as well, that I think this is, 0.93

00:21:17.560 this is perhaps playing into for Pierre Polyev to go on the Jordan Peterson podcast, to spend an hour

00:21:23.660 and a half chatting with him with an open long form conversation. I think a lot of conservatives

00:21:29.780 appreciated that conversation and enjoyed listening to that because it's refreshing. Now, I also think that

00:21:35.080 that is a threat to the legacy media, people sidestepping the legacy media and going straight

00:21:41.680 to, appealing straight to conservatives in these long form conversations. I think that part of this

00:21:48.300 is to try and discourage other candidates and other conservatives from going on to Jordan Peterson's

00:21:53.140 podcast, from going on to long form podcasts and having a wide range in conversation because they

00:21:59.300 want to try and, they want to try and put the fear into these conservatives that if you say anything in

00:22:04.720 this hour and a half that could be construed as something that, uh, we're going to determine

00:22:10.060 for you as a dog whistle, then it's going to be very difficult for you to try and get out of it. I

00:22:14.820 mean, I think more conservatives should be moving toward these long form conversations and sidestepping

00:22:21.220 the legacy media and, and moving past their kind of soundbite clickbait news. Um, and so I think

00:22:28.020 there's, there's also something to be said about that. You're right. Yeah. I think that part of this

00:22:33.500 is sort of, uh, you know, a warning from journalists, like this is what we're going to cover. This is what

00:22:37.700 we're going to obsess over. Um, you know, we're going to make this all about how the conservatives

00:22:43.020 are actually secret white nationalists. And if, if you go over to the independent media, and I think

00:22:48.860 Jordan Peterson is, is firmly in that category that, uh, you know, we're gonna, we're gonna do our best to

00:22:54.720 tear you down. And, and, and, uh, you know, I, I, I want to transition from here, Harrison, to say

00:23:00.860 that it, you know, it isn't just CTV and, and journalists like Glenn McGregor who are doing this

00:23:06.320 nonsense. Unfortunately, it, it also comes from within the conservative party. So this week we also

00:23:12.180 saw Patrick Brown unleash a campaign against Polyev basically using the same line of attack, but coming

00:23:18.400 from a different angle, saying that Polyev supports a conspiracy theorist called Pat King,

00:23:24.300 and the supposed white replacement theory. So here's a tweet from Patrick Brown saying that just

00:23:29.200 that, let me read it. He says, here is Pat King, a leader of the convoy, Pierre Polyev supported

00:23:34.600 spreading the dangerous white supremacist white replacement conspiracy theory, which was reported

00:23:39.580 to have been in the Buffalo shooters manifesto. I condemn this hate and call on Pierre to do the

00:23:44.520 same. And then you, you pointed this out to me, Harrison, maybe, maybe you can walk us through

00:23:48.180 what this, um, what this tweet, uh, if we can just go back to that tweet for a second, what,

00:23:53.580 what that, uh, what that was. Uh, yeah. So what you're seeing here is a video posted in 2019 by an

00:24:02.000 account called Vests Canada. Now those three arrows pointing down, that's sort of the symbol of the

00:24:08.960 anti-fascist radical left. And I just went on to that account's, uh, Twitter page and they openly put

00:24:17.160 they put in their bio anti-fascist exposing the yellow vest Canada movement. Um, so what you have

00:24:24.240 here, Candace, which I'm, I, I think it's to use the word contemptible. I think this fits the

00:24:30.140 definition. What you have here is a conservative leadership candidate sharing the, uh, sharing an

00:24:35.860 account that is basically run by radical leftists trying to demonize conservatives, trying to demonize

00:24:43.320 the right and using it to basically attack Pierre Polyev and, and, and reaching, I will say as well,

00:24:49.140 because what you also have with this line of attack from Patrick Brown, Candace, which I don't

00:24:53.380 understand, he is using the same tactics as Justin Trudeau. Justin Trudeau told Canadians that if you

00:25:00.080 were a part of the, if you were supporting the truckers, then you were also, uh, you were also

00:25:05.260 basically in favor of the one person waving the swastika flag or the one person waving the Confederate

00:25:10.040 flag. And we all rightfully said that that was, that was, uh, terribly divisive. But Patrick Brown

00:25:15.380 is now saying that because Pierre Polyev supported the trucker convoy, he is now basically being lumped

00:25:21.500 in with Pat King, someone who even the convoy organizers distanced from because they find his

00:25:27.320 views to be horrible. So what we're seeing here is, is fundamentally, uh, not conservative at all.

00:25:33.060 Candace, they're using a radical far left Twitter page to launch attacks on conservatives.

00:25:39.660 Um, and I think conservatives and Canadians should, uh, know about this sort of thing and,

00:25:44.160 and frankly, be generally upset about it because it's horribly divisive.

00:25:48.000 Well, and that's the reason we included it in fake news Friday, because it's like when, when,

00:25:52.440 when conservatives are the ones that go out and mimic this leftist narrative against like,

00:25:58.000 like the left uses this as a, as a, uh, a hammer to, to, to destroy conservatives by saying you guys are

00:26:04.900 one step away from white nationalists. And it's incredibly damaging to conservatives because

00:26:11.000 conservatives need to fight back against this total nonsense. When you have someone like Patrick

00:26:15.400 Brown kind of giving credence to it and giving it legitimacy and saying, yes, it's true. 0.72

00:26:20.660 Conservatives are aligned with the most despicable human beings on the planet. Um, you know, guess

00:26:26.720 what? That's going to come back to haunt the party in the future. And of course it's worth noting,

00:26:30.080 if you just go back to that tweet one more time of Pat King, I mean, okay, first of all, Pat King, 0.99

00:26:37.600 look at the guy, like he's, he's a despicable slob. He is a reprehensible human being. You can 1.00

00:26:43.260 see a picture of him here. Uh, Patrick Brown says that he's a leader of the convoy that Pierre

00:26:48.900 Polyev supported. Uh, what? Like from, from our reporting and from what I saw, no one wanted anything 1.00

00:26:56.000 to do with this lunatic at the freedom convoy. He was one of those like clingers on who would show 0.76

00:27:00.400 up and everyone would be like, Hey buddy, we don't like you. You can leave now. Uh, nobody wants you

00:27:05.340 here. And he had some role as some regional organizer in the Alberta part of the, of the

00:27:11.780 convoy, uh, probably because people didn't realize how toxic he was and, and some of the crazy things

00:27:18.420 that he would say online. And any, anyone that's peddling this nonsensical white replacement 0.83

00:27:23.900 conspiracy theory clearly has no place within the conservative party. I mean, that's not something

00:27:29.180 that conservatives talk about or think about or care about. Um, almost every conservative I know

00:27:34.780 outright hates this theory and, and condemns it, including Pierre Polyev. So this idea that,

00:27:40.340 that, that Patrick Brown is pushing is so disingenuous, so dishonest. And again, just echoing the

00:27:45.840 lies of the mainstream media, which give those lies more credibility. And then that, that's the

00:27:51.380 problem. That's why we included it in fake news Friday. Of course, it wasn't just, uh, Patrick Brown.

00:27:57.760 Um, there were other conservative candidates, including Jean Charest, who's also a leadership

00:28:01.780 contender who jumped into the fray to try to discredit Polyev over his support, um, as well. Uh,

00:28:07.860 yeah. Okay. So, so this idiot guy, Patrick King made a video where he discussed Anglo-Saxon

00:28:13.460 replacement. That's again, he's not a conservative candidate. He's not running for office. He has 1.00

00:28:17.540 nothing to do with the party. So why these conservatives are trying to lump him in and

00:28:21.640 then somehow tie it to a crime that happened, you know, despicable mass shooting that happened

00:28:26.580 in Buffalo is just beyond me. Like, like anyone trying to draw these, this connection, um, should

00:28:32.680 be laughed out of a room, but instead it's being embraced by the people leading the party. This is

00:28:36.980 one of the most divisive, um, just terrible tactics magical Harrison, because obviously this is going

00:28:43.860 to come back to haunt the party. Like if you don't think that in the next general election,

00:28:48.860 whoever's leading the party, be it Jean Charest, Patrick Brown, or Pierre Polyev, that the media is

00:28:54.320 not going to take this exact line of attack that they've come up with here and use it against the

00:28:58.620 conservative party and say, Oh, you guys are all just Buffalo shooters. Oh, you guys are all just

00:29:02.740 white replacement nationalists. They will. And, and, and, and they will do it because of what's 0.97

00:29:07.360 gone on this week with these very misguided, in my opinion, conservatives who again, are just

00:29:13.140 using this as a cheap opportunity to dunk on the front runner, Pierre Polyev. It's so damaging for

00:29:18.160 the party. I remember two weeks ago, uh, after the debate that I moderated in Ottawa, uh, you know,

00:29:23.640 everyone was talking about how, Oh, you know, this is, this is so bad for conservatives because

00:29:27.960 the way that they were duking it out and how confrontational they are, um, that feeds right into

00:29:32.660 the liberal parties playbook. They can use these clips for attack ads. It's like,

00:29:36.880 where are all those voices this week to say to people like Patrick Brown and Jean Charest, like,

00:29:42.720 uh, Hey guys, let's, how, how about we draw the line at accusing one another of being racist

00:29:47.200 murderers? How about that? How, how about, how about calling each other racist murderers is just a

00:29:51.300 step too far. Yeah. And, and this, this attack line spurred all of these fake news stories in the

00:29:58.880 legacy media, because as we, as we said at the beginning of the show, Candace, these journalists

00:30:03.080 are looking for anything they can to jump on the front runner and to try and use it as a club to

00:30:08.520 bash conservatives with. If, if Patrick Brown doesn't know that his attacks against Polyev are

00:30:14.580 being used to attack conservative party members and will be used to attack conservative party members.

00:30:20.040 And I think that's something he has to take up with his own campaign, but this wasn't, this wasn't

00:30:24.520 the end of, of the lines of attack that we saw from, uh, Patrick Brown's campaign. Uh, Michelle

00:30:30.060 Rumpel Garner, who I believe is Patrick Brown's national campaign chair. I might be wrong about

00:30:34.780 that, but she plays a role in Patrick Brown's campaign. And Candace, I know we talked, we talked

00:30:39.220 about this, but she tweeted, uh, an email sent to Patrick Brown's campaign, which I don't even,

00:30:47.440 I wonder if we have the email, uh, on in, in the clip we do. So here, here, here, here,

00:30:52.840 here you see this. Michelle Rumpel Garner, uh, screenshot an email sent to the campaign and the

00:30:58.160 email reads, you've sent this to the wrong person. I'm not even going to read it, but basically it's

00:31:03.400 clearly ridiculous. Anyone who reads this would obviously know this is someone trying to troll 0.97

00:31:08.860 the conservatives and troll, uh, Pierre Polyev and Michelle Rumpel Garner and Patrick Brown took

00:31:14.060 the bait. So they put, she posted, she posted this out there. And in her tweet, she writes the Patrick

00:31:19.460 Brown campaign issued an email denouncing the racist white replacement conspiracy theory below

00:31:24.500 is a screenshot of a response to campaign received. The campaign confirmed this email was sent from an

00:31:29.240 active conservative party member. And there's another tweet too. She writes three tweets. So

00:31:33.700 I think the second tweet, uh, from Michelle Rumpel Garner, there it is. She writes the campaign

00:31:39.560 has forwarded this email to the party's executive director and have asked that this membership be

00:31:44.280 revoked. We expect all campaigns will support this call. And there might be a third there as

00:31:49.400 well. No person who holds these wild beliefs should have a home in the conservative party of

00:31:54.120 Canada. Now, Candace, I can't, I can't, um, for the life of me think that this is the only time

00:31:59.680 Patrick Brown's campaign has received a nasty email. And I'm sure that what they do most of the

00:32:04.500 time is just discard them and not try and use it as a object to beat conservatives over the head

00:32:10.040 with, especially if you're trying to lead the conservative party. But instead what they do is they put

00:32:14.700 this out there unsubstantiated without any real, uh, evidence of its legitimacy and then basically

00:32:22.160 put it out there for legacy media journalists, uh, to go and attack conservatives with.

00:32:28.880 It, I mean, it's like, yeah, guess what? We, everyone gets like a bunch of spam and crazy junk. 0.98

00:32:34.200 Like, this is why I don't bother reading my comments on most social media sites. It's like, 0.60

00:32:38.720 yeah, there's, there's a lot of people who will write crazy stuff down behind their, you know,

00:32:45.540 keyboards. Uh, literally someone's sending Patrick Brown an email saying, I believe in Nazism and I

00:32:52.660 support Pierre Polyev. Like, I mean, give me a break. And, and then, and then the idea that they're

00:32:59.560 going to take this and put it out on Twitter, which is going to lead to a bunch of stories saying,

00:33:03.840 here you go. Aha. I knew it. Nazis support the conservatives, Nazis support Pierre Polyev,

00:33:09.180 you know, maybe like the four Nazis in Canada do. I don't know. I doubt it because conservatives

00:33:14.680 are also very like ethnically diverse, uh, open-minded group of people. And this idea that,

00:33:21.280 that it has anything to do with Nazism is the most absurd thing you can imagine. Um, given that the

00:33:27.060 primary thing that Pierre Polyev talks about is freedom and a free society, democracy, and the rule of

00:33:33.500 law, which is the exact opposite of fascism and Nazism. That's why the two sides went to war in

00:33:38.560 the second world war. This was a war was all about the fight between freedom versus fascism. And Canada

00:33:44.140 was on the freedom side. Um, so, so, so anyway, I mean, it's, it's, it's so stupid that it's not even 1.00

00:33:49.360 worth really going through and debunking, but I will just say, Harrison, this is a scorched earth 0.95

00:33:54.780 approach to leadership. I mean, I can't imagine Michelle Rumpel or Patrick Brown being welcome anywhere near

00:34:01.500 the party. If, if, if they truly believe that Pierre Polyev is out there winking and nodding at

00:34:06.440 neo-Nazis, um, presumably they would, well, at least Michelle Rumpel would resign as MP the moment 0.89

00:34:11.940 Pierre wins, because why would she want to be part of a party that does that led by a person that she

00:34:16.980 believes does that? I don't think that she genuinely believes that. Um, but, but really I

00:34:22.160 think that this, this line of attack and this strategy and this pushing of, again, the worst

00:34:27.980 accusations from the, you know, the, the depths of the far left, um, legitimizing the derangement in

00:34:35.260 the media, um, with this line of attack does nothing but damage to, to all conservatives. And

00:34:41.080 these people really need to be called out because I mean, this is, this is absurd. So we, you know,

00:34:46.580 we already have the CBC story here, conservative party investigating the racist email sent to the

00:34:51.360 Brown campaign. Well, good. I hope I'll be fine. Whoever sent it, obviously, if it came from a 1.00

00:34:56.540 party member, they can just track down who it was. And my guess is the person will probably say that

00:35:01.420 it was a joke or, you know, if that person truly does hold those beliefs and absolutely, they should

00:35:06.180 be kicked out of the party because that's crazy. Uh, but, but really this, this whole thing is just

00:35:11.920 a stretch in my mind. No. And, and Patrick Brown's campaign is veering, I would say into the territory

00:35:19.800 of, as you say, scorched earth, uh, campaigning. It's sort of like kamikaze campaigning because

00:35:25.300 at what point can you possibly, um, try and unify the party, uh, when you go on, when you go on this

00:35:33.320 line of attack, basically trying to accuse the supporters of the front runner of the race of

00:35:38.160 being Nazis and white supremacists. It's there, there's no, there's no way you can recover from

00:35:44.440 this. And it's almost, it, it's kind of what you would want to do if you were intentionally trying

00:35:50.080 to, uh, tank someone and bring, and bring everyone down with you. It's, it's, it's shocking,

00:35:56.360 shocking politics really. And then Candace, this is the part that really, uh, was a bit of a surprise

00:36:01.980 because the day after Patrick Brown sent an email to all conservative party members, basically linking

00:36:08.760 Pierre Paulia's support of the truckers to Pat King, and then disgustingly tying it to the Buffalo

00:36:14.800 shooter, trying to play some sort of connection as though there's anything to be had there.

00:36:19.740 The day after he sends that scathing email to conservative party members, he then goes on

00:36:25.280 Twitter and writes, I just want to, I want to make sure I have it right here. Yeah. Patrick Brown

00:36:30.680 tweets. When this race concludes, I want all conservatives and all Canadians to unite behind

00:36:36.320 a hopeful United party that is focused on delivering a bright future for our country. I'm not sure how

00:36:42.020 a U-turn like that can happen so quickly, Candace. Maybe they did some focus groups and polling and

00:36:47.860 decided that actually their approach of basically destroying party unity was, was, was not working

00:36:53.140 for them. But I mean, what, what can you say about this? This is a shocking U-turn really.

00:36:57.920 Well, it's the icing on the cake of hypocrisy. Like I can throw every grenade I have at you. Like I said, 0.98

00:37:04.200 I can accuse you of the worst possible things imaginable, including being a Nazi and being on

00:37:09.600 board with a racist massacre in another country. But, but, but hey guys, let's just all get along.

00:37:15.340 Can't we all be friends? Like, give me a break. Okay. Let's move on to another Pierre Paulia of

00:37:21.200 Derangement Syndrome example. Um, this one comes again from CTV and they posted this headline,

00:37:27.980 Paulia personally holds investment in Bitcoin as he promotes crypto to Canadians. So we're supposed

00:37:33.180 to believe this is a scandal, everybody. It is a scandal that Pierre Paulia of who publicly used

00:37:39.760 Bitcoin to purchase a shawarma in London, Ontario. That was how his whole discussion about Bitcoin began.

00:37:45.420 He bought a shawarma using Bitcoin, which anybody who has like the slightest bit of logic or

00:37:51.120 understanding of how money works would, would have to realize that, Hey, in order to buy something with

00:37:56.180 something, you have to first own it, right? Like, okay. But, but here's the scandal that CTV news

00:38:02.880 has diligently investigated. Conservative party of Canada can, because the party leadership candidate

00:38:09.020 Pierre Paulia has a personal financial interest in crypto cryptocurrency that he promoted during the

00:38:15.020 campaign as a hedge against inflation. So it's all just a ruse so that Pierre Paulia can make a bigger

00:38:20.660 return on his crypto wallet. Um, and then they go on and on to make it seem like it's some kind of a

00:38:26.860 scandal that the guy who used Bitcoin to buy shawarma owns Bitcoin. Uh, this is, this is, uh, just as good

00:38:34.880 as it gets on fake news Friday. Harrison, what do you think of the story? Well, yeah. Talk about reaching,

00:38:39.440 right? I mean, they were clearly running out of stories, so they had to come up with something,

00:38:43.780 uh, some way they could try to, uh, I guess, stunt the, uh, the momentum of, of Paulia's campaign. And this is,

00:38:51.640 this was their attempt to try and criticize his, his line on cryptocurrency. I was thinking about this and I

00:38:57.540 thought that if, if talk about crypto and decentralized currencies was not, not a central part of the

00:39:05.660 leadership campaign, but if it was not part of this conservative leadership campaign in some, in some way,

00:39:10.120 after what happened during the freedom convoy, after watching, uh, Canadians, uh, have their

00:39:15.040 finances frozen by the government for donating to a, uh, to a legal protest movement, um, if it wasn't

00:39:21.480 part of the conversation, then it wouldn't be doing a service to Canadians. People want to have these

00:39:25.440 conversations about decentralized digital currencies. It's part of the new conservative movement,

00:39:31.360 but Pierre Polyev seems to be the only person talking about it. It seems to be the only person,

00:39:35.820 uh, really grasping the issue. And this article was, was hilarious because they, they make the

00:39:42.960 headline, Candace, as you say, as though it's some sort of scandal piece. Here's the big scoop.

00:39:47.380 Polyev is trying to personally enrich himself, but then it goes on to say actually that Polyev disclosed

00:39:54.360 his, uh, crypto holdings to the ethics commissioner. He asked the ethics commissioner,

00:39:59.520 or if he was allowed to promote crypto in his leadership campaign, and it was all done by the

00:40:05.560 book. So everything he has done about crypto has been done legally. And he followed the ethics

00:40:12.100 commissioner, uh, and the ethics commissioner's guidance on it, and actually took the initiative

00:40:16.600 to check with him first. And then of course, at the end, uh, they have to provide context for the

00:40:22.060 reader to tell you how many MPs actually have disclosed crypto holdings, uh, eight MPs in the

00:40:29.320 house of commons publicly disclosed, uh, crypto assets. Candace, five of those eight are liberals.

00:40:35.380 Um, and one of the conservatives they listed, he doesn't even hold it. His wife holds it yet.

00:40:39.800 He publicly disclosed that his wife holds crypto. So this is the farthest thing from a scandal.

00:40:44.800 This is someone who is actually talking about something he knows. I think maybe this,

00:40:49.580 there might be more of a scandal Candace if he was promoting crypto without, without holding any

00:40:53.120 crypto. Right. But in fact, no, of course there's nothing here. This is classic reaching,

00:40:58.080 uh, and I think they're just trying their very best to do whatever they can to stunt the momentum

00:41:03.040 of Collier's leadership campaign. Well, totally reaching, totally grasping for straws. And of

00:41:07.840 course they quote a far left deranged advocacy group, uh, just to say, this is the ethics, uh,

00:41:13.740 advisory group. They call it democracy watch. Um, just to come up with this tweet. It's clearly

00:41:19.660 unethical for MPs or party leadership candidates to advocate for changes that will help businesses

00:41:25.000 they are invested in. Um, the best way to stop this is to prohibit MPs from having investments.

00:41:30.180 I mean, it's just, okay. All right. Good luck with that. Good luck with that. Um, really they're,

00:41:36.320 they're just throwing everything they possibly can at Pierre in the hopes that something will stick.

00:41:41.360 I don't think any of the stories that we suggested or covered here today, I will have any impact

00:41:46.100 whatsoever. Uh, other than the fact that it, you know, if, if Pierre does win, um, that stuff from

00:41:53.060 Pierre Poly, uh, from Patrick Brown, Michelle Rumpel and John Charest will definitely be used against

00:41:57.680 not just Polyev, not just the whole conservative party. It will be, but every single conservative

00:42:02.280 in the country, for sure. They will hold that against them. All right. Uh, Harrison, let's just

00:42:07.240 do, let's do one more story here because, um, well, uh, this is a good one. The Globe and Mail

00:42:13.520 columnist, uh, John Doyle writes a piece about the cultural ignorance of conservative candidates

00:42:20.660 is a revealing insult according to the Globe and Mail's television critics. So remember that

00:42:27.180 cringy debate that happened in Edmonton a few weeks ago hosted, it was the first official debate by the

00:42:32.660 conservative party. And rather than asking these candidates substantive questions about their

00:42:39.040 beliefs, their principles, their vision for Canada, where they stand on policy, uh, we spent a good chunk of

00:42:45.340 the evening just asking them nonsensical questions, um, that you would usually perhaps ask someone,

00:42:50.540 I don't know, on a first date, um, or at a dinner party or something like that. Uh, one of the, one

00:42:54.980 of the questions, it's, it seemed like these questions were, um, designed to try to embarrass the

00:43:00.300 candidates. Like, like, tell us about your cultural interests just so that we can turn around and mock you

00:43:05.620 for them. Like the whole idea of when, uh, the host asked, uh, what book are you reading? You know,

00:43:11.320 the idea that these guys who are in the middle of a political campaign for their lives and for their

00:43:14.900 careers, uh, that, you know, they're constantly campaigning, constantly traveling, working on

00:43:19.220 speeches, working on policy, work, like burning, burning the, uh, oil on both ends, uh, that, that

00:43:25.200 they would sit down and, and, and, and, you know, open up a, a Dickens novel or something. I mean,

00:43:30.540 obviously they're not reading books right now, right? But I think the whole thing was designed

00:43:34.240 to kind of embarrass them. Well, this is John Doyle, uh, capitalizing on that by looking down his nose,

00:43:39.980 like the snob he is, um, to say that, oh, these people are so ignorant. They're so ignorant. So, 1.00

00:43:46.080 uh, Harrison, why don't you give us some examples from that article?

00:43:49.740 Right. So, uh, well, John Doyle, who is, I guess, some sort of film critic, uh, role of the Globe and

00:43:56.280 Mail. I guess he's, I guess he's running low on stories. So he's dipping his toes into the conservative

00:44:00.620 race. He talks about, he he's, he's so disappointed, Candace, that the conservatives didn't list off some of the

00:44:09.280 very famous Canadian shows, um, which he brings up, cause I'm going to read a couple of this,

00:44:13.940 a couple of these paragraphs, cause they're just unbelievable. In the story, he writes that,

00:44:18.920 uh, the list of shows the conservatives mentioned amounts to a telltale revelation. These people

00:44:24.960 seem to be completely ignorant of Canadian made TV that's renowned award-winning and made in their 0.87

00:44:30.060 own backyards. It was like dirty laundry being aired. It was an excursion into the mind boggling, 0.96

00:44:34.940 he writes. And then he takes shots at Roman Babber who made the, apparently the extraordinary claim

00:44:40.860 of having been watched, uh, married with children, which is a show, not really my vintage. Uh, but I

00:44:48.080 guess it's a show from the late eighties and nineties. Uh, and then he takes, well, he actually

00:44:53.360 just lists off every single candidate and takes issue with what they said. But Candace, I'm, I'm,

00:44:57.480 I'm guessing that John Doyle would have liked it if these candidates talk about their love of CBC

00:45:03.360 shows like and with a knee or a little mosque on the prairie. Uh, or in the article, he mentions

00:45:09.740 why, why can't these conservative candidates watch a show like flashpoint or something else that's made

00:45:16.020 in their, in their backyard, uh, which, which he says orphan black. Uh, I mean, I mean, this is so

00:45:22.460 ridiculous that the globe and mail would take issue with the shows that the conservatives, uh, were

00:45:28.420 unfortunately asked to talk about during the leadership debate. But again, I guess, I guess he just 0.58

00:45:33.140 wants us to watch some of these CBC gems, uh, which, uh, which unfortunately, uh, for John

00:45:39.880 Doyle, I don't think anybody's watching. Well, here's the thing. If anyone had actually listed

00:45:44.520 off any of these obscure shows that nobody watches, nobody watches them because it probably

00:45:49.180 funded by the government and the government funding stuff is, is not a very good indicator

00:45:53.280 that it's something that Canadians want to watch. Right. Uh, you know, if they had gone out there

00:45:57.940 and said, Oh, my favorite show, everybody is little mosque on the prairie or Kim's gonna 1.00

00:46:02.720 be, you know, they, they would just get accused of pandering. It's like, you know, even, even

00:46:06.960 when, uh, uh, uh, Pierre Polyev said that his, you know, his, his favorite, um, song was Alberta

00:46:12.760 bound, uh, you know, it was kind of had, had a little bit of, uh, yeah, sure. Right. But, but,

00:46:18.060 but really, you know, the, the, the, the thing that I got this, you know, Roman Baber moved

00:46:22.600 to Canada as a child from Russia, like so many people who moved to Canada, they learned

00:46:26.360 to speak English from watching television shows. I have a friend who learned English

00:46:30.100 like entirely from watching the show friends. That's, that's how she learned English. Roman

00:46:34.740 Baber says he did it from married with children. And Don Doyle jumps in to say he's watching

00:46:39.880 misogynistic trash from a bygone era, offensive, raunchy, sleazy, featuring appalling figures 0.99

00:46:46.460 who insult each other constantly. Like, like, yeah, you know, that's the kind of lowbrow stuff 0.99

00:46:51.000 that most people just enjoy. And the whole idea of watching TV is, is kind of like a

00:46:54.520 mindless exercise. So no, you don't have to go out there and find the latest, uh, you

00:47:00.360 know, government funded, uh, avant-garde highbrow, uh, you know, piece of theater. It's like,

00:47:06.800 no, it's, it's, it's, it's a show that that was the whole thing. What are you binge watching?

00:47:10.260 The whole idea of binge watching is like, it's like a guilty pleasure. Um, so, you know,

00:47:15.020 the, the whole, the whole concept, which is why I'll go back to my point that I made, uh,

00:47:19.120 in the day after the debate, uh, the, the candidates on stage should have just refused 0.99

00:47:23.020 to answer these idiotic questions. They should have just said, look, look, Tom, uh, I appreciate 0.99

00:47:27.660 what you're trying to do here, but there are important issues facing our country. Why don't

00:47:31.040 we talk about the threats to Canada, the cost of living, the issues that we want to talk about?

00:47:35.720 Let's not spend half the debate pretending that we're all, you know, film critics and that

00:47:41.040 we can, that would have been, that would have been the best line of the debate. If someone

00:47:43.920 had actually said that to Tom, if someone had, had basically said out loud what every single

00:47:48.700 person watching that debate was thinking, they would have hit the, they would have had the

00:47:51.760 best line. They would have won the debate by just saying, no, I'm, I refuse to, I refuse

00:47:56.020 to answer this, this question, which is clearly tailor-made at giving, giving our opponents

00:48:00.220 something they can, they can make jokes about us over such a, such a bizarre article from

00:48:04.660 the Globe and Mail. I got to say, it's like, that's the one thing you have to say. I mean,

00:48:08.760 we, we, we, we went through the whole week of attacks on Pierre, uh, on Pierre Polyev and,

00:48:13.580 and, and, you know, little dog whistles at the, uh, legacy media are trying to catch

00:48:17.680 and, and exploit. And, uh, John Doyle kind of comes in at the end with, with the shots

00:48:23.000 at, at the content of the shows, uh, candidates are watching. It's so, so bizarre.

00:48:28.860 Well, he, he does throw in another, uh, dig at Pierre again, trying to, trying to drum up

00:48:34.460 this dog whistle stuff. Cause apparently Pierre Polyev, uh, cited the mini series Trotsky as the

00:48:40.100 thing he's watching. Well, this is very bad everybody, because it's a, it was made by a 1.00

00:48:44.480 Russian state controlled network and it's notorious for apparently wildly antisemitic

00:48:50.220 imagery. So, so, so maybe that was another dog whistle to Harrison. I don't know. And that's,

00:48:55.360 uh, that's, that's the direction we're going, but yeah, not surprising that the Globe and Mail

00:48:58.920 would pick up on this and use it, uh, to attack conservatives because they'll attack conservatives

00:49:03.660 for absolutely anything. And, uh, the whole thing was just not a good idea from the start.

00:49:09.100 Well, Harrison, thanks so much for walking us through the news. I'm sure as this race heats

00:49:12.980 up and as Polyev becomes, uh, stronger and more prevalent, uh, there'll be lots, lots more

00:49:19.020 of this derangement that we can, uh, break through and, and break it all down for you. So thanks

00:49:23.520 so much for joining us. Yeah, it is a pleasure. I'm hoping maybe the legacy media can pick a

00:49:29.120 different candidate and we can just kind of have content for, uh, for months to come. They

00:49:34.720 can go down the whole list. Wouldn't that be great? Yeah, I somehow doubt. Well,

00:49:38.900 you know, you know, what happens is that, that when politicians are running for the conservatives,

00:49:42.920 you know, the red Tories, the media will treat them really well. And then as soon as they become

00:49:46.500 the candidate, uh, it, it'll turn on them. Um, I, I assume that's what would happen if,

00:49:51.120 if Jean Charest or Patrick Brown became a candidate, but certainly, certainly lots of, lots of content,

00:49:56.340 uh, as always. So appreciate your time, Harrison and viewer. Thank you so much for tuning in.

00:50:01.920 It's been Fake News Friday. I'm Kenneth Malcolm, and this is the Kenneth Malcolm Show.

00:50:04.720 Thank you.

00:50:05.860 Thank you.

00:50:05.940 Thank you.

00:50:06.640 Thank you.

00:50:08.040 Thank you.

00:50:22.560 Thank you.

The Candice Malcolm Show - May 20, 2022

Poilievre derangement syndrome has begun!

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript