reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker, a former conservative voter and small business owner, shifted allegiance due to the Conservative Party's stance on mass immigration, net-zero policies, and the Paris Accord. They believe the Conservative Party is not truly conservative and that the People's Party of Canada (PPC) is the only party fighting the globalist agenda, advocating for exiting the WHO and UN migration pact, stopping the pandemic treaty, and deporting criminals. The speaker feels that trust in leadership is crucial and criticizes the silence of current leaders during recent events. They express a desire for PPC candidates to win and find that constituents are polarized, driven by fear of specific leaders rather than objective issue analysis. Those who are informed, however, see the PPC as the best platform, particularly for youth affected by COVID-19 policies and businesses impacted by lockdowns. The speaker emphasizes the need for media coverage and Maxime Bernier's inclusion in debates to increase the PPC's chances of winning.

The prime minister's governance has contributed to the current polarization in the country. Reacting to social media and the 24/7 news cycle has led to decisions and statements that further amplify existing strong opinions. For instance, during the last election campaign, using the vaccine mandate as a divisive tactic was not seen as helpful. While the speaker acknowledges the importance of vaccines, they emphasize the need to listen to people, understand their perspectives, and work together to rise above daily conflicts. This approach is deemed crucial for effective governance.

During a question period, Pierre Polayev cited a Fox News report about a terrorist attack, which was the only outlet reporting it at the time. He was questioned about the responsibility of using media reports when the Canadian government was still learning about the situation. Polayev defended his statement by criticizing the Canadian press for making three corrections in one article. Another speaker pointed out that attacking the agency instead of addressing the question was not appealing in terms of leadership and constructive conversations. The discussion ended with the mention of a GTA voter who didn't appreciate the aggressive tone.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is facing criticism for his media management and his decision to go into hiding following a by-election loss. He has been accused of carefully controlling his media appearances and avoiding tough questions. Trudeau defended his vacation in Tofino, stating that he works hard and deserves time with his family. He also addressed concerns about his government's Online Harms Act, denying that it would censor free speech. The interview concluded with the journalist calling for more accountability from Trudeau and urging good people to step up in politics. The journalist also appealed for support for their independent news outlet, The Counter Signal.

The conversation centers on controversial claims about political figures and their spouses, and how these claims intersect with media coverage and political strategy. - The speakers discuss Candace Owens’ allegations about “Macron’s wife,” presenting a complex and sensational backstory: Macron reportedly has a wife who was younger and whom he met when she was a teacher, with contradictory accounts about her gender history (initially claimed to be a man who transitioned, then said to be his father who transitioned and returned). They describe a 25-year age difference and ongoing public appearances in which Macron’s wife is said to speed him up in public, with video footage cited of her at events, described as a man by the speakers. - They note that, despite the sensational backstory, Candace has made specific legal moves, including warnings about lawsuits and the involvement of expert gynecologists and witnesses regarding where she was at certain times. Candace, according to the speakers, proposed a simple DNA test: a cheek swab that would settle the matter quickly, suggesting NDA or DNA arrangements, and claiming if she’s wrong she would admit it. The counterpart pushes for a public clinic, a rapid and definitive test, and questions the motives behind the other side’s requests for extensive testimony. - The dialogue touches on the broader credibility and motivations of those involved. One speaker mentions meeting Candace recently and describes her as highly intelligent and aligned on many beliefs, while noting that high-level US intelligence reportedly confirms there is a French operation connected to Macron. There is reference to “a French operation” and “Macron head out on her,” with speculation about whether information is purposeful misinformation or suppression. - They discuss media figures and sources, including Gannon, Paul Watson, and Charlie Kirk, with a stance that while the claims are damaging to Trump overall, they still seek truth and acknowledge that some information appears to be being covered up. They acknowledge distrust and the sense that “something’s being covered up,” but stop short of making definitive judgments about truthfulness. - The discussion expands to broader political consequences. They contrast the alleged French operation and internal controversies with Donald Trump’s situation regarding Epstein, noting that Trump’s handling of related disclosures has been criticized, though the participants affirm that Trump is not implicated in Epstein per the victims’ statements. They highlight a tension between pursuing controversial narratives and maintaining focus on elections. - Toward the end, they discuss the potential strategic impact on public discourse and electoral politics, suggesting that real-time distractions from these allegations could influence public attention. They acknowledge that while the France-related allegations are “real” to some extent, the central political question remains: what is happening with elections and related geopolitical concerns, including mentions of Venezuela as a proximate political issue.

You accused me of betraying Canada for globalism, but Canada benefits from immigration. Claims of giving up sovereignty are meant to create fear. Canadians should be critical of online information and political rhetoric.

The speaker defends their statement about the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge checkpoint being terrorism, citing media reports that the Canadian government presumed it to be so. They criticize CP for making false claims in an article and question CTV's responsibility for reporting on the incident. The speaker also mentions the awkward situation of CP attacking CTV's reporting, considering that CP works for CTV.

There are those who are intentionally undermining mainstream media, such as conspiracy theorists and social media influencers who keep people in filter bubbles. This prevents agreement on common facts, unlike when CBC, CTV, and Global were the main news sources projecting a shared understanding across the country.

The speaker expresses frustration with the current state of media and the lack of alternative viewpoints. They question how to truly understand what is happening in the world if the news is not providing accurate information. They mention the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa and suggest that people have been deceived about its purpose. The speaker emphasizes that the movement is not about race, health, or symbols like Nazi flags or masks. Instead, it is about protecting children from digital identification. They conclude with a message of choosing love over fear.

The speaker claims the Liberal Party won due to weaponizing fear and exploiting "Trump derangement syndrome" among Canadians, while the Conservative Party's strategy failed because Pierre Poilievre "went soft." A key factor was Poilievre losing his own riding due to a 2023 redistribution, which the speaker blames on national campaign manager Jenny Byrne. The speaker alleges Conservative HQ micromanaged campaigns nationwide, blocking candidates from debates and local events, and even rigging nomination races to install controllable "red Tory loyalists." They claim HQ staff showed conflicts of interest by getting family members into elite internships. According to the speaker, the election hinged on local races, but grassroots campaigns were sabotaged from the top. The speaker advises Poilievre to fire everyone at Conservative HQ and find a safe seat by having a retiring MP step aside. Despite the demoralizing loss, the speaker urges conservatives not to quit.

In London, there is a 32-year-old single mother who is an MP for this area and a woman of color. Her interview with CBC News about her lived experience has been used by the conservatives in an attack ad. These issues are not just about her, but also affect many people around her.

Speaker 0 states this is the most important election in most of their lifetimes. They claim Trump has made unacceptable threats against the economy, workers, and sovereignty. They believe a particular leader can address these issues and needs support. Speaker 1 accuses Catherine McKenna of losing track of 20,000 contracts worth $236,000,000,000, which they claim is why she is no longer in parliament. Speaker 1 repeats the accusation and insults Speaker 0. Speaker 1 continues to harass Catherine, repeating the $236,000,000,000 figure and using abusive language. Speaker 1 then states that everyone is "fucking retarded."

Speaker 0 notes a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 says their own government told them a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2 states they have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 1 says doctors made extra money to push vaccines and were given a billing code to do it, and she has pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 3 asserts they’ve purchased the vaccine that hasn’t been approved and distributed it to the provinces, so the second it’s approved they can start jabbing themselves and pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4 asks why vaccinations were necessary, noting that when going to the hospital for birth, you expect to go home, and then you don’t. Speaker 0 suspects criminal negligence by the government and public health officials. Speaker 2 agrees, saying “Possible.” Speaker 0 contends they pushed a narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 recalls wiretapping, harassment, and charges, and that they didn’t allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1 says Canadian babies died, and police are trying to cover it up by stopping detective Helen Graves from testifying about it. Speaker 3 comments that dominant individuals maintain subordinates’ place through constant aggression. Speaker 5 argues that choosing not to vaccinate is one thing, but being unable to fly or ride trains with vaccinated people and thus putting them at risk is another issue. Speaker 2 says CBC started with a story to implicate her and paint her in an uncomplimentary light to the public. Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of CBC, describing it as a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 3 declares this is the most significant health matter affecting children today, and they are still not investigating. Speaker 2 asserts that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, and how they work together and censored information; all of it ties to this one case, making it dangerous.

The two speakers discuss the media coverage surrounding a high-profile case. The second speaker says the media coverage has been absolutely unfair and biased. They’ve done many interviews and are reaching a point where they won’t do them anymore, trusting the media less. They note a preference for live interviews because edited pieces distort their message. A concrete example is CBC’s Karen Pauls: she interviewed Russ Harald, Sudhoo, and several families who forgave. The second speaker claims Harald told them Pauls didn’t include half of what he said, and that she did the same to Andrea and Shauna Nordstrom (Logan Hunter’s mother). They allege that Nordstroms were given a bit part in a story that portrayed the subject as loving and forgiving, downplaying negative aspects, making it seem like the subject was sympathetic. The second speaker claims Karen Pauls twisted the narrative, and contends that much of the media has done this. Consequently, they’ve declined numerous interviews and no longer trust mainstream media regarding this story. The second speaker adds that there are people with no vested interest who want to express approval or forgiveness to feel good about themselves and to allow the subject to stay in the country. They contrast this with others who are deported for other offenses, such as those who steal $5,000 cars and are permanent residents who get deported. They have listened in on immigration and refugee board hearings to learn more about the process. They claim that because the case is so prominent, some people want to excuse the subject, even if it means allowing criminals or poor drivers to stay, thereby harming the system. The first speaker asks what precedent would be set if the subject were allowed to stay in Canada. The second speaker replies that it would imply that 16 lives mean nothing and questions how many people one would have to kill to be deported, underscoring the idea that the mere possibility of killing someone is central to the debate. They insist that raising the question of whether the person killed anyone is itself “crazy.”

In 2016, the speaker voted for Hillary Clinton and was confused and outraged by Trump's victory. The speaker initially condemned Trump for mocking a reporter's disability. However, the speaker now believes the media intentionally misleads the public to control their thinking. The speaker claims the media exploits emotions, citing a Time magazine cover of a child who was never separated from her mother. They allege the media falsely reported Trump called all immigrants animals, omitting his reference to MS-13 gang members. The speaker accuses the media of lying about Brett Kavanaugh, children in cages, and the Walk Away movement. They state the media was wrong about the election outcome, the Covington kids, Jussie Smollett, and Russian collusion.

An individual questions a reporter about third-party advertising spending in the election, specifically referencing Rebel News and Ford Canada, both allegedly owned by Ezra Levant. The reporter denies any spending and accuses the individual of lying and not doing their homework. The individual insists that Rebel News Network Limited is registered with Elections Canada under Ezra Levant's name and accuses the reporter of using third-party advertising trucks. The reporter claims the truck is for Canada, a separate entity. Accusations of lying and emotional outbursts are exchanged, with the reporter telling the individual to control their emotions and calling them "tantrum boy." The individual defends their facts and questions the reporter's journalistic integrity.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

I have mixed thoughts on Pierre Poliev and the conservative party. Pierre is the current leader and a skilled communicator, but his main focus seems to be gaining power rather than having genuine convictions. I believe the conservative party is morally and intellectually corrupt. For instance, when I made a controversial tweet, Andrew Scheer, another conservative member, called me and advised me to consult their PR team before posting anything. This shows that everything they say has been tested through polling and focus groups.

The speaker expresses outrage over a debate commission event, claiming right-wing "incel asswipes" turned it into a "clown show" by exploiting Michelle Cormier's weakness. They allege the commission allowed Ezra Levant and "arsonists" into the room and provided them with opportunities to record everything. The speaker, along with Corey, Kathleen, and others, were kicked out of the media filing room while The Rebel was allowed to remain. This led to "pandemonium" where the Rebel harassed media and provoked people, then ran to the police claiming assault when challenged. The situation escalated to the point where CBC's Dave Cochran and Rosie Barton required security escorts due to concerns about their physical safety. The speaker asserts these individuals disrupted a democratic process, profited from it, and that Michelle Cormier and the commission were unable to manage the situation, resulting in a "complete fuck show."

Lara Trump believes Jake Tapper owes her an apology for his on-air comments. She says Tapper not only denied Joe Biden's cognitive decline, which she believes was obvious, but also insinuated that she was mocking Biden's stutter, which she claims she didn't know he had. Trump says this led to public criticism, including an op-ed by Captain Sully. She attributes this situation to the reason why the legacy media has lost the trust of the American people. She suggests Tapper was either a poor journalist who was blind to Biden's cognitive decline or complicit in covering it up, and is now trying to profit from claiming he was duped by the White House.

Speaker 0 questions Nicole about online posts to the Prime Minister of Canada, asking if she has anything to say about that. Speaker 1 asks for specifics: what post, what she specifically said, and whether there is a screenshot. Speaker 0 cites that she online said something specific and asks for clarification. Speaker 1 replies that she said, "he's a Zionist scumbag, and he's not my prime minister," adding that she believes she is not spoken to properly and questions whether she looks like a threat. Speaker 0 explains that they came to talk because those threats were made. Speaker 1 pushes back, saying that the officers should be busy addressing real crime rather than harassing her over things she says online, and questions whether she seriously looks like a threat. Speaker 0 acknowledges and continues. Speaker 1 accuses the officers of wasting tax dollars and asserts that they should not be harassing her for what she says online because she dislikes the prime minister. Speaker 0 states Nicole should be aware that if such behavior continues, there will be consequences, implying potential arrest for threats. Speaker 1 asks what kind of threats they are referring to and demands to see what she said, noting that she still has not been shown. Speaker 0 attempts to explain what she said and what constitutes threats, warning that if those threats continue, she could be arrested and charged. Speaker 1 complains about being interrupted, asking to show what she said, and then launches into a hostile remark, calling the situation Communist Canada and asking how the officers can take pride in their work. Speaker 0 reiterates that she may have her opinion, but she insists she cannot say what she says. Speaker 1 refuses to discuss further, telling them not to touch her door. Speaker 0 says a report will be filed, stating that the search behavior continues, and mentions Trump in a dismissive way ("the Trump blah blah blah blah blah"). Speaker 1 asserts she will say whatever she wants about the prime minister and that they cannot control her speech, calling it just words. Speaker 0 responds that they are asking for non-threatening language. Speaker 1 concludes by stating they will continue to speak freely and that the conversation is over, wishing them a nice day and goodbye.

I regret using strong language towards intolerant protesters, not everyone in the protest. I believe in calling out hateful language. I want to encourage vaccination but respect individual choices. The polarization and toxicity were fueled by misinformation. Canadians need to listen, talk, and remember we are in this together as citizens.

An individual questions a reporter about third-party advertising spending in the election, specifically by Rebel News and Ford Canada, alleging both are owned by Ezra Levant. The reporter denies any spending and accuses the individual of lying and not doing their homework. The individual insists that Rebel News Network Limited is registered with Elections Canada under Ezra Levant's name and accuses the reporter of being a disgrace to journalism. The reporter counters that the individual is out of control emotionally and that their facts are wrong. The exchange escalates, with accusations of lying and being an embarrassment. The individual defends their ability to do the work of multiple reporters, while the reporter suggests they don't understand what they're looking at.