adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

Former B.C. Liberal leadership candidate runs for Rustad’s Conservatives in Kelowna

Published

 on

Canada Politics News

 

KELOWNA, B.C. – A former leadership rival to BC United Leader Kevin Falcon is joining John Rustad’s British Columbia Conservatives to run in Kelowna in the fall election.

Gavin Dew was a candidate in the B.C. Liberal leadership race in 2022 that Falcon won, but he is now running in the Kelowna-Mission riding under the B.C. Conservatives banner.

Rustad says Dew, who owns a family-run business in Kelowna, wants to address the difficult issues of health care, public safety, agriculture and housing that are facing the province under the New Democrat government.

Dew was one of seven candidates to contest the leadership of the former B.C. Liberal Party, which has since been rebranded to the BC United.

Kelowna-Mission is currently held by BC United MLA Renee Merrifield, who announced earlier she is not running for re-election in the Oct. 19 election.

Dew joins several former BC United members who are now supporting the Conservatives, including Teresa Wat, Lorne Doerkson, Elenore Sturko and Bruce Banman, who are all current members of the legislature.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 14, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Trudeau says he ‘can’t wait’ to get into it with Poilievre in Parliament

Published

 on

 

NANAIMO, B.C. – Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he can’t wait to get back to Ottawa to get into it” with Pierre Poilievre in the House of Commons, as he makes the case to his own party to put up a united front against the Conservatives.

The three-day Liberal caucus retreat in Nanaimo, B.C., was the first chance for Trudeau to address his MPs as a group since they lost a long-held Liberal riding in Toronto to the Conservatives.

The loss led to a fractious summer, and the focus of the gathering has been to reunite the party and turn their focus to the Tories.

Trudeau says there is a diversity of opinions within the caucus about the party’s approach, and even about his leadership, but he maintained that he’s focused on the things his government is doing for Canadians.

The Liberals will face their next test in just a few days with two more critical byelections in Montreal and Winnipeg.

Trudeau says people in those byelections, and in the next national election, will have to choose between Poilievre’s plan to cut services and the Liberal plan to invest in Canada.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

As Trump and Harris spar, ABC’s moderators grapple with conducting a debate in a polarized country

Published

 on

 

The ABC News moderators were great. No, actually they were a “disgraceful failure.” They cut off Kamala Harris too much. No, actually they corrected Donald Trump unfairly.

Such is the contentious tenor of the times in 2024’s campaign season. And so it went Tuesday night at Trump’s and Harris’ first — and quite possibly only — debate.

In an illustration of how difficult it is to conduct a presidential debate in a polarized country, ABC News moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis fact-checked and corrected Trump four times Tuesday and were attacked angrily by the former president and his supporters.

Trump, shortly after he left the stage in Philadelphia, sent out a message on his social media platform: “I thought that was my best debate, EVER, especially since it was THREE ON ONE!”

Muir and Davis moderated what is expected to be the only debate between the former president and the sitting vice president. They asked about economic policy, the war in Ukraine, abortion, the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection and changes in Harris’ stances since her 2020 presidential run.

In the end, Trump logged 43 minutes and 3 seconds of time talking, while Harris had 37 minutes and 41 seconds, according to a count by The New York Times.

Opinions on the coverage were a political litmus test

The debate’s stakes were high to begin with, not only because of the impending election itself but because the last presidential debate in June — between Trump and sitting President Joe Biden, whose performance was roundly panned — uncorked a series of events that ended several weeks later with Biden’s withdrawal from the race and Harris stepping in.

Opinions on how ABC handled the latest debate Tuesday were, in a large sense, a Rorschach test on how supporters of both sides felt about how it went. MSNBC commentator Chris Hayes sent a message on X that the ABC moderators were doing an “excellent” job — only to be answered by conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, who said, “this is how you know they’re complete s—-.”

While CNN chose not to correct any misstatements by the candidates during Trump’s debate with Biden in June, ABC instead challenged statements that Trump made about abortion, immigration, the 2020 election and violent crime.

During a discussion of abortion, Trump made his oft-repeated claim that Democrats supported killing babies after they were born. Said Davis: “There is no state in the country where it is legal to kill a baby after it was born.”

Muir pointed out that Trump, after years of publicly not admitting to his defeat to Biden in the 2020 election, had recently on three separate occasions conceded he had lost. Trump replied that he had been sarcastic in making those recent statements.

“I didn’t detect the sarcasm,” Muir said.

After suggesting that crime had gone up during the Biden administration, Muir pointed out that violent crime had gone down during that period, prompting an argument with the former president. ABC also noted, after Trump had repeated a debunked report that immigrants were killing and eating pets in Ohio, that there had been no evidence that had happened.

ABC moderators did not correct any statements made by Harris.

“Could they have done more? Yes,” said Angie Drodnic Holan, director of the international fact-checking network at the Poynter Institute, said in an interview. “Did they do enough? I would say yes. The alternative was none.”

Toward the end of the debate, CNN fact checker Daniel Dale said on social media that “Trump has been staggeringly dishonest and Harris has been overwhelmingly (though not entirely) factual.”

Both candidates didn’t answer some questions

As is often the case in debates, the moderators often saw specific questions go unanswered. Harris, for example, was asked to address Trump’s criticism that the U.S. Justice Department has been weaponized against him. She did not. She also skirted questions about changes to some of her past positions on issues. Muir twice asked Trump whether he wanted Ukraine to win its war against Russia, and he didn’t answer.

The split screen views of both candidates onscreen told different stories. Trump often looked angry or smiled at some of Harris’ statements, while avoiding eye contact with his opponent. Harris looked over at her opponents several times, often in bemusement, sometimes in open amusement, sometimes shaking her head.

Online anger toward how ABC handled the evening began while the debate was ongoing, and quickly became a talking point.

“These moderators are a disgraceful failure, and this is one of the most biased, unfair debates I have ever seen,” conservative commentator Megyn Kelly posted on X. “Shame on ABC.”

Answering online critics who complained ABC stacked the deck in Harris’ favor, Atlantic writer James Surowiecki wrote that “the way they ‘rigged’ the debate is by letting (Trump) hang himself with his own stream of consciousness rambles.”

“It was like a 4Chan post come to life,” CNN’s Jake Tapper said.

On Fox News Channel, anchor Martha MacCallum said after the debate that Harris “was never really held to the fire.” Commentator Brit Hume agreed with her, but said something else was at play.

“Make no mistake about it,” Hume said. “Trump had a bad night.”

___

David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Taylor Swift Endorses Kamala Harris in 2024 U.S. Presidential Election, Criticizes Trump’s AI Misinformation

Published

 on

Pop superstar Taylor Swift has once again entered the political arena, announcing her support for U.S. Vice-President Kamala Harris in the upcoming 2024 presidential election. In an Instagram post following Harris’ debate with former President Donald Trump, Swift shared her decision to vote for the Harris-Walz ticket, citing Harris’ leadership and advocacy for key social causes as reasons for her endorsement.

In her social media post, Swift expressed admiration for Harris, referring to her as a “steady-handed, gifted leader” and a “warrior” for the causes that matter to her. Swift, known for her influence both in the music industry and among her vast fan base, emphasized her belief that Harris is a strong leader who can guide the U.S. through challenging times.

“I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election,” Swift wrote. “I think she is a steady-handed, gifted leader, and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos.”

Swift added that Harris represents the values she holds dear, such as fighting for social justice, women’s rights, and other progressive causes. “She fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them,” Swift said, showing her confidence in Harris’ ability to continue her advocacy for these issues if elected.

The Grammy-winning artist took the opportunity to clarify her stance in the 2024 election following an incident in which an AI-generated image falsely portrayed her endorsing Donald Trump. Swift condemned the spread of misinformation, highlighting the importance of being transparent in an age where fabricated content can easily mislead the public.

“It brought me to the conclusion that I need to be very transparent about my actual plans for this election as a voter,” Swift wrote. “The simplest way to combat misinformation is with the truth.”

Her decision to publicly endorse Harris and Walz was, in part, a direct response to these misleading tactics, which have become increasingly common in political discourse. Swift’s approach to the situation reflects her understanding of the need for honesty and openness in political communication.

Swift’s journey to becoming a vocal political advocate marks a significant shift from her earlier years, during which she often avoided expressing her views on political matters. However, she has recently embraced her platform to speak out on key issues, particularly those related to social justice and equality.

Her first major foray into politics came in 2018 when she urged her fans to vote in the U.S. midterm elections, supporting Democratic candidates in her home state of Tennessee. Two years later, she endorsed Joe Biden for president in the 2020 election. Since then, Swift has continued to use her influence to promote voter participation, particularly among young people, and to speak up about issues such as women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and racial justice.

In her endorsement of Harris, Swift also took a playful dig at recent comments made by Republican politician J.D. Vance, who had criticized Democratic leaders without biological children. Swift signed off her post as “Taylor Swift, Childless Cat Lady,” humorously responding to the remark.

Despite Swift’s endorsement, the Trump campaign has shrugged off the singer’s support for Harris. Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for Trump’s team, framed Swift’s decision as evidence of the Democratic Party’s association with “wealthy elites,” dismissing the impact of her endorsement.

“There’s many Swifties for Trump out there in America,” Leavitt said, downplaying Swift’s influence on the broader electorate. Meanwhile, Trump himself, in an interview with Fox and Friends, criticized Swift’s endorsement, calling her “a very liberal person” and labeling the debate “rigged.”

“She always seems to endorse a Democrat, and she will probably pay the price for that in the market,” Trump remarked, casting doubt on the effects of her political stance on her career.

Swift’s endorsement is likely to have a significant impact, particularly among her young and diverse fan base. The “Swifties,” as her fans are known, are active on social media and highly engaged in political conversations, making Swift’s endorsement a powerful signal in a closely contested election. Moreover, her open criticism of misinformation in politics could further galvanize efforts to promote media literacy and critical thinking among voters.

While celebrity endorsements can be divisive, Swift’s willingness to take a stand has drawn praise from many who view her as an advocate for positive change. Her decision to voice her support for Harris, as well as her efforts to address misinformation head-on, reflect a broader movement toward greater transparency and integrity in political discourse.

As the 2024 election draws nearer, Swift’s endorsement is likely to continue sparking conversation about the role of celebrities in politics and the responsibility they hold in using their platforms to inform and influence public opinion.

Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris in the 2024 U.S. presidential election underscores her continued evolution from a politically neutral pop star to a vocal advocate for social justice and progressive causes. By speaking out against misinformation and emphasizing the importance of making informed choices, Swift is contributing to a broader dialogue about transparency, integrity, and leadership in an increasingly complex political landscape.

Her influence among younger voters, combined with her willingness to take a stand, could play a pivotal role in shaping the outcome of the election. At a time when the stakes are high and the political climate is charged, Swift’s endorsement highlights the critical intersection between politics, culture, and celebrity.

Continue Reading

Trending