Canadian Politics

[17to85]

Liberal brand has been poisoned in Alberta since the first Trudeau, most of the current anger isn't about who voted what way, it's about the way Alberta was talked about by the current parties. 

[Wideleft]

6 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Liberal brand has been poisoned in Alberta since the first Trudeau, most of the current anger isn't about who voted what way, it's about the way Alberta was talked about by the current parties. 

Holding grudges doesn't make for good diplomacy.

The anger comment is interesting because I don't recall any of the leaders bashing or mocking Alberta, nor can I find any evidence of it.  I even did an advance search of Gerald Butts' twitter account and couldn't find one negative thing. 

On the other hand, did you know that the Liberals made it easier to ship Alberta beef to Mexico?

Meanwhile, Albertans voted for a premier who is going to cut services to the bone today and will still somehow direct their anger somewhere between the clouds and the east. 

[JCon]

How would proportional representation have shaped this election's results?

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/info/2019/elections-federales/mode-scrutin-proportionnelle-mixte-compensatoire/index-en.html

 

I found this quite interesting. I wonder if anyone would have changed their vote under these systems and whether or not it would have increased engagement?

Edited October 24, 2019 by JCon
There are multiple systems that are shown. Updated my language to reflect this.

[Wideleft]

39 minutes ago, JCon said:

How would proportional representation have shaped this election's results?

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/info/2019/elections-federales/mode-scrutin-proportionnelle-mixte-compensatoire/index-en.html

 

I found this quite interesting. I wonder if anyone would have changed their vote under this system and whether or not it would have increased engagement?

I'm for proportional representation, but given the amount of strategic voting that occurred in the election, I'm not sure how accurately these results reflect actual voter preferences.  The ABC vote was especially effective on Monday and people will still be smart enough to game the vote once they figure out what the rules are.  It would not upset me to see more Greens and NDP in HOC, but the trade-off is the loons from the PPC getting a voice (albeit small) on the floor.

That's democracy, I guess.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

3 hours ago, JCon said:

 

When you're given free money once you always think you'll get it again.

[Wideleft]

Strategy: create straw man Alberta leaving Canada, get people really worked up and saying they want to leave, and then argue you will not let Trudeau, who never said anything about AB being pushed out, have it with both barrels.
This man is a menace https://t.co/DX2Vc4HYAi

— Allan W. Gregory (@awg_allan) October 24, 2019

 

[FrostyWinnipeg]

20 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Strategy: create straw man Alberta leaving Canada, get people really worked up and saying they want to leave, and then argue you will not let Trudeau, who never said anything about AB being pushed out, have it with both barrels.
This man is a menace https://t.co/DX2Vc4HYAi

— Allan W. Gregory (@awg_allan) October 24, 2019

 

Kenney not for or against separating.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

https://election.ctvnews.ca/vulgar-slurs-spray-painted-on-catherine-mckenna-s-office-1.4653750

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, Wideleft said:

Strategy: create straw man Alberta leaving Canada, get people really worked up and saying they want to leave, and then argue you will not let Trudeau, who never said anything about AB being pushed out, have it with both barrels.
This man is a menace https://t.co/DX2Vc4HYAi

— Allan W. Gregory (@awg_allan) October 24, 2019

 

Hopefully Albertans see through this piece of ****'s transparent bullshit.

[Goalie]

Im not a Pallister fan, hes a friend of my dads but im not a fan of his politicial views, hes a good man tho. 

What he said the other day about his Western brothers seperation talk... Man, dude was spot on. 

Loosely quoted he said " me and my wife have been married 35 years, we dont get better by threatening to leave every week, we get better by working together. " this from 1 conservative premier to others. Strong words from BP. 

MB wants a hydro electric grid.. Its known Brian is pushing Justin for this... Dude had his issues with JT but appears to be able to understand things work best when we all work together. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by Goalie

[SpeedFlex27]

6 hours ago, JCon said:

 

Justin Trudeau says he will always defend jobs & is dedicated to saving them. Worried about 9,000 potential job losses with SNC Lavalin in Quebec so he felt justified to politically interfere in any criminal investigation. Meanwhile, in Alberta over 150,000 people have lost their job & Trudeau is saying that he is dedicated to shutting down the oilsands in the name of climate change thereby destroying the AB economy & severely injuring the Canadian one. He & the Liberals don't seem to care about massive job losses out here. What would Trudeau do if Quebec faced job losses of 150 -200,000? There would be full blown panic & screaming in Ottawa.

As well, cancelling Northern Gateway & changing regulations regarding downstream emissions which killed the Energy East pipeline. The 2 bills passed C48 & C69 regarding moratorium on  tankers carrying ALBERTA OIL & changes to the regulatory process approving energy projects. Before that, Justin's Old Man Pierre brought in the National Energy Program which dropped AB into a recession until Mulroney cancelled it in 1985. 

Yeah, we voted Conservative out here & we're shut out of Justin's cabinet but even with 2 MPs here in the previous Liberal government, we were still shut out when it came to energy issues & became the target of Liberal & progressive scorn towards our resource industry. Both Amarjit Sohi & Kent Hehr as a voice for Alberta energy interests were as useless as **** on a bull. So who the **** cares if we're in Trudeau's cabinet or not? It wouldn't make a difference if we were, anyway. 

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by SpeedFlex27

[Fatty Liver]

7 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Justin Trudeau says he will always defend jobs & is dedicated to saving them. Worried about 9,000 potential job losses with SNC Lavalin in Quebec so he felt justified to politically interfere in any criminal investigation. Meanwhile, in Alberta over 150,000 people have lost their job & Trudeau is saying that he is dedicated to shutting down the oilsands in the name of climate change thereby destroying the AB economy & severely injuring the Canadian one. He & the Liberals don't seem to care about massive job losses out here. What would Trudeau do if Quebec faced job losses of 150 -200,000? There would be full blown panic & screaming in Ottawa.

As well, cancelling Northern Gateway & changing regulations regarding downstream emissions which killed the Energy East pipeline. The 2 bills passed C48 & C69 regarding moratorium on  tankers carrying ALBERTA OIL & changes to the regulatory process approving energy projects. Before that, Justin's Old Man Pierre brought in the National Energy Program which dropped AB into a recession until Mulroney cancelled it in 1985. 

Yeah, we voted Conservative out here & we're shut out of Justin's cabinet but even with 2 MPs here in the previous Liberal government, we were still shut out when it came to energy issues & became the target of Liberal & progressive scorn towards our resource industry. Both Amarjit Sohi & Kent Hehr as a voice for Alberta energy interests were as useless as **** on a bull. So who the **** cares if we're in Trudeau's cabinet or not? It wouldn't make a difference if we were, anyway. 

 

Please provide a link where "he said" he is shutting down the oil sands?  

[FrostyWinnipeg]

10 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Please provide a link where "he said" he is shutting down the oil sands?  

Buffalo Chronical

 

[SpeedFlex27]

36 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Please provide a link where "he said" he is shutting down the oil sands?  

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-trudeau-canada-oil-sands-phased.html

[Wideleft]

2 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-trudeau-canada-oil-sands-phased.html

Another example of hearing what you want to hear.  Here is the actual quote from your link: "We can't shut down the oil sands tomorrow. We need to phase them out," he said. "We need to manage the transition off our dependence on fossil fuels."

Apparently, Brian Jean has the same comprehension challenges:  "If Mr Trudeau wants to shut down Alberta's oil sands, and my hometown, let him be warned: He'll have to go through me and four million Albertans first," said Brian Jean"

Surely you don't think that the transition isn't going to happen (given that it's already under way).  This is one example where Trudeau should have been praised for his honesty.

[SpeedFlex27]

33 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Buffalo Chronical

 

No, the CBC, Global, CTV, City TV, postmedia & other news outlets everywhere. I guess when all you care about is the Jets it's easy to miss something like this. And it's Chronicle, not Chronical. If you're trying to be funny at least get that right.

[Fatty Liver]

Is this photo an accurate depiction of height?  I've not seen many photos of Brian Pallister, but if Scheer is 6'-4",  how tall is Pallister?

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

22 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Is this photo an accurate depiction of height?  I've not seen many photos of Brian Pallister, but if Scheer is 6'-4",  how tall is Pallister?

His nickname in and around the Manitoba Legislature is "Lurch". I'm not even kidding. 

[sweep the leg]

AB Provincial gov't proposing big cuts to services and public servant jobs. 

Also, something I store from twitter that I thought was funny:

Jason Kenney: I gave 4.5 billion to the oil companies! Here come the jobs!

Oil Companies: Thanks for the free money! Here come the layoffs!

Jason Kenney: Alberta is broke! Here come the cuts!

Albertans: **** Trudeau!

[SpeedFlex27]

7 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Liberal brand has been poisoned in Alberta since the first Trudeau, most of the current anger isn't about who voted what way, it's about the way Alberta was talked about by the current parties. 

Exactly. The Trudeau brand going back to 1980 & the NEP. Before 1980, this province did vote in Liberals. But not many since then. Albertans looked at the 3 Libs elected in 2015 as puppets for Justin. One Liberal resigned his seat because of sexual misconduct leaving Sohi in Edmonton & Hehr in Calgary. Hehr lost his cabinet post with the federal Liberals  because of sexual improprieties as a member of the AB Legislature earlier in his career. He used to talk dirty to women staffers. One former staffer said she didn't like riding the elevator with the guy at the legislature because of his mouth. Trudeau removed him from cabinet two years ago but he kept his seat as a backbencher. Most people I talked to think Hehr was a slimeball & were happy he lost. 

[Bigblue204]

1 hour ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

No, the CBC, Global, CTV, City TV, postmedia & other news outlets everywhere. I guess when all you care about is the Jets it's easy to miss something like this. And it's Chronicle, not Chronical. If you're trying to be funny at least get that right.

I guess when you're terrified of any kind of change you can't see the writing on the wall. Regardless of who is in power, the oil sands are going to be phased out. But guess what? That DOES NOT MEAN TOMORROW. It will take decades likely. Maybe longer. But it's going to happen.

[SpeedFlex27]

37 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

I guess when you're terrified of any kind of change you can't see the writing on the wall. Regardless of who is in power, the oil sands are going to be phased out. But guess what? That DOES NOT MEAN TOMORROW. It will take decades likely. Maybe longer. But it's going to happen.

I'd just like to know how we can have so called hard target dates like, "by 2030" or "by 2050" when we don't have the technology to replace petroleum in not just vehicles & heating our homes  but in everything that we do & use?  I'd be all for replacing petroleum products if we had absolutely viable alternatives but we don't & we're decades away from doing so.

Things, everyday things,  like contact lenses, shampoo, soap, hearing aids, vitamin capsules, deodorant, shaving cream, toothpaste, lip balm, moisturizer, lipstick, perfume, dentures, nail polish, comb, brush, hair colour, plastic, ink, shoe polish, crayons, paper cup, wax paper, asphalt, tires, lubricants, bug killer, paint, roof shingles, cosmetics, hand cream, asphalt, & candles  just to name a few. How do we replace these items & the thousands not mentioned here? If someone can tell me that, I'd be interested in hearing what they would have to say.

I think most Canadians don't have a clue about these products & only think cutting out oil means just cars & trucks. How many Canadians are willing to stop vacationing to a warm & sunny destination in winter, flying off to a ski vacation or visiting family & friends elsewhere by plane, train or vehicle?

How many Canadians are truly willing to sacrifice to save the planet? I don't think very many as we'd have elected the Greens in a landslide otherwise. Nope, most people don't have a clue. Obviously, most Canadians didn't believe Elizabeth May's dire predictions of an extinction event within a decade. Or that we are at war with Climate Change. You know when it comes to selecting a holiday or the Earth, that vacation to Thailand is way more important than Climate Change. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by SpeedFlex27

[Bigblue204]

9 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I'd just like to know how we can have so called hard target dates like, "by 2030" or "by 2050" when we don't have the technology to replace petroleum in not just vehicles & heating our homes  but in everything that we do & use?  I'd be all for replacing petroleum products if we had absolutely viable alternatives but we don't & we're decades away from doing so.

Things, everyday things,  like contact lenses, shampoo, soap, hearing aids, vitamin capsules, deodorant, shaving cream, toothpaste, lip balm, moisturizer, lipstick, perfume, dentures, nail polish, comb, brush, hair colour, plastic, ink, shoe polish, crayons, paper cup, wax paper, asphalt, tires, lubricants, bug killer, paint, roof shingles, cosmetics, hand cream, asphalt, & candles  just to name a few. How do we replace these items & the thousands not mentioned here? If someone can tell me that, I'd be interested in hearing what they would have to say.

I think most Canadians don't have a clue about these products & only think cutting out oil means just cars & trucks. How many Canadians are willing to stop vacationing to a warm & sunny destination in winter, flying off to a ski vacation or visiting family & friends elsewhere by plane, train or vehicle?

How many Canadians are truly willing to sacrifice to save the planet? I don't think very many as we'd have elected the Greens in a landslide otherwise. Nope, most people don't have a clue. Obviously, most Canadians didn't believe Elizabeth May's dire predictions of an extinction event within a decade. Or that we are at war with Climate Change. You know when it comes to selecting a holiday or the Earth, that vacation to Thailand is way more important than Climate Change. 

It's not just products, but how we get them. Everything that gets to stores for purchase does so via some kind of oil. Without oil as it stands now our society is much much different.  But.....Those hard numbers aren't about getting rid of oil. They are about a point of no return if we dont stop what we are doing. They're two different things. Though getting off oil would solve both problems....but like you said that's just not available without undoing a lot of modern day progress or making massive changes in how we collect power.

There is a solution. The main one being plant material, mainly hemp. Hemp can in fact do everything oil does. We know this. It can also be grown damn near anywhere. But there's solutions, and the matter of making money via these solutions and the infrastructure to make the solutions viable....and of course the people/businesses/governments willing to cough up the money to make the infrastructures viable.

Its insanely complicated. But its legitimately only a matter of time before these changes occur. But dont think months or years. It will take much longer. Unless some technological advancement happens. 

 

[SpeedFlex27]

24 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

It's not just products, but how we get them. Everything that gets to stores for purchase does so via some kind of oil. Without oil as it stands now our society is much much different.  But.....Those hard numbers aren't about getting rid of oil. They are about a point of no return if we dont stop what we are doing. They're two different things. Though getting off oil would solve both problems....but like you said that's just not available without undoing a lot of modern day progress or making massive changes in how we collect power.

There is a solution. The main one being plant material, mainly hemp. Hemp can in fact do everything oil does. We know this. It can also be grown damn near anywhere. But there's solutions, and the matter of making money via these solutions and the infrastructure to make the solutions viable....and of course the people/businesses/governments willing to cough up the money to make the infrastructures viable.

Its insanely complicated. But its legitimately only a matter of time before these changes occur. But dont think months or years. It will take much longer. Unless some technological advancement happens. 

 

Thanks for answering my question in the way I was hoping someone would. I agree with that. I'm not against change. I'm against the alarmist scientists, environmentalists & politicians like Elizabeth May who are claiming the sky is falling when it's not. I prefer a balanced approach but that is impossible. Once we have the technology we can wean off oil but until then it's foolishness to put Canada on a path to something that can't be done. I think irresponsible. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by SpeedFlex27

[Bigblue204]

49 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Thanks for answering my question in the way I was hoping someone would. I agree with that. I'm not against change. I'm against the alarmist scientists, environmentalists & politicians like Elizabeth May who are claiming the sky is falling when it's not. I prefer a balanced approach but that is impossible. Once we have the technology we can wean off oil but until then it's foolishness to put Canada on a path to something that can't be done. I think irresponsible. 

Fair, but the counter to that is. Technology is developed by investing in it. That's how we got to the situation we are in now. By investing time, money, resources into developing oil, so there would be no more shortages, and there would be lasting economic effects. If we took that same approach to renewables we'd see massive gains.