Canadian Politics

[Tracker]

1 hour ago, WildPath said:

I listened to a rebel podcast last fall or so that was from summer 2020. I wanted to hear first hand what people hear from outside mainstream media. I was surprised to hear how many predictions or claims they made that within a few months were easily confirmed to be false and it made me really wonder how they maintain followers. Do they just forget what they have consumed being obviously false. Or is this how the ultra-wacky conspiracies develop like Covid being a government hoax? People accept what Rebel & Co. say, when presented with credible information that clearly contradicts it, jump off the deep end to preserve their self-esteem by refusing to accept they were wrong?

Those who listen to The Rebel are not looking for credible information or points of view. They want to have their views validated, no matter how distorted they are. Essentially, they pay to be told what they want to hear.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

A Conservative minority government would be preferable, Legault says

FAQ: Your guide to voting in the Sept. 20 federal election

Edited September 9, 2021 by FrostyWinnipeg

[WildPath]

1 hour ago, Tracker said:

Those who listen to The Rebel are not looking for credible information or points of view. They want to have their views validated, no matter how distorted they are. Essentially, they pay to be told what they want to hear.

I think that's a big part of it. But where do their ideas originate in the first place then? I imagine its a little bit of both.

[GCn20]

6 hours ago, WildPath said:

So what you're saying is that they agree that climate change is real, but are unwilling to do what is needed to solve it?

The party has a history of strongly rejecting climate science. They rejected a motion that would clearly separate them from their history of denying science.

Real question - do you really think their carbon savings account is a better plan to address climate change than the Liberal or NDP plan?

I think that anything is better than the Liberal plan, and I really dont know much about the NDP plan because they are Not Destined for Power. TBH, I think no party has a plan that will even remotely work until they commit to spending on and building the infrastructure necessary for green energy.

My problem with the Liberal plan is it penalizes people instead of incentivizing people in order to make the change. Its the wrong approach imo.

5 hours ago, Noeller said:

Destroyed them...love it. Tide slowly turning back toward the LPC....

Ummm..not really...at least not according to today's poll numbers and the CPC got a big boost with Legaults endorsement today. That is really bad news for the Libs in Quebec where the electorate LOVES Legault.

[Tracker]

1 hour ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

A Conservative minority government would be preferable, Legault says

FAQ: Your guide to voting in the Sept. 20 federal election

If that is the case. LeGault would have a weak Conservative leader and a desperate party by the 'nads and could extort major concessions.

[WildPath]

2 hours ago, GCn20 said:

I think that anything is better than the Liberal plan, and I really dont know much about the NDP plan because they are Not Destined for Power. TBH, I think no party has a plan that will even remotely work until they commit to spending on and building the infrastructure necessary for green energy.

My problem with the Liberal plan is it penalizes people instead of incentivizing people in order to make the change. Its the wrong approach imo.

Ummm..not really...at least not according to today's poll numbers and the CPC got a big boost with Legaults endorsement today. That is really bad news for the Libs in Quebec where the electorate LOVES Legault.

It really depends how you identify incentives. Sure, the CPC plan gives people all the money back they use on things that destroy the environment. I think that clearly is not a working plan to address climate change. You could see the Liberals plan for a price on carbon providing incentives to live a lower carbon lifestyle. Things will also be more expensive under the CPC plan, that could be considered penalizing. If you really want a plan that doesn't penalize for carbon producing, see the PPC. They're still in the camp that science doesn't agree on human climate change and we shouldn't do anything about it.

Under the CPC plan I continue merrily along my way as normal, there's not really any reason for me to adjust my lifestyle (kind of the point). When I get enough money on my carbon points card I can spend it on... well, they don't really say, but maybe I can buy a new bike or whatever they eventually decide will be a good green item. Yup, that'll fix things. Even the Canadian Taxpayers Federation claims that the CPC plan "isn't a real solution".

Under the Liberal's or most other carbon tax plans, people face daily incentives to live a less environmentally damaging lifestyle. I'm not promoting the Liberal plan, I don't think it goes far enough. But the CPC plan is a joke.

[the watcher]

My take on the debate : 

Trudeau -  " No really, this time we will ACTUALLY  live up to our promises. "

O'Toole - I'll bet he was an awesome Dodge Ball player as a kid cause he's still doing it on multiple important subjects.

NDP  - Still struggling to be seen as a real alternative to the major 2 parties.

Block - Why does everything always revolve around Quebec for them..............Oh yea, right. It was interesting to hear him actually voice that he didn't care about the rest of Canada or what happens there.

Green - I really didn't hear anything concrete. Or any reason to vote green other than the ideal of a Green party.

On the whole a pointless debate just like the election.

2 minutes ago, the watcher said:

 

 

Edited September 10, 2021 by the watcher

[Noeller]

Moderating was awful for this event. Felt like a "Pile On Trudeau" and he was never really given a chance to respond. Was tough to watch. 

[WildPath]

I don't know if it was the moderating or just the format overall. I legitimately got a headache from it that has lasted until this morning. Didn't hear anything substantive from anyone really. Just launch a quick attack and then try to get a quick defense. I can't imagine that debate was useful for undecided Canadians that care about policy.

[JCon]

Debate was terrible. That format doesn't work. Blow up the consortium. 

[the watcher]

24 minutes ago, WildPath said:

I don't know if it was the moderating or just the format overall. I legitimately got a headache from it that has lasted until this morning. Didn't hear anything substantive from anyone really. Just launch a quick attack and then try to get a quick defense. I can't imagine that debate was useful for undecided Canadians that care about policy.

Exactly. I really don't think a single vote moved anywhere. Possibly  a few more will stay home .One of the reasons maybe is because there is no real reason for this election at this time. No burning issue that took the standing government down . Lots of things to vote on , economy,  environment, records,...... but all of that was in the last election and will be in the next election. It's hard for people to focus on when most are wrapped up in the 4th wave, kids going back to school, just getting by day to day......

[FrostyWinnipeg]

2 hours ago, Noeller said:

Moderating was awful for this event. Felt like a "Pile On Trudeau" and he was never really given a chance to respond. Was tough to watch. 

Only listened to a snip of it but there's got to be a better way to tell someone they out of time other then yelling at them.

[the watcher]

34 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Only listened to a snip of it but there's got to be a better way to tell someone they out of time other then yelling at them.

If the set up is done right, cut off the Mic at exactly the aloted time. Then they are a tiny annoying voice in the background which won't be appealing to voters. 

[Super Duper Negatron]

4 hours ago, Noeller said:

Moderating was awful for this event. Felt like a "Pile On Trudeau" and he was never really given a chance to respond. Was tough to watch. 

Most elections are pile on the incumbent, to be fair. I was most impressed with Blanchet, somehow. That tells me all I need to know about how much it will sway my vote.

[GCn20]

16 hours ago, WildPath said:

It really depends how you identify incentives. Sure, the CPC plan gives people all the money back they use on things that destroy the environment. I think that clearly is not a working plan to address climate change. You could see the Liberals plan for a price on carbon providing incentives to live a lower carbon lifestyle. Things will also be more expensive under the CPC plan, that could be considered penalizing. If you really want a plan that doesn't penalize for carbon producing, see the PPC. They're still in the camp that science doesn't agree on human climate change and we shouldn't do anything about it.

Under the CPC plan I continue merrily along my way as normal, there's not really any reason for me to adjust my lifestyle (kind of the point). When I get enough money on my carbon points card I can spend it on... well, they don't really say, but maybe I can buy a new bike or whatever they eventually decide will be a good green item. Yup, that'll fix things. Even the Canadian Taxpayers Federation claims that the CPC plan "isn't a real solution".

Under the Liberal's or most other carbon tax plans, people face daily incentives to live a less environmentally damaging lifestyle. I'm not promoting the Liberal plan, I don't think it goes far enough. But the CPC plan is a joke.

They are all a joke. There is not a party with the exception of the Greens that will do anything more than pay lip service to climate change. That's the reality. In the meantime, I'll choose the green plan that doesn't hit me directly in the pocket book through taxation. I guess I am being cynical, but no party's performance on this has given me any reason not to be. 

Not a single mention of infrastructure spending to create the possibility we can go green. That's the first step every single one of these morons needs to be talking about. The GTA can't go electric until they have enough electricity and infrastructure to supply that electricity. Hydrogen is the more likely answer in North America....but for some reason our governments seem beholden to the idea of electric battery use and that requires far more power than our electrical grid can supply. Until these clowns start planning for climate change from the bottom up I am afraid this issue goes on the backburner for me. Not because I don't believe it's important, but because I haven't seen a party with a realistic chance of winning that seems committed in any way to reduce carbon emissions one iota therefore I am voting based on what they actually might do and not listening to empty promises anymore. Trudeau has not done squat about the environment. Emissions are higher now than before but my gas is 1.45 a liter now. I'm voting for the economy this time, because when climate change becomes more and more increasingly disruptive and we are face to face with a climate crisis  that could destroy our economy, I would like us not to be hundreds of trillions of dollars in debt at that time.

You do you...but I cannot and will not give the Liberals another 4 years....I can't afford it.

Edited September 10, 2021 by GCn20

[Tracker]

6 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Only listened to a snip of it but there's got to be a better way to tell someone they out of time other then yelling at them.

Yes. Its called "cutting the mic".  I happen to think that the only parties that ought to be represented are those who are fielding enough candidates in enough ridings to at least theoretically form a government.  

[WildPath]

Definitely thought BQ being there was pointless and would have been much better to give the other candidates a chance to give us something substantive. Not that it would have happened, but hearing Blanchette complain about the amount of time he received while not actually using the time because he had nothing relevant to say about the topic was especially annoying.

[iHeart]

Purple wave is trending on twitter and it disgusts me, I need to find a way to avoid election coverage on the 20th, I'm stuck between cleaning my room and watching a movie 

Edited September 11, 2021 by iHeart

[Super Duper Negatron]

Am I missing something about the NDP platform, or is it close enough to the Liberal one that there is basically no point in voting for them?

Like, if Jagmeet swapped spots with Trudeau today, would anyone even bother voting for the NDP?

[JCon]

31 minutes ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

Am I missing something about the NDP platform, or is it close enough to the Liberal one that there is basically no point in voting for them?

Like, if Jagmeet swapped spots with Trudeau today, would anyone even bother voting for the NDP?

It's pretty darn close. But, I would say that's more of the Liberal platform turning left than the NDP heading to the middle. That must be frustrating because the Grits have no intention of ruling from the left. They talk about it but they're stuck near the middle. 

I would like to see Singh leading the Grits!

 

Edit: I said centre above but meant left.  The Libs intend to govern from the centre, not the left. 

Edited September 11, 2021 by JCon

[FrostyWinnipeg]

1 hour ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

Am I missing something about the NDP platform, or is it close enough to the Liberal one that there is basically no point in voting for them?

Hell the CP are running a platform close enough to the Liberals. I'll admit, their "Nova Scotian Conservative" platform is gold Jerry....gold!

[17to85]

That's the beauty of Canada, you don't win without appealing to the middle so everyone is pretty close on most major issues. Not run by the crazy town types. 

[the watcher]

10 hours ago, JCon said:

It's pretty darn close. But, I would say that's more of the Liberal platform turning left than the NDP heading to the middle. That must be frustrating because the Grits have no intention of ruling from the left. They talk about it but they're stuck near the middle. 

I would like to see Singh leading the Grits!

 

Edit: I said centre above but meant left.  The Libs intend to govern from the centre, not the left. 

You are right. Perhaps better put the it's more the Liberals TALKING left and having no I mention of governing that way.  And that's what frustrates me about the current Libs and Trudeau. They talk left and spend money on that talk without real movement to the left. Often some of the movement left requires full commitment to work and even make economic sense. An example ? If you are moving away from oil wouldn't  it make sense to take the massive subsidies paid to the oil industry and put it into green infrastructure ?

[JCon]

Just now, the watcher said:

You are right. Perhaps better put the it's more the Liberals TALKING left and having no I mention of governing that way.  And that's what frustrates me about the current Libs and Trudeau. They talk left and spend money on that talk without real movement to the left. Often some of the movement left requires full commitment to work and even make economic sense. An example ? If you are moving away from oil wouldn't  it make sense to take the massive subsidies paid to the oil industry and put it into green infrastructure ?

Because the Liberals are pro big business and Bay Street. They'll spend like crazy but won't hold Bay Street accountable for anything. They are maddening. Sometimes, when you're trying to be balanced to both sides, you end up screwing both sides. 

[the watcher]

9 minutes ago, JCon said:

Because the Liberals are pro big business and Bay Street. They'll spend like crazy but won't hold Bay Street accountable for anything. They are maddening. Sometimes, when you're trying to be balanced to both sides, you end up screwing both sides. 

It's one of the reasons I quit paying attention to the name of the party I vote for. I try to vote based on their current  form and the leaders ability to balance economic and social issues. I guess I would add environmental issues to that now.