Canadian Politics

[JCon]

The CPC need a real climate action plan. Without it, they're just stuck in the past. (Like 25 years in the past)

I remember Bateman coming to my door during the last election and we chatted for a while. I said that I couldn't vote for her for many reasons but, foremost, was the lack of a climate action plan. She stood there and told me they had one and went up and down about it. But, it was evident that she knew I could see right through it and it would just mean corporate welfare payments that would go into the pockets of the executives as bonuses. I told her that.

Mulroney actual had a climate plan in 80s. Since then, absolutely nothing. 

We continue to download climate problems to the next generation. We're beyond pretending that climate change is not manmade and we're beyond pretending we can just allow oil companies and others free reign. They don't get this because all they care about is money in their pockets. We need action and the CPPC are just dinosaurs. 

Edited April 19, 2023 by JCon

[blue_gold_84]

2 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/han-dong-independent-mp-china-1.6788186

House of Commons did vote in favor of the NDP motion for a public inquiry. Trudeau ignored it.

I thought CBC was too biased for you...?

Also:

Quote

non-binding

[Bigblue204]

42 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/han-dong-independent-mp-china-1.6788186

 

House of Commons did vote in favor of the NDP motion for a public inquiry. Trudeau ignored it.

I can see both sides of this. On one side, if there are real issues around other states interfering with our elections, we should take a look. On the other hand, has there been any actual evidence brought forward? Like what is the proof that what Mr.Dong is being accused of, would have made a difference...? That's what I get stuck on. Like you have to be fairly ignorant to think there is zero interference, there is...to what extent, who knows. But the accusation is, Mr. Dong told the Chinese to not release the prisoners because it would help the PCs. How? I haven't really been able to find an answer to that. And I know, that would be part of the enquiry. But they ain't cheap and I don't see how the liberals benefit from holding one. Regardless of the results.

Edited April 19, 2023 by Bigblue204

[Tracker]

29 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

Given the current global issues:

The war in Ukraine

Food Prices

Droughts

Etc, etc, etc

To then have elected MPs stand up and say 'the more Liberals go woke, the more Canadians go broke' is just beyond lame. 

They need to do much better - just my 0.02

 

 

At this point, under Poilievre and probably even before, the cons are just an echo of the GOP.

[17to85]

1 hour ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Speaking of unhinged:

He can't even pick a lane because he's so braindead.

His followers don't care. Trudeau bad! Is all that matters to them.

[GCn20]

18 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

I can see both sides of this. On one side, if there are real issues around other states interfering with our elections, we should take a look. On the other hand, has there been any actual evidence brought forward? Like what is the proof that what Mr.Dong is being accused of, would have made a difference...? That's what I get stuck on. Like you have to be fairly ignorant to think there is zero interference, there is...to what extent, who knows. But the accusation is, Mr. Dong told the Chinese to not release the prisoners because it would help the PCs. How? I haven't really been able to find an answer to that. And I know, that would be part of the enquiry. But they ain't cheap and I don't see how the liberals benefit from holding one. Regardless of the results.

I just believe that if the House of Commons votes on something, even if it is a non-binding vote, that it should be determined the will of the people and honored. Anything less is not representation for the people by the people.

[Bigblue204]

1 hour ago, GCn20 said:

I just believe that if the House of Commons votes on something, even if it is a non-binding vote, that it should be determined the will of the people and honored. Anything less is not representation for the people by the people.

I truly believe things like this will get far worse under a PP government. I've been waiting on the PCs to bring an actual leader forward and step above the bs that is modern day politics. But they keep coming out with weird harper clones.

[GCn20]

11 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

I truly believe things like this will get far worse under a PP government. I've been waiting on the PCs to bring an actual leader forward and step above the bs that is modern day politics. But they keep coming out with weird harper clones.

Not going to argue there. I was hoping for Charest but got PP. That being said, I am willing to give him a chance. I KNOW what Trudeau is all about and it stinks to high heaven. 54% of Canadians want Trudeau to resign, I am hoping he reads the tea leaves and goes before the next election and then everything may change in my opinion. Unfortunately, I think he is clueless as to how unpopular he is.

[blue_gold_84]

5 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

I truly believe things like this will get far worse under a PP government. I've been waiting on the PCs to bring an actual leader forward and step above the bs that is modern day politics. But they keep coming out with weird harper clones.

Harper was just an acolyte, IMO. This regressive, willfully ignorant, often hysterical GOP-esque style of politicking is the work Reform Party and its architect, Preston Manning.

5 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

...he is clueless as to how unpopular he is.

Or he just doesn't care because it's not a popularity contest.

[rebusrankin]

54% want JT to step down? Evidence please.

So GC, since you want JT to step down so badly, how are you going to feel when transfer payments for social programs are cut, retirement age is raised, increases to CPP and EI are eliminated under a PP government? He's repeatedly called increases to CPP and EI tax increases. He's repeatedly talked about reducing government spending and how Conservatives don't believe in social programs.

[Wideleft]

3 minutes ago, rebusrankin said:

54% want JT to step down? Evidence please.

So GC, since you want JT to step down so badly, how are you going to feel when transfer payments for social programs are cut, retirement age is raised, increases to CPP and EI are eliminated under a PP government? He's repeatedly called increases to CPP and EI tax increases. He's repeatedly talked about reducing government spending and how Conservatives don't believe in social programs.

One poll may show that, but polls can say a lot of things - like people don't really like either Trudeau or PeePee to any great degree.

 

 

[Wideleft]

Would love to see the Venn Diagram comparing this to the last post:

 

 

[Noeller]

37% of people don't believe in evolution........truly incredible. 

[Wideleft]

1 minute ago, Noeller said:

37% of people don't believe in evolution........truly incredible. 

Did you say 37%?

 

 

[Noeller]

that all checks out......sigh. What a bunch of goobers. 

[Tracker]

6 hours ago, Noeller said:

37% of people don't believe in evolution........truly incredible. 

Poll was taken in districts south of Highway #1 in the prairie provinces.

[the watcher]

16 hours ago, Noeller said:

37% of people don't believe in evolution........truly incredible. 

In the USA it's the majority. Around %60 if I recall correctly.

[the watcher]

Wide Left said:

" One poll may show that, but polls can say a lot of things - like people don't really like either Trudeau or PeePee to any great degree."

I am definitely in that group. I can't vote Liberal unless Trudeau removes himself  and I can't vote for any party like the Cons  that denies climate change  led by a little shite that would sell his soul ( and maybe everyone else's) and join forces with what ever moronic movement that will get him elected. So I am limited to 1 party before an election is even called.

Edited April 20, 2023 by the watcher

[GCn20]

17 minutes ago, the watcher said:

Wide Left said:

" One poll may show that, but polls can say a lot of things - like people don't really like either Trudeau or PeePee to any great degree."

I am definitely in that group. I can't vote Liberal unless Trudeau removes himself  and I can't vote for any party like the Cons  that denies climate change  led by a little shite that would sell his soul ( and maybe everyone else's) and join forces with what ever moronic movement that will get him elected. So I am limited to 1 party before an election is even called.

This is the predicament I have found myself in the last 2 elections as well except my local candidate is Niki Ashton leaving me absolutely no one to vote for, so I submitted protest votes in the last 2 elections. However, this time my vote will count as one against Trudeau's Liberals. In the grand scheme of things it won't really matter because Ashton is pretty much a lock up here, but it will make me feel better.

I am not huge on the CPC, wish Charest would have won and brought the party back to centre. However, my disapproval for the Liberals is higher than my disapproval of the CPC so they will get my vote this time and I won't spoil my ballot. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by GCn20

[Mark H.]

16 hours ago, Wideleft said:

Would love to see the Venn Diagram comparing this to the last post:

 

The problem is the question:

Those two things do not need to be mutually exclusive.

Someone who believes in God, is not going to say they don't.

[Wideleft]

1 minute ago, Mark H. said:

The problem is the question:

Those two things do not need to be mutually exclusive.

Someone who believes in God, is not going to say they don't.

The question is very clear and even offers a bailout option with "unsure", unless you're speaking of Intelligent Design (a last gasp for relevance) not being an option.

[Mark H.]

9 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

The question is very clear and even offers a bailout option with "unsure", unless you're speaking of Intelligent Design (a last gasp for relevance) not being an option.

I have been asked a similar question several times

Being a person of faith, I asked more questions of the surveyor.  The assumption was that I believed strictly in 6 day creationism

No room for nuance

 

[Wideleft]

1 minute ago, Mark H. said:

I have been asked a similar question several times

Being a person of faith, I asked more questions of the surveyor.  The assumption was that I believed strictly in 6 day creationism

No room for nuance

 

The devil is in the details - pun intended.

[GCn20]

16 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

The problem is the question:

Those two things do not need to be mutually exclusive.

Someone who believes in God, is not going to say they don't.

The problem I see, is that I fall into all 3 categories. I believe we evolved from lesser species, I believe that this was god's plan, but I am not devout enough to be anything but unsure if pressed on it.

[blue_gold_84]

2 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

I have been asked a similar question several times

Being a person of faith, I asked more questions of the surveyor.  The assumption was that I believed strictly in 6 day creationism

No room for nuance

What nuance should be afforded?