Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You don't think they look at supporting politicians that may further their interests? That seems kind of naive to me.

It can be both. If they support A, push posts that support A and piss off supporters of B. Push extreme opinions that support B and motivate supporters of A. Completely muddy the waters and stoke anger on both sides in the process.

Win, win.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Do we need to re-hash why this is a totally disingenuous way of framing the Trans Mountain pipeline?

Just take the L

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Just take the L

For someone who claims to have a lot of nuanced thinking, you sure seem to ignore facts when they don't suit you.

I can't understand why someone who clearly has no understanding of the Canadian energy landscape continues to comment as if they're an expert, but please explain to me why I should "take the L". As painful as it is, happy to re-hash this to make sure comments like yours aren't allowed to float through.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

For someone who claims to have a lot of nuanced thinking, you sure seem to ignore facts when they don't suit you.

I can't understand why someone who clearly has no understanding of the Canadian energy landscape continues to comment as if they're an expert, but please explain to me why I should "take the L". As painful as it is, happy to re-hash this to make sure comments like yours aren't allowed to float through.

Here’s a couple of facts, both of which I already stated:

- the pipeline expansion was cited as partly responsible for the increase
- the pipeline expansion was bought and paid for by the Trudeau Liberals

Tell me which one of those is wrong. Don’t tell me 500 words of context of why the latter wasn’t a good thing (I’ve read your posts on the subject and while I agree with you, trust me, you’re doing everyone a favour by keeping the word count down). Tell me which one is not a fact.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Here’s a couple of facts, both of which I already stated:

- the pipeline expansion was cited as partly responsible for the increase
- the pipeline expansion was bought and paid for by the Trudeau Liberals

Tell me which one of those is wrong. Don’t tell me 500 words of context of why the latter wasn’t a good thing (I’ve read your posts on the subject and while I agree with you, trust me, you’re doing everyone a favour by keeping the word count down). Tell me which one is not a fact.

Yes, you’re 100% correct - context is never important and intelligent discourse only happens when you look at everything in a vacuum and completely ignore that context. Bravo, you painted me into a corner!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Yes, you’re 100% correct - context is never important and intelligent discourse only happens when you look at everything in a vacuum and completely ignore that context. Bravo, you painted me into a corner!

I disagree. Context is definitely important a lot more often than never, and intelligent discourse almost never happens when you look at everything in a vacuum and ignore context.

But it’s not hard to tell the difference between genuine attempts at intelligent discourse and an offhand/humorous remark. Sometimes the clues are pretty obvious, for example, I do not actually think Conservatives will actually turn red like Looney Tunes characters. But I do think the government pointing to the pipeline expansion - which they bought - will piss off Conservatives (and it did - look at you - I nailed that one).

Just say you didn’t laugh like a normal person instead of trying to make it some whole thing about who I am as a person. Makes you sound desperate and weird. I figure like 1/300 people find my posts funny. Usually it’s just me. It’s not a big deal if you didn’t. You don’t need to have to scramble to the offence like you’re saving the world from innocuous comments.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I disagree. Context is definitely important a lot more often than never, and intelligent discourse almost never happens when you look at everything in a vacuum and ignore context.

But it’s not hard to tell the difference between genuine attempts at intelligent discourse and an offhand/humorous remark. Sometimes the clues are pretty obvious, for example, I do not actually think Conservatives will actually turn red like Looney Tunes characters. But I do think the government pointing to the pipeline expansion - which they bought - will piss off Conservatives (and it did - look at you - I nailed that one).

Just say you didn’t laugh like a normal person instead of trying to make it some whole thing about who I am as a person. Makes you sound desperate and weird. I figure like 1/300 people find my posts funny. Usually it’s just me. It’s not a big deal if you didn’t. You don’t need to have to scramble to the offence like you’re saving the world from innocuous comments.

lol and it’s totally not desperate to paint me as a Conservative based on my view of Trans Mountain, and the current government. Classic “person doesn’t agree with me, so they must be the group I hate!”

Sorry to disappoint you, it doesn’t piss me off as a Conservative. It pisses me off as a Canadian, who would like to see the country and its citizens prosper as much as possible.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

lol and it’s totally not desperate to paint me as a Conservative based on my view of Trans Mountain, and the current government. Classic “person doesn’t agree with me, so they must be the group I hate!”

Sorry to disappoint you, it doesn’t piss me off as a Conservative. It pisses me off as a Canadian, who would like to see the country and its citizens prosper as much as possible.

Technically I painted you as a Conservative because I said Conservatives would be mad at the two stated facts presented together and you immediately got mad at the two stated facts presented together.

Now I think you’re a Conservative because you don’t really have a sense of humour.

But yeah dude it’s TOTALLY because I don’t agree with you, you’ve cracked the case once again:

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’ve read your posts on the subject and while I agree with you…

The guy who agrees with me but doesn’t agree with me! Classic!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

For someone who claims to have a lot of nuanced thinking, you sure seem to ignore facts when they don't suit you.

I can't understand why someone who clearly has no understanding of the Canadian energy landscape continues to comment as if they're an expert, but please explain to me why I should "take the L". As painful as it is, happy to re-hash this to make sure comments like yours aren't allowed to float through.

Because people like PepsiFree and his gang of cohorts like that is a hockey game.

And if you're not on the right team it doesn't matter what perspective you have, its automatically the wrong one.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Technically I painted you as a Conservative because I said Conservatives would be mad at the two stated facts presented together and you immediately got mad at the two stated facts presented together.

Now I think you’re a Conservative because you don’t really have a sense of humour.

But yeah dude it’s TOTALLY because I don’t agree with you, you’ve cracked the case once again:


The guy who agrees with me but doesn’t agree with me! Classic!

Yes, you’re 100% correct - context is never important and intelligent discourse only happens when you look at everything in a vacuum and completely ignore that context. Bravo, you painted me into a corner!

Is…this your definition of “getting mad” because it would be pretty ironic if your definition of getting mad was a sarcastic comment.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Is…this your definition of “getting mad” because it would be pretty ironic if your definition of getting mad was a sarcastic comment.

No, it’s when you make an offhand, humorous remark and someone responds crying about how it’s disingenuos, harms their opportunity for intellectual discourse, and pretends he’s going to ensure those types of comments aren’t allowed to “float through” like anyone cares.

Know anybody like that?

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, it’s when you make an offhand, humorous remark and someone responds crying about how it’s disingenuos, harms their opportunity for intellectual discourse, and pretends he’s going to ensure those types of comments aren’t allowed to “float through” like anyone cares.

Know anybody like that?

You really have a gift for downplaying your own comments.

When you tell someone to “take the L” and paint them as a conservative, maybe expect that they won’t let you walk all over them.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

You really have a gift for downplaying your own comments.

When you tell someone to “take the L” and paint them as a conservative, maybe expect that they won’t let you walk all over them.

I didn’t expect you to. I think you’re cool and a good sport, and as I said, we agree, I just wasn’t going to let your overreaction to what was supposed to be a pretty casual remark go without poking the bear.

If you didn’t respond in kind to “take the L” you’d be kind of a loser tbh.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I didn’t expect you to. I think you’re cool and a good sport, and as I said, we agree, I just wasn’t going to let your overreaction to what was supposed to be a pretty casual remark go without poking the bear.

If you didn’t respond in kind to “take the L” you’d be kind of a loser tbh.

And I think you have some great posts and insights, which I genuinely enjoy reading. I just don’t understand how you call my comments desperate and weird, said I’m “crying”, “don’t have a sense of humour” and then just play it off as you making jokes and humorous comments. That’s a lot more than poking the bear and in any good fun. Which is a shame because I really do think you have some great opinions and are worthwhile to listen to when you’re not constantly putting others down with gotcha posts.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

And I think you have some great posts and insights, which I genuinely enjoy reading. I just don’t understand how you call my comments desperate and weird, said I’m “crying”, “don’t have a sense of humour” and then just play it off as you making jokes and humorous comments. That’s a lot more than poking the bear and in any good fun. Which is a shame because I really do think you have some great opinions and are worthwhile to listen to when you’re not constantly putting others down with gotcha posts.

If we’re keeping score, before I called you desperate and weird you:
- said I was being disingenuous
- suggested I don’t practice nuanced thinking
- said I ignore facts that don’t suit me
- said I don’t know anything about the Canadian Energy landscape
- suggested I believe context is never important and that I don’t know what intelligent discourse entails

All in response to an offhand remark, telling you to “take the L,” and then saying I agreed with you and to tell me what wasn’t a fact lol.

Normally I would just let these little mini-scoldings go, but at what point am I allowed to respond in kind?

It seems to be a trait amongst certain types of people here to cry foul when they take a shot and then the heat goes up to a degree they don’t like and suddenly I’m the #######. And to be fair, I don’t mind being the #######, but you want to be the first one to take some responsibility for how this back and forth went or just “nah, it must be all you” like them?

I don’t care man, but if you think you didn’t deserve anything by calling an offhand remark (that you later admitted was factual) me being “disingenuous” and “ignoring the facts” then I can’t help you. Go #### on iggyoi some more or something, he’s nicer about it.

Now someone post something critical of skippy so we can all laugh at people freaking out about it already. Or rename it the CalgaryPuck Politics Thread.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If we’re keeping score, before I called you desperate and weird you:
- said I was being disingenuous
- suggested I don’t practice nuanced thinking
- said I ignore facts that don’t suit me
- said I don’t know anything about the Canadian Energy landscape
- suggested I believe context is never important and that I don’t know what intelligent discourse entails

All in response to an offhand remark, telling you to “take the L,” and then saying I agreed with you and to tell me what wasn’t a fact lol.

Normally I would just let these little mini-scoldings go, but at what point am I allowed to respond in kind?

It seems to be a trait amongst certain types of people here to cry foul when they take a shot and then the heat goes up to a degree they don’t like and suddenly I’m the #######. And to be fair, I don’t mind being the #######, but you want to be the first one to take some responsibility for how this back and forth went or just “nah, it must be all you” like them?

I don’t care man, but if you think you didn’t deserve anything by calling an offhand remark (that you later admitted was factual) me being “disingenuous” and “ignoring the facts” then I can’t help you. Go #### on iggyoi some more or something, he’s nicer about it.

Now someone post something critical of skippy so we can all laugh at people freaking out about it already. Or rename it the CalgaryPuck Politics Thread.

I didn’t say I didn’t deserve anything, I’ll fully admit you struck a bit of a nerve with the “take the L comment”, and take my part of the responsibility of some of the nastiness for that. But if you can’t objectively look at your post history, and see a common theme in a lot of the posts and blame it on “certain types of people in this forum”, then I can’t help you either.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

I didn’t say I didn’t deserve anything, I’ll fully admit you struck a bit of a nerve with the “take the L comment”, and take my part of the responsibility of some of the nastiness for that. But if you can’t objectively look at your post history, and see a common theme in a lot of the posts and blame it on “certain types of people in this forum”, then I can’t help you either.

Few things:
- I objectively know I’m a catty little bitch and love that for me, don’t worry
- I’m not blaming that on anyone, so let’s not pretend that’s what that “certain types” comment was intended to do
- Trust me, I’ve looked, and the common themes in a lot of my posts is a great sense of humour, acerbic wit, and a winning personality.

Now we kiss?

[timun]

Now kith, you acerbic ###holes!

[SebC]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

The left is obsessed with Poilievre says the guy that probably has Trudeau's name on his truck.

Originally Posted by Firebot

I voted for Trudeau. . And I voted for Notley as well provincially.

Solid deductive and argumentative skills there.

Quoted for Firebot making fun of someone else's deductive skills while failing to deduce that it was being implied that he has a "screw Trudeau" bumper sticker.

[Faust]

Kashif Pirzada, MD
@KashPrime

Probably the most important article you'll read all year, by @omeraziz12 in the @globeandmail
Canada is in serious trouble, and Aziz hits the nail on the head on the causes:

- Deep incompetence by politicians, who resort to PR management over making decisions. Parliament is deeply dysfunctional, with Question Period a joke, and committee hearings a farce. Trudeau but also the provincial premiers have much to answer for. Many of our leaders come from legacy wealthy backgrounds and have absolutely no idea how difficult they've made life for Canadians.

"What I realized soon thereafter was that this country was witnessing a systemic political failure, a complete inability of politicians to get change done in ways that manifested at the dinner table. An extreme form of PR and image-management had begun to take over delivering on policy in concrete ways − and the entire country was noticing. Nor was this an accident, the unfortunate consequence of polarization or inequality, but the deliberate result of multiple policy failures − as well as failures of will."

"Normally, in a democracy, social ills can be addressed by public officials. But Canada’s own political institutions have been riven by corruption and personal ambition. And now also potentially by foreign influence. Each controversy and scandal leads people away from crucial time and policy attention that could have been spent on fixing the country’s major issues. At the parliamentary level, most members of Parliament are so frightened of speaking for themselves that they are rendered powerless. This defies the very essence of the British parliamentary system, upon which Canada’s system is based, which empowers MPs to speak on behalf of their constituents and represent their true voice in the people’s chamber."

- Inattention to rising crime, especially rampant car thefts, a revolving door criminal justice system, neglect of the opioid crisis. We have the laxest justice system in the Western world. Causing someone's death will get you a 6 month sentence in one prominent example. America had mass incarceration, we have mass leniency.

"At some point, one would think that the deaths of so many innocent and vulnerable people would elicit outrage − yet life goes on as normal. Each life is precious, and when violent criminals get off easy, or without punishment at all, they learn the terrible lesson that this country does not take its own laws seriously, so why should they? When the law loses its power to deter crime, either because of prosecutors not moving forward with cases, or because of a general laissez-faire attitude toward violent crime happening in other neighbourhoods, it is the marginalized who are harmed most."

- Rising housing costs that has made nearly everyone, including me, to paraphrase A Bittersweet Symphony, a slave to massive mortgages until they die, or they are perennial renters.

"For many Canadians, the cost of living has become unaffordable. The average price of a house in the GTA is $1.1-million, and Metro Vancouver is around the same. There are certainly cheaper places to live, but the average cost of a rental in Canada has reached record highs − more than $2,100 a month. According to one major study, Canada needs to build an additional 3.5 million homes by the end of the decade and is currently only building around 200,000 a year."

- Violation of the social contract on immigration.
"In Canada, the social contract for years allowed more immigration to grow the economy, but this came with stringent criteria for who should be admitted. Today, there are more than 900,000 international students in Canada, a 170-per-cent increase over the past decade. Some of these students have been scammed by for-profit colleges. Others have been affiliated with fake schools, using their student visas as loopholes in the immigration system. The social system was unprepared for such an influx, though certain institutions benefited: colleges and universities got more fees; politicians touted rising immigration numbers; the landlord class got an endless supply of perpetual renters. Without any housing available, this has left the country unprepared to deal with multiple, overlapping economic and social crises."

Aziz asks What is the Canadian dream?
"It was a promise − less individualistic and gun-friendly than the American version, but no less ambitious. To me, the dream promised that every person here could have a decent shot at life, one that was better than that of their parents. There was emphasis on community and a strong focus on order and good government. The compact included the payment of higher taxes, and in exchange, the existence of world-class social institutions delivering for ordinary people. The immigration system worked because the same contract existed with immigrants − that they would work hard, play by the rules, become part of Canadian society through legal means, and in return, would become citizens of a highly functioning democracy where a good life was, if not guaranteed, then within reach.

The dream was based on fairness, on merit, on policies that worked. It promised breathable air and the bountiful resources of the second-largest country on Earth. It promised the principle of equality of opportunity, promised safety and peace and responsibility. It promised leaders who put the national and long-term interests of the country above their own partisan needs. The dream now feels like it’s on life support."

Amen

https://x.com/kashprime/status/1822297937092686002?s=61