Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Now go to the Alberta politics folder and do the same for people complaining about the UCP. Some posters make dozens of “UCP and Danielle Smith are bad” posts a month, every month, for years. As you say, riveting stuff. But par for the course in political threads.

That's just because there is a new story or two every week, and nobody can be bothered to come in and defend their vote for those monsters, even though it seems certain that a great many on this board voted that way.

Here we tend to have a slower evolution on a few main stories. Which is fine. But it's also interesting that hardly anybody here voted for the Liberals (at least not recently). So we can just go round in circles ####ting on all three main parties. However, when someone suggests that they do not want to vote for the NDP, the leftists among us don't jump straight to "how dare you! The Liberals are so corrupt!". Not sure why we don't...it's totally logical and sane.

Originally Posted by Locke

Oh I know it is.

I'm just saying that tying a commitment to a fluctuating number is stupid.

Maybe its too high. Maybe its not high enough? Who knows?

Seems pretty reasonable to me...everyone should do their part based on their own capacity. There is no sensible way to prescribe a number that won't fluctuate...

[Locke]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Seems pretty reasonable to me...everyone should do their part based on their own capacity. There is no sensible way to prescribe a number that won't fluctuate...

No.

This isn't like being proscribed 'billable hours.'

You should have a function as part of a unit and be required to be able to fulfill that function. What it costs to do that is what it costs.

Whether thats 2% of GDP or more, or less, a member-state should be given a requirement of ability not a requirement of spending.

That makes no sense. I'd never agree to that.

2% of GDP sounds like lobbyist BS to me.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

That's just because there is a new story or two every week, and nobody can be bothered to come in and defend their vote for those monsters, even though it seems certain that a great many on this board voted that way.

Here we tend to have a slower evolution on a few main stories. Which is fine. But it's also interesting that hardly anybody here voted for the Liberals (at least not recently). So we can just go round in circles ####ting on all three main parties. However, when someone suggests that they do not want to vote for the NDP, the leftists among us don't jump straight to "how dare you! The Liberals are so corrupt!". Not sure why we don't...it's totally logical and sane.





Seems pretty reasonable to me...everyone should do their part based on their own capacity. There is no sensible way to prescribe a number that won't fluctuate...

The amount of people in this thread that say they didnt vote Liberal but most definetly did is most likely proportionate to the people in the Alberta thread who say they didnt vote UCP but most likely did LOL

You cant find one Liberal voter in here if you trust what people say. Very unlikely.

[opendoor]

I've always wondered how they judge that 2% of GDP. If they really don't want to spend it on the military, could Canada shift some things they'd otherwise be spending money on under that umbrella? Or go heavy into R&D for things that could potentially have non-military benefits? Other than Belgium, it looks like Canada spends the least in NATO on equipment and R&D.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Locke

Whether thats 2% of GDP or more, or less, a member-state should be given a requirement of ability not a requirement of spending.

That makes no sense. I'd never agree to that.

2% of GDP sounds like lobbyist BS to me.

Thing is Canada has been well below this arbitrary number and averaging close to 1.2% for nearly half a century spreading over multiple governments. It's an arbitrary number yes but one which is measurable and fair to all NATO members. If anything considering the size of our country and our borders we should be well above.

Canada has neglected national defense spending for decades, even if we did not have this arbitrary number to meet (which we haven't met) defense spending is lower than peers. I don't expect this to change with Poilievre at the helm despite the promises.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Thing is Canada has been well below this arbitrary number and averaging close to 1.2% for nearly half a century spreading over multiple governments. It's an arbitrary number yes but one which is measurable and fair to all NATO members. If anything considering the size of our country and our borders we should be well above.

Canada has neglected national defense spending for decades, even if we did not have this arbitrary number to meet (which we haven't met) defense spending is lower than peers. I don't expect this to change with Poilievre at the helm despite the promises.

Sorry, I just wanted to be clear.

I dont give half a crap if Pierre, Jesus or Allah become PM. I think its a stupid metric.

[Street Pharmacist]

I cannot vote for the Liberals at this point. Can't stomach it

However, getting rid of the carbon tax is incredibly stupid and counter productive. It won't stimulate any economics and will hurt the required emissions targets

Climate change is my number 1 issue by a fair margin.

One party has an aspirational and unfeasible plan, the current party in power is trying to please all sides unsuccessfully, and the other party can't utter the words for fear of the anti science part of their power base.

It's the end of times politically for me

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Locke

My understanding is that we're not even at the 2% floor, I thought we were at 1.6% or somewhere thereabouts.

And I agree that our military could use an infusion of cash. I think that goes without saying.

However, I'm still not convinced that our military spending should be tied to GDP. Tying spending to a fluctuating number doesn't make sense to me. Thats not proper budgeting.

The injection of cash means literally nothing if you spend it stupidly.


If your building $4 billion dollar frigates, your pissing away 2 to 3 billion per boat depending on your compatibles. If your paying more per fighter jet then anyone else is, your spending stupidly,



If your pulling money out of your defense budget and sending it to Ukraine, its money not invested in your own military.



I joked in the other thread, but I'm serious, if we buy a new submarine fleet, and decide to Canadianize it, and have them built here, we're probably paying more then twice what we should for the boats.



The Forces is broken, its undermanned, and under equipt, and the equipment that we have is 50/50 usable at best when its needed, and we don't have a stock pile of ammunition if we do.


Saying we're going to get to 2% by 2032 or whatever sounds nice in the paper, but its meaningless, because we're so far behind, that the 2% won't get us back to having a manned and equipt military, and most of the money would be spend merely trying to maintain what we have today.



The Forces needs a for real serious injection of what I would call one time purchases, as well as funds for recruiting and retention, before we can even think that hitting 2% is adequate by 2032.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I cannot vote for the Liberals at this point. Can't stomach it

However, getting rid of the carbon tax is incredibly stupid and counter productive. It won't stimulate any economics and will hurt the required emissions targets

Climate change is my number 1 issue by a fair margin.

One party has an aspirational and unfeasible plan, the current party in power is trying to please all sides unsuccessfully, and the other party can't utter the words for fear of the anti science part of their power base.

It's the end of times politically for me

Ugh. I agree with you.

I cant stomach the Perennially Corrupt Liberals.

It'll be a cold day in Hell before I vote for Poilievre.

Singh is an idiot.

Nobody is fiscally Conservative and I have no appetite for Social Conservatism. Let people do what they want so long as our services are paid for.

I said it as soon as COVID happened, Fiscal Conservatism in our times is dead. and I have no stomach for Social Conservatism.

The only part I'll disagree with is the Carbon Tax. I think the concept is based on decent ideology but the execution is atrociously poor.

[Ozy_Flame]

Well there is one non-mainstream option for you folks

https://www.ourcanadianfuture.ca/

[Zulu29]

Basically have to hope that the next liberal leader is cut from the Chrétien/Martin clothe or PP gets the boot in favour of a Red Conservative type. Our options are gross.

[Erick Estrada]

Maybe we need to get AI up to speed to start making decisions for us.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Patek23

The amount of people in this thread that say they didnt vote Liberal but most definetly did is most likely proportionate to the people in the Alberta thread who say they didnt vote UCP but most likely did LOL

You cant find one Liberal voter in here if you trust what people say. Very unlikely.

The Liberals got less than 1/3 of the voters federally that the UCP did provincially in Alberta. In Calgary, where the Liberals did comparatively well and the UCP did comparatively poorly, the UCP still got more than double the votes provincially than the Liberals did federally.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Well there is one non-mainstream option for you folks

https://www.ourcanadianfuture.ca/

I know you posted it as a joke, but it sounds appealing. This sounds great with themes of freedom, responsibility, and transparent governance. However, all 3 of those things mean completely different policies for antivaxxers, climate change deniers, etc. Hard to actually know what they stand for

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Maybe we need to get AI up to speed to start making decisions for us.

Don't threaten me with a good time.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Now go to the Alberta politics folder and do the same for people complaining about the UCP. Some posters make dozens of “UCP and Danielle Smith are bad” posts a month, every month, for years. As you say, riveting stuff. But par for the course in political threads.

I think you bat-signalled me, haha! I have no problem calling out the worst government in Alberta history, which is also perhaps the worst government on any political level in Canadian history. The UCP is an absolute goddamn disaster. But this is the federal thread, so if you want more 'riveting stuff' that is greasing your wheel, come to the other thread!

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Quite unfortunate for PepsiFree, Liberals making breaking news again

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ore...inet-1.7267551

With Freeland also being speculated to be getting booted from finance minister with the upcoming cabinet meeting, and Trudeau trying to woo Mark Carney, is Carney actually joining now instead of waiting for the election?

Carney would be a way better PM than the jackasses that are in the mix now by a country mile.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Carney would be a way better PM than the jackasses that are in the mix now by a country mile.

The only real decision to be made is whether it is better to bring Carney in as the leader without any political tie to Trudeau, as a successor, or if it is better to bring him in now as the Finance Minister and let him serve that role until the next election but potentially get covered in Trudeau stink.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The only real decision to be made is whether it is better to bring Carney in as the leader without any political tie to Trudeau, as a successor, or if it is better to bring him in now as the Finance Minister and let him serve that role until the next election but potentially get covered in Trudeau stink.

You punt Blackface to curb ASAP!

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Patek23

The amount of people in this thread that say they didnt vote Liberal but most definetly did is most likely proportionate to the people in the Alberta thread who say they didnt vote UCP but most likely did LOL

You cant find one Liberal voter in here if you trust what people say. Very unlikely.

15.5% of Albertans voted for Federal Liberals.

52.6% of Albertans voted for the local monsters.

Math is hard.