Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think when you are on the team it’s look at these terrible foreigners dumping their goods. Dont Tarrif our oil or auto parts as we don’t dump them into your market and it will just make things cost more for you

I’m really not sure what you’re saying here.

Its easier to do that as someone who isn’t the person your daughter that you think is hot thinks is hot.

I think that’s a bit of a reach. And who knows what she thinks of Pierre since his makeover.

We are dealing with an irrational bully who is aging rapidly.

Which is why it’s important to deal with him the same way as you should for any other bully.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’m really not sure what you’re saying here.

I think that’s a bit of a reach. And who knows what she thinks of Pierre since his makeover.

Which is why it’s important to deal with him the same way as you should for any other bully.

Put them in charge?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Years of tagging all his social media videos for years with MGTOW; (Men Go their Own Way) is a group known for incel behaviour, open and flagrant misogyny and just all around general #### behaviour (which is ironic considering they hate women).

He is telling us how he feels about these minorities. Not sure why we should assume he's lying.

Then there is the time spent glad handing with and embracing the endorsements from leaders of groups like Diagolon.

But this is inherently the distinction: he's not telling us that. He's not explicitly saying the quiet part out loud. Trump actually is. This is why the comparison isn't accurate: there's nobody who's Trump but Trump. Hell, PP isn't even JD Vance; we don't have a bunch of podcast audio of him saying horrific things, just some nefarious associations and people or organizations in his general orbit that are objectionable, as he winks while refusing to denounce or clearly distance himself from them.

He's much more of a politician - the type who would, if he were a congressman instead of an MP, be sycophantic to Trump. If you want to say he's Mike Johnson or Marco Rubio or someone of that ilk, that makes much more sense.

[Azure]

Lets be clear. The CPs had an above average candidate in O'Toole, but the typical leftists bull#### kept him from winning and now we have an even bigger mess.

So you are dreaming if they won't try to pull the same #### with PP even if you are right Corsi, the comparisons to Trump or Vance are not legitimate. But they are basically all the left has left.

Next in the last ditch attempt to stay relevant, Trudeau supporters will be calling PP Hitler.

Just give it time.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Having a piece of #### like Trump in your avatar you deserve zero response.

Embarrassing stuff.

Did it just for guys like you

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

https://www.ctvnews.ca/tory-mp-says-...marks-1.301998


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poi...kers-1.7107486


Years of tagging all his social media videos for years with MGTOW; (Men Go their Own Way) is a group known for incel behaviour, open and flagrant misogyny and just all around general #### behaviour (which is ironic considering they hate women).

He is telling us how he feels about these minorities. Not sure why we should assume he's lying.

Then there is the time spent glad handing with and embracing the endorsements from leaders of groups like Diagolon.

I don't know if he is actually vile, I believe he is but I don't know for sure. What I do know is he is willing to embrace those who are vile if it means he can form government.





He gets one shot at this. Depending how he chooses to respond will either see me mocking him at every turn, ignoring him or actually trying to have a conversation.

I really don't think these are major issues. Of course if you want to paint someone a certain way you're going to try your best to turn them into more than they are.

Being opposed to puberty blockers for kids under 18 doesn't seem like an outrageous stance. Its definitely not a stance that makes someone a monster. Seems like someone could reasonably feel like they are doing the right thing in that situation. If we place limitations on kids in other areas I'm not sure why this would be any different or so appalling. Especially when its such a life altering decision. This is kind of a matter of opinion. Depending on what side you lean determines how you're going to view this. I'm pro abortion but I can easily see why someone is against it. Its not some outrageous stance. No one is a bad person for feeling either way.

The other article I'm not entirely sure what he said but seems like the gist is aboriginals need to focus on hard work, self-reliance, etc. Which is 100% true. FOR EVERYONE of course. If its directed at aboriginals I get the back lash because that's a more sensitive group to talk about. But at the end of the day that message applies to everyone. Maybe it was insensitive but again I think this is likely blown out of proportion because its an easy target. Do you really believe he thinks less of aboriginals or has some hate for them? Also, do you think there is no actual validity to his comment? I think it applies to all groups, at some point you need to take self accountability and do what you can for your own life. That is far more powerful than anything the government will ever do for you. And so far I don't think whatever the government is doing is working great.

[Wormius]

If not somebody under 18, who are puberty blockers appropriate for then?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Being opposed to puberty blockers for kids under 18 doesn't seem like an outrageous stance. Its definitely not a stance that makes someone a monster. Seems like someone could reasonably feel like they are doing the right thing in that situation.

An uneducated rube with no ability to read, research and comprehend what they are reading could reasonably feel that way, yes. Because they can't read. Unfortunately, Mr. Pollievre can read, so he would be able to take all the same information available to us and process it, which would unfortunately lead him to the conclusion that this type of ban will do infinitely larger amounts of harm than good to those same children.

Originally Posted by Hackey

If we place limitations on kids in other areas I'm not sure why this would be any different or so appalling. Especially when its such a life altering decision. This is kind of a matter of opinion.

Because normally when we place limitations on kids, it is to prevent them from harming themselves or others based on science and data that says the actions we are preventing them from taking are harmful or destructive to themselves and those around them.

In this case, we are doing the opposite and seeking to impose bans and enforce rules that will prevent a child (or their parents) from seeking gender affirming care (among other things puberty blockers are used for). Care giving you a very good indication as to what the scientific intention is.

Originally Posted by Hackey

Depending on what side you lean determines how you're going to view this. I'm pro abortion but I can easily see why someone is against it. Its not some outrageous stance. No one is a bad person for feeling either way.

True. If you lean to the side of science and doctors, you realize bans like this are destructive and bad for the overall health of a decent part of our population. If you lean on the side of ignoring science, you're probably not working with the best interest of these people in mind because you're wilfully ignoring all the data we have infront of us to choose to be a barbaric nerd.

Also, there is no stance where you can say you're against abortion that makes any sense. Either you think someone else should have control over a person's body or you don't. There is no reasonable justification for controlling someone's body. None.

Originally Posted by Hackey

The other article I'm not entirely sure what he said but seems like the gist is aboriginals need to focus on hard work, self-reliance, etc. Which is 100% true. FOR EVERYONE of course. If its directed at aboriginals I get the back lash because that's a more sensitive group to talk about.

It has also been an anti-native dog whistle for hundreds of years now. If they just weren't so gosh darn lazy, y'know? It was gross then and the fact he stuck around in the party amazing. That he was elevated to leadership says a lot about the party he leads and who he is.

Originally Posted by Hackey

at the end of the day that message applies to everyone. Maybe it was insensitive but again I think this is likely blown out of proportion because its an easy target. Do you really believe he thinks less of aboriginals or has some hate for them? Also, do you think there is no actual validity to his comment? I think it applies to all groups, at some point you need to take self accountability and do what you can for your own life. That is far more powerful than anything the government will ever do for you. And so far I don't think whatever the government is doing is working great.

It wasn't blown out of proportion at all. It was a racist comment. Plain as day. It was minimizing what happened to many aboriginal Canadians over the past 200 years and boiling it down to "you'd be fine if you weren't lazy."

Is Pollievre racist? I don't know for sure, but if he walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and flocks with other ducks... He might be a duck.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Wormius

If not somebody under 18, who are puberty blockers appropriate for then?

Exactly.

Imagine being a full grown adult man and still not understanding when puberty happens.

Might as well say you’re pro abortion but only in circumstances where the mother has already given birth.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

True. If you lean to the side of science and doctors, you realize bans like this are destructive and bad for the overall health of a decent part of our population. If you lean on the side of ignoring science, you're probably not working with the best interest of these people in mind because you're wilfully ignoring all the data we have infront of us to choose to be a barbaric nerd.
.

The science on puberty blockers is far from settled. In Europe, where transgender care is far less politicized than in North America, medical authorities in several countries (Finland, Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden, the UK) have suspended or severely restricted their use in the wake of recent studies on their long-term effects.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

I think the comparison between trump and PP is just lazy partisanship, and really minimizes how awful trump is. Trump is not fit for public office, I wouldn’t hire him to clean toilets. He is a terrible human.

Not that I disagree with several of the concerns with PP, there are things I don’t like about him. But there are things I don’t like about JT as well, but those 2 are the only realistic choices (neither of them is close to Trump awful for me). I’m fine at this point giving the cons a chance. They might be bad, but I know based on the evidence that Trudeau is.

But there is certainly a limit, we all have it a a different point. And if PP goes too far then I’ll be happy to change my mind.

It will be interesting to see how he acts now the Trump has won.
I could see him going overboard and thinking he should be more like Trump because it worked down South.

My views are similar to the rest of your post, but it wouldn't surprise me if PP goes more extreme now.

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

An uneducated rube with no ability to read, research and comprehend what they are reading could reasonably feel that way, yes. Because they can't read. Unfortunately, Mr. Pollievre can read, so he would be able to take all the same information available to us and process it, which would unfortunately lead him to the conclusion that this type of ban will do infinitely larger amounts of harm than good to those same children.



Because normally when we place limitations on kids, it is to prevent them from harming themselves or others based on science and data that says the actions we are preventing them from taking are harmful or destructive to themselves and those around them.

In this case, we are doing the opposite and seeking to impose bans and enforce rules that will prevent a child (or their parents) from seeking gender affirming care (among other things puberty blockers are used for). Care giving you a very good indication as to what the scientific intention is.



True. If you lean to the side of science and doctors, you realize bans like this are destructive and bad for the overall health of a decent part of our population. If you lean on the side of ignoring science, you're probably not working with the best interest of these people in mind because you're wilfully ignoring all the data we have infront of us to choose to be a barbaric nerd..

Thanks for your insight. It is really obvious you have no ability to even try to understand differing views from what you deem to be correct. It’s too bad, and one of the underlying failings in society currently.

And then you cloud your moral views, though legitimate, under a misplaced veil of solved science. It is a difficult and reasonable debate, and there is potential for significant harm to either side if they get it wrong. A nuanced and challenging issue that you simplify into a black and white, right or wrong answer. An issue like that needs debate and discussion, not name calling in response to a reasonable differing opinion.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The science on puberty blockers is far from settled. In Europe, where transgender care is far less politicized than in North America, medical authorities in several countries (Finland, Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden, the UK) have suspended or severely restricted their use in the wake of recent studies on their long-term effects.

There is a huge difference on what Finland did and what Alberta is doing.

https://segm.org/sites/default/files...nslation_0.pdf

If Alberta matched Finlands policy there would be no controversy. They aren’t letting doctors and patients and best available data govern care.

In the UK gender care is highly politicized so not sure why you include them in your list.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The science on puberty blockers is far from settled. In Europe, where transgender care is far less politicized than in North America, medical authorities in several countries (Finland, Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden, the UK) have suspended or severely restricted their use in the wake of recent studies on their long-term effects.

The science as far as the therapeutic and mentally life saving and affirming effects are not really in question anymore. What is in question is if they do developmental damage to certain body processes that occur during puberty. These countries are restricting the puberty blockers, but not banning them. They're continuing to explore the science for something that is incredibly important to letting people live their best lives.


There's a reason they're not looking to implement an outright ban. Unless it proves to be deadly in the long run, they never will.

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Thanks for your insight. It is really obvious you have no ability to even try to understand differing views from what you deem to be correct. It’s too bad, and one of the underlying failings in society currently.

I spend a lot of time reading. I am not married to my opinions. I will happily read things that challenge what I believe, and have my beliefs proven wrong. In the end it's better to be better informed than not. The flip side to this is, I end up getting a lot of psuedo science and enlightened centrist bull #### put infront of me. I've gotten very good at calling it out and pushing my way past it.

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

And then you cloud your moral views, though legitimate, under a misplaced veil of solved science. It is a difficult and reasonable debate, and there is potential for significant harm to either side if they get it wrong. A nuanced and challenging issue that you simplify into a black and white, right or wrong answer. An issue like that needs debate and discussion, not name calling in response to a reasonable differing opinion.

That gender affirming care helps people and saves lives is no longer up for debate. We know it saves lives. Now we are at the stage where we work on the process and refine the science. But the debate about its effectiveness is no longer there. It's done.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Being opposed to puberty blockers for kids under 18 doesn't seem like an outrageous stance. Its definitely not a stance that makes someone a monster. Seems like someone could reasonably feel like they are doing the right thing in that situation. If we place limitations on kids in other areas I'm not sure why this would be any different or so appalling. Especially when its such a life altering decision. This is kind of a matter of opinion. Depending on what side you lean determines how you're going to view this. I'm pro abortion but I can easily see why someone is against it. Its not some outrageous stance. No one is a bad person for feeling either way.

Oh it absolutely is. Because it's completely illogical. If you want to let adults decide what body they're going to have, you need to keep them from getting their assigned at birth, default body. And that's what puberty blockers do. Puberty blockers are life altering, yeah. But not as life-altering as puberty is. And certainly not as life-altering as going through the puberty you don't want. Hormone replacement therapy and surgery only go far. The best way to deal with undesired traits is to not develop them in the first place.

If you're a random dolt plucked from the street you could be forgiven for not understanding this, but if you're a leader whose job it is to make educated decisions on behalf of the electorate, screwing it up this bad requires either willful malice or willful ignorance.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

That gender affirming care helps people and saves lives is no longer up for debate. We know it saves lives. Now we are at the stage where we work on the process and refine the science. But the debate about its effectiveness is no longer there. It's done.

We know intervention can save lives*. But we don’t have anything close to the certainty around gender affirming care as you suggest.

What RIGT and U.S. advocates for trans care in minors are suggesting presumes that the evidence cited is of high enough quality that there’s settled science around the issue. Yet this is opposed to what a growing number of European clinicians and public health authorities are saying. Namely, they posit that there isn’t sufficient evidence to justify non-experimental or routine use of trans care interventions such as cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers and surgery in certain age groups.

A series of recent Europe-based systematic reviews of evidence for the benefits and risks of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones have demonstrated a low level of certainty regarding benefits. In particular, longitudinal data collected and analyzed by public health authorities in Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and England have concluded that the risk-benefit ratio of youth gender transition ranges from “unknown to unfavorable.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuac...h=49d4402f6a69

* Mainly through identifying and treating mental illness among gender dysphoric patients. “Clinical gender dysphoria does not appear to be predictive of all-cause nor suicide mortality when psychiatric treatment history is accounted for.” https://mentalhealth.bmj.com/content/27/1/e300940.full

[calgarygeologist]

Things keep getting worse for MP/Minister Randy B. as it has been revealed that his shady medical supply company was claiming to be indigenous owned when they bid on and won government contracts.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

We know intervention can save lives*. But we don’t have anything close to the certainty around gender affirming care as you suggest.



* Mainly through identifying and treating mental illness among gender dysphoric patients. “Clinical gender dysphoria does not appear to be predictive of all-cause nor suicide mortality when psychiatric treatment history is accounted for.” https://mentalhealth.bmj.com/content/27/1/e300940.full

What age would you allow puberty blockers for?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What age would you allow puberty blockers for?

I don’t think they should be strictly prohibited. I do think the science is unsettled enough that they should only be prescribed after lengthy counselling - the “watchful waiting” approach that was the standard of transgender care before the field succumbed to gender affirmation ideology. And we should be open to revising protocols of care - whether that means more or less restrictive - as new data emerges in a field with very spotty and thin research.

Your turn: Does it concern you that a 14 year old, without any reference from a doctor, psychologist, or therapist, can walk into a private clinic in Canada and be prescribed hormone treatment after a single 9 minute consultation?

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/recit-nu...-sante-mentale

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What age would you allow puberty blockers for?

I think that questions is dependent entirely on the central question which is: What are the long term effects of puberty blockers and health and wellbeing?

for example

The synthesis of findings from multiple fields of study (neurodevelopment, neuroimaging, neuroendocrinology) indicates an association between GnRH expression and brain function and structure. Despite the broad and multidisciplinary knowledge base which indicates disruption of GnRH expression is likely to have an impact on cognitive function, and explicit calls in the literature for this to be studied that date back three decades,46 there have been no human studies to date that have systematically explored the impact of these treatments on neuropsychological function with an adequate baseline and follow-up.

While no means conclusive due to the poor quality of evidence, studies examining the impact of puberty suppression in young people indicate a possible detrimental impact on IQ.43, 48, 49 These findings accord with the wider literature on GnRH expression and brain structure and function. Studies in mice, sheep and primates indicate an impact of GnRH suppression on behavioural analogues of cognitive function, effects that are often sex specific. While there is some evidence that indicates pubertal suppression may impact cognitive function, there is no evidence to date to support the oft cited assertion that the effects of puberty blockers are fully reversible.51, 53 Indeed, the only study to date that has addressed this in sheep suggests that this is not the case.39

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...235-2/abstract