Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Cappy

This is all conjecture. Like al of your posts.

Just mine? Or this entire thread? And this entire board.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Germany
France
(until recently) England
Romania
South Korea
The US

Lots of countries currently fall into the category of "laughing stock" politically

We Canadians seem to have an outsized feeling of grandeur with our puny little country

Like I said, we dont matter and I dont get why people can't wrap their heads around that. We influence no Global policy, we are leaders of nothing and we happen to be a political laughingstock.

Now...why are we a political laughingstock?

Two reasons.

1. We just happen to be at the top of the news cycle right now. Pretty much the most notable thing Trudeau has done during his tenure is learn how to 'Fail Spectacularly.'

2. The Global audience thinks its cute that we think we're important.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Cappy

This is all conjecture. Like al of your posts.

As posted previosuly "super majority" means nothing

I think super majority technically is 2/3 of the seats.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Thats not really a thing here.

No house of commons votes require 2/3, unless its a constitutional amendment which also requires senate and provincial votes.

i could be wrong but

It’s what the google machine said.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Goriders

I think super majority technically is 2/3 of the seats.

I think it varies by context, the exact number changes by country or circumstance.

In Canada is only really makes sense with Constitutional changes needing 66% of the provinces (but 50% of the population). For Parliament it really is meaningless because 50%+1 or 99% has the same power.

So it honestly is just a useless phrase that applies more to the US government.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

You will send you a NDA.

I don’t know who taught you how to use the Jedi mind trick, but I think you’ve been scammed.

"Every company shouldn't be unioned"
- that is correct,

You know you’re in quicksand in a message board debate when you feel the need blatantly misquote someone.

most companies don't and don't need to be.

Actually no companies unionize, their employees do.

We’ll wait that might not be completely fair, business owners do unionize but up here they call them things like the CFIB. I guess they saw a benefit to collective action, I wonder where they could have gotten that idea from.

It seems like you might not have much experience in the private sector to recognize that 19th- and 20th-century working norms no longer apply, especially in developed nations.

I’ve been in the workforce for about a quarter century at this point and have only ever worked in the private sector. Try again.

Of course, nothing is black and white, but there are many professions where workers have significant leverage to advance their careers and increase their salaries. This isn’t just theory—it ultimately depends on what you make of it.

No one ever said that there were no professions that have leverage, at the same time just because you have some leverage doesn’t mean you can’t put yourself into a position where you have more. This isn’t just theory—it ultimately depends on what you make of it.

It ties back to your point about finiteness—we have a finite number of jobs and a finite number of ideas. Let’s focus on ideas: not only is there a limited number of them, but there’s also a finite number of people capable of generating and executing them. Given that, capital is best placed in the hands of those who can create something beneficial for the majority.

I guess what you’re saying is that giving workers more money will create more people capable of generating wealth who weren’t just born into money. You know, the ones who don’t actually have any proven ability to generate anything with the resources they have. I agree with that.

Some might call this trickle-down economics,

If by some you mean basically everyone then yes I would agree with your assessment.

which I would prefer over a bottom-up approach, which seems to align with your preference.

You’re entitled to your opinion even if all data on the matter suggests that your position isn’t justifiable.

Ultimately, capital should go to someone with a good idea, rather than someone likely to waste it on frivolous things like booze and cigarettes. (ha ha)

Here come the stereotypes, never a good sign when you have to rely on those to make an argument. I didn’t know business owners didn’t drink or smoke or spend money on frivolous things. I’ll be sure to bring it up with Mr bezos the next time he invites me to join him for non-alcoholic beverages on his yacht that has a second yacht built into it.

And that is exactly how the system is setup now and it works. It much more than tax breaks for the rich, that a ####ing genric statement you learn from the Robert Reich/Bernie Sanders/AOC/Liz Warren/NDP school of economics, nobody in the know takes those people seriously.

It works well for a very small segment of the population. I don’t know what tax breaks have to do with employees being able to unionize or why you would bring it into the discussion. Other than to suggest that you seem to be struggling to get a reasonable argument across.

Most people perform at their best when they have an incentive to motivate them.

You mean an incentive like having a job that pays well that a worker would want to keep as opposed to minimum/low wage jobs that they can easily find another one of and therefore don’t have incentive to do more than the bare minimum at?

”Why not take care of those people while they’re in the queue?”

Because that risks disincentivizing them. The realization that you need to be “taken care of” should be enough to motivate you. If it’s not, well, there’s always a street corner you can hang out on.

This can all just as easily be applied to the investors that you’re trying to coddle. Kind of a hypocritical position to take frankly.

I’m enjoying this discussion but if you want to keep playing this game I think you’d be best served by finding a bigger barrel to swim in little fishy. You’re making it too easy for me and that’s probably driving some posters nuts.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by activeStick

So, do the sides on either ends of this debate over the last few days, now switch sides and continue the debate?

What's strategy is best for the NDP:

A)Let the Liberals fail to take the left leaning votes and potentially be official opposition

B) Prop up a new Liberal leader to take down the Conservatives (at the expense of their own NDP seats)

C) Take down the government now and force an election

D) All of the above

Hint, the answer is seemingly D

[GGG]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Actually this makes it look even more like he is doing it just for the pension.

Winter sitting starts on Jan 27. Election period is a minimum of 36 days. So even if they have a no confidence vote on the first day that would put election day on March 3rd. His pension kicks in on Feb 25th.

I think it’s agnostic to the pension. This is what he would do if he was just holding out for a pension. It’s also what he would do if trying to get Trudeau to announce his resignation.

[Goriders]

I think if the government falls in jan the Bloc will be the official opposition. Both the Liberals and NDP are going to be torn to shreds.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think it’s agnostic to the pension. This is what he would do if he was just holding out for a pension. It’s also what he would do if trying to get Trudeau to announce his resignation.

I think the pension angle is just cynical. Not necessarily inaccurate or wrong, but cynical.

Like I said before, compared to Government spending and Singh's personal wealth...who cares?

Maybe he does care that much about his pension? What can we do about it and/or why should we care?

Okay, so he gets his pension. Cool. Move along.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Actually the most recent poll was done by Abacus and shows exactly that.

58% of Canadians want an election now
23% do not want an election
15% don't know
4% don't care

The continuously parroted narratives perpetrated by some posters as factual are all dying one by one yet they cling on to their beliefs as if we are still back in time and nothing has changed in the political world in recent years. They should really be focusing on their preferred party of choice issues causing the narratives to die out versus trying to convince the forum that no one wants an election or Canadians don't want the CPC in power.

Originally Posted by Wormius

Interesting. Is there a link to this?

So let's give you the benefit of the doubt that you truly were asking that question in a genuine matter and you were just misinformed with your narrative or that it was outdated, and Jacks has since given you the info let's take it for what it's worth. Why don't we dig deeper into that poll.

https://abacusdata.ca/canadian-polit...d-resignation/



CPC supporters wanting an election now should not be a surprise. But diehard NDP supporters of this forum (the ones who are the loudest in trying to control narratives through mudslinging means) should pay close attention to the NDP supporter stat. 47% of NDP supporters want an election now, versus 27% who do not want one. An election now is absolutely certain to be the last for Singh as a leader of a 3rd failed campaign. Clearly many NDP supporters aren't blind to the political situation and how poorly Singh is leading the party, and are not happy. So why are some folks here so adamant he is doing a great job or claiming Canadians don't want an election, when even within the NDP support the yes on election double the no's? It's obvious many Canadians across the political spectrum are not happy with the status quo, and aren't necessarily toeing the party line.

Also food for thought for the folks who think the right shifting winds could be favourable for their party fortunes.



Voter apathy is going to be a factor, and it will be much more of a factor for the NDP and Liberals. We could potentially see our first outright majority by a party in 40 years with the current trajectory. The fantasy that Trudeau getting kicked out would improve the fortunes of the Liberal and NDP within a year to the point that Poilievre would lose sleep over it is just completely delusional and out of touch.

[Jacks]

So from what I'm seeing there is 1 cabinet minister from Manitoba and everyone else is from Ontario East -->

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jacks

So from what I'm seeing there is 1 cabinet minister from Manitoba and everyone else is from Ontario East -->

So...Laurentian Elites?

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Fair enough. Maybe we’re this weeks laughingstock?

Our 15 minutes of political intrigue.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Our 15 minutes of political intrigue.

Basically.

The thing is, Canada is typically pretty stable. Few interesting things happen here, especially politically, so this is a fairly big outlier.

But Trudeau...he loves to be the center of attention. When he fails, he fails big.

[Wormius]

Canada is only a laughing stock when some homegrown doofuses like Theo Fleury, Kevin O’Leary, or Michelle Rempel hit the US TV circuit.

[Firebot]

Big news (much to the chagrin of those claiming they know best with their narratives)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sin...ence-1.7416221

https://twitter.com/user/status/1870137427492544549

Time is up. Perhaps the NDP can use this time window to rebuild itself as a viable alternative separate from the Liberals, giving themselves more time to rebuild. Good on Singh for finally conceding and doing what is absolutely needed for the best of Canada right now.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Big news (much to the chagrin of those claiming they know best with their narratives)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sin...ence-1.7416221

https://twitter.com/user/status/1870137427492544549

Time is up. Perhaps the NDP can use this time window to rebuild itself as a viable alternative separate from the Liberals, giving themselves more time to rebuild. Good on Singh for finally conceding and doing what is absolutely needed for the best of Canada right now.

The only reason the whole 'Pension' debacle even has legs is because Singh could have done this AGES ago.

So his self-righteous grandstanding about 'caring about Canadians' rings a little hollow.

Whether its his pension or something else, if he felt this strongly he sure took his sweet, sweet time.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Ped

Look, there's no denying that there are bad unions, in that they don't do much for their workers, or make a lot of false promises. I've been involved with unions on both sides of the table, and there are absolutely unions that take advantage of workers, particularly workers who don't have or are interested in knowing how things in their workplace actually work.

I think you’ve presented most of your post in a fair manner, even if I don’t agree with all of your positions. But I am kind of curious as to how you feel that a union has taken advantage of workers? That isn’t to say you might not have a reasonable example for how they have, it’s just I can’t really think of a scenario where they could since they have to take their direction from their members who are the ones who decide which contracts they accept, job action and whether they want to be represented by that union. But if it is happening, despite what some might think I actually want unions that don’t do what they’re supposed to do to be held accountable by their members.

Based on the entirety of your post I think it’s fair to say you agree that even if hypothetically there are some cases of unions not doing the absolute best they can for workers it’s probably a far smaller number than that of employers who don’t either. So really it’s a case of not letting perfect be the enemy of good. Appreciate your post.

Or it may be accurate to say, there are bad locals. I've been involved with more than one local from one particular large union, and in the first place, they were great for the workers, and in the second place, they were terrible for the workers, where after being unionized for around 15 years now, their wages are no better than their non-union equivalent, and in many cases are worse.

But even there, they do have better benefits then their non-union equivalent, so they may be better off when you look at the cost of everything.

But far too many people forget that even in a non-union workplace, you get that pay and those benefits largely because a union fought for them somewhere, and your company probably offers the same things to be competitive.

All of these things can be true. In which case the biggest difference between a union and non-union workplace that pay comparable wages/benefits is that the unionized employees have what they are receiving guaranteed by their collective agreements so the terms and conditions of their employment cannot be arbitrarily altered without their agreement. That and the added job protection of their employer not being able to terminate their employment without just cause.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Locke

Basically.

The thing is, Canada is typically pretty stable. Few interesting things happen here, especially politically, so this is a fairly big outlier.

But Trudeau...he loves to be the center of attention. When he fails, he fails big.

Even this isn't all that crazy, losing confidence after 9 years in power doesn't really raise eye brows. yeah it's probably a year over due, but not any kind of crisis.