Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Andy83

On that particular issue, and many others like it, I don't think most people think it's even close to 50/50, on whether its all a bunch of bs or not. And I certainly never suggested as much. I do think a lot of people weighed the good and bad, and made their decision. Of course there are some that vote solely on party affiliation, or other reasons, but there is nothing any of us can do about that.

What would it take for a politician to say something that makes you realize they aren't qualified to be in the position they are in? Where is your line? Mine is when they tell me they won't listen to experts. That tells me the are an ideologue, and irrational decisions will be made to support that. DS has proven that is exactly what she is(and you aren't dumb, so I know you are aware of all the times this has occurred) but you don't see this as disqualifying. Why is that? Do you trust her intuition more than facts, knowledge, experts, and reality?

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

The majority of people are in fact idiots so that adds up.

I don't think its a terrible idea to have voters answer a few "skill testing" questions with regards to the vote they are casting, for their vote to count. Would definitely weed out a lot of this.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What would it take for a politician to say something that makes you realize they aren't qualified to be in the position they are in? Where is your line? Mine is when they tell me they won't listen to experts. That tells me the are an ideologue, and irrational decisions will be made to support that. DS has proven that is exactly what she is(and you aren't dumb, so I know you are aware of all the times this has occurred) but you don't see this as disqualifying. Why is that? Do you trust her intuition more than facts, knowledge, experts, and reality?

It’s not even just the words. How many times have we been in a situation where the UCP’s attempt to “fix” something made it significantly worse or had absolutely no impact at the cost of millions and millions of dollars?

But hey, she’s doing what she believes is best for Alberta, so while she might demonstratively make it worse, we’re running in vibes here. You just don’t get it.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Nothing that happened in Canada had any impact on what Trump did. Canadian's have a remarkable delusion of grandeur. We don't matter. Nobody cares. Nobody cares if we emit 0 carbons or a billion carbons.

Everybody in Canada should have supported Smith going to visit Trump and his people. If someone doesn't, that's just a tell for their TDS. It is quite likely she went down there, spoke ten words to Trump, and then had informative discussions with Trump's people. She then understood, either explicitly, or because they suggested it, that there would be limited or no tariffs on anything (especially oil). So the fact that she looked calm and informed was likely because of this trip. Her comments on expecting a tariff at some point were her respecting the Trump staffers, without throwing them under the bus. The other 9 premiers and JT looked like unhinged morons, because they had no information. It's almost like being a reasonable person who is willing to talk, and communicate and discuss things with your partners and stakeholders confers a benefit. Maybe some of the anti-Smith pearl-clutchers in this thread could learn a thing or two about how to work with allies that you perceive as imperfect.

The drama out of the RoC, and the media and half of this thread was just cringe. "Smith is a TRAITOR". lol.

A whole lot of assumptions in there but I don’t know what any of it has to do with my post. You and Mel appear to have convinced yourselves that Smith alone is the reason the tariffs weren’t implemented right away and at this time there’s really no evidence of that beyond what appears to be a confirmation bias.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Andy83

I don't think its a terrible idea to have voters answer a few "skill testing" questions with regards to the vote they are casting, for their vote to count. Would definitely weed out a lot of this.

Why stop there, throw in a mental health evaulation too!

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

So as long as she's our idiot, that's ok?

If that doesn't define RW politics, nothing does.

That’s not a RW politics issue, that’s a partisan political issue. The biggest partisan on this board is Fuzz, and there are many examples on every part of the political spectrum.

I do agree that extreme partisanship is a huge problem, but it is insanity to believe it is only on the right.

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What would it take for a politician to say something that makes you realize they aren't qualified to be in the position they are in? Where is your line? Mine is when they tell me they won't listen to experts. That tells me the are an ideologue, and irrational decisions will be made to support that. DS has proven that is exactly what she is(and you aren't dumb, so I know you are aware of all the times this has occurred) but you don't see this as disqualifying. Why is that? Do you trust her intuition more than facts, knowledge, experts, and reality?

I guess the more overarching perspective I have, is that, while I may, and certainly do disagree with some of her statements, the majority of Albertans chose her. Why they chose her is their perogative. It's not overly important to me why they did what they did. All I care about is that she was chosen. She's who we have to deal with, the good and the bad.

The more specific perspective, when it comes to individual comments/decisions, I have, is that, ya, disregarding expert opinion is generally as you describe. It's not always the case, but usually it is. That said, we all value things differently. If someone is to say "I think she will be good for the economy for reason x, y and z, and that's all I care about", I think they should probably weigh things a little differently, but I'm not going to bang my head against the wall trying to convince them to do something else. Same goes for all the negative reasons people would refuse to vote for her.

For me personally, in the last election, it was a choice between someone who, in my opinion, was terrible in a lot of ways, and did a lot of damage to this province (what was it? Almost 100 billion in added debt, increased corporate taxes, massive "brain drain", energy royalty reviews, lack of doing or saying anything about c-69 and c-48 until it was too late, on and on) and someone who I believed could be generally good for Alberta (based primarily on her pro Alberta energy stance, and what ended up being the Alberta Soverinty Act), but admittedly had warts as well. DS is far from perfect, but given the alternative, yikes.

[Fuzz]

I'm not at all a partisan, I'm an anti-partisan. I'm anti dumb #### parties, that's all. Give me a pre-Preston Manning Conservative and I'd probably vote for them if it made sense. I've done it before, I can do it again. Not my fault the right has gone off the deep end, and embraced the worst aspects of RW populism.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Let's simplify it

Trump's Motivation: Negotiation
Smith's Motivation: Negotiation

Team "Canada" led by the most "unpopular PM in Canadian history, who despite that refuses to step down until it suits him" Motivation: Trade war.

I am pretty sure who is on the wrong side of history, they both went down there to talk to him and came back with 2 different interpretations on what was going to happen. Smith interpreted the right way and goes into that relationship a step up from the others like JT, Ford and whoever is the Premier of that welfare state Quebec

So Trump backing down on Tariffs is thanks to Smith's "negotiation" and not the threat of a trade war?

hard to draw that conclusion.

Trump: Bluster.
Smith: bootlicker
Canada: Mutually Assured Destruction

I truly love how delusional you are that Trump backing down on Tariffs was the result of Danielle Smith trying to carve out Alberta PNG and throwing out a "national unity crisis" to the rest of Canada. The facts on the ground seem further from that

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not at all a partisan, I'm an anti-partisan. I'm anti dumb #### parties, that's all. Give me a pre-Preston Manning Conservative and I'd probably vote for them if it made sense. I've done it before, I can do it again. Not my fault the right has gone off the deep end, and embraced the worst aspects of RW populism.

Huh, well I guess you are an extreme partisan with zero self awareness.

Everything you write is about how any politician or party you disagree with is always terrible, either for the things they’ve done, might do, or never have done. And you have never ending excuses for everything your team (in this case JT liberals) have done.

I have taken to just skimming past most of your posts since there isn’t any real thought behind them, it’s the political version of the E=NG thread.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Andy83

I guess the more overarching perspective I have, is that, while I may, and certainly do disagree with some of her statements, the majority of Albertans chose her. Why they chose her is their perogative. It's not overly important to me why they did what they did. All I care about is that she was chosen. She's who we have to deal with, the good and the bad.

The more specific perspective, when it comes to individual comments/decisions, I have, is that, ya, disregarding expert opinion is generally as you describe. It's not always the case, but usually it is. That said, we all value things differently. If someone is to say "I think she will be good for the economy for reason x, y and z, and that's all I care about", I think they should probably weigh things a little differently, but I'm not going to bang my head against the wall trying to convince them to do something else. Same goes for all the negative reasons people would refuse to vote for her.

For me personally, in the last election, it was a choice between someone who, in my opinion, was terrible in a lot of ways, and did a lot of damage to this province (what was it? Almost 100 billion in added debt, increased corporate taxes, massive "brain drain", energy royalty reviews, lack of doing or saying anything about c-69 and c-48 until it was too late, on and on) and someone who I believed could be generally good for Alberta, but admittedly had warts as well. DS is far from perfect, but given the alternative, yikes.

OK, so you were afraid enough of an NDP government that took the absolute worst interpretations of how their term played out, and were scared of it being reality. And then ignored all the harm Smith could and is doing, and chose her. That's baffling. And then to continue to defend her after all the bumbles, expensive mistakes, cronyism, lies, inhumane treatment of citizens, kowtowing to conspiracy morons and on and on...


Which is why I ask, what would it take for you to turn your support off for her? How bad a scandal will it need? Would she need a policy that harms you personally? Because she's hit me with a few of those, which I know, nobody cares about.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Huh, well I guess you are an extreme partisan with zero self awareness.

Everything you write is about how any politician or party you disagree with is always terrible, either for the things they’ve done, might do, or never have done. And you have never ending excuses for everything your team (in this case JT liberals) have done.

I have taken to just skimming past most of your posts since there isn’t any real thought behind them, it’s the political version of the E=NG thread.

I haven't supported JT in years, I don't even think I voted for him last election(not that it matters in blue town). I don't take to defending him unless it's a logical argument, and I'm defending the position. And this isn't new. I don't have a team, and I'd love to have an option to vote for someone else, like a reasonable Conservative who speaks in more than three word phrases, and Trump style insults. Hell, I even said I'd vote for Carney if he led the Conservatives. But here we are. I'd just ask that you stop misrepresenting me.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Nothing that happened in Canada had any impact on what Trump did. Canadian's have a remarkable delusion of grandeur. We don't matter. Nobody cares. Nobody cares if we emit 0 carbons or a billion carbons.

Everybody in Canada should have supported Smith going to visit Trump and his people. If someone doesn't, that's just a tell for their TDS. It is quite likely she went down there, spoke ten words to Trump, and then had informative discussions with Trump's people. She then understood, either explicitly, or because they suggested it, that there would be limited or no tariffs on anything (especially oil). So the fact that she looked calm and informed was likely because of this trip. Her comments on expecting a tariff at some point were her respecting the Trump staffers, without throwing them under the bus. The other 9 premiers and JT looked like unhinged morons, because they had no information. It's almost like being a reasonable person who is willing to talk, and communicate and discuss things with your partners and stakeholders confers a benefit. Maybe some of the anti-Smith pearl-clutchers in this thread could learn a thing or two about how to work with allies that you perceive as imperfect.

The drama out of the RoC, and the media and half of this thread was just cringe. "Smith is a TRAITOR". lol.

So she got inside information that there would be no tariffs, but instead of sharing that knowledge with her country's team, or just staying silent, she chose to grandstand and use the opportunity to attack the PM and other premiers. I'm not sure how that's a better look.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Andy83

I think it's more likely he's in tofino, worrying about what he's going to do if he has to go back to work Feb 15th. Doing the job you are being paid to do is a real bitch.

Actually he's meeting with cabinet planning what to do in the next few months. Not surfing in Tofino or watching the inauguration on TV in Washington. A few ministers, actual representatives of the Canadian government, are in Washington.

[shotinthebacklund]

I cant understand how Carney is being perceived as a Centrist. He has a plethora of published material and interviews where he discusses what would be considered for certain socialist views and dabbles into Marxism.



Maybe he just decided this week he is a Centrist and had a political re- awakening? Can a Tiger change his stripes that quick?

[Fuzz]

Canada has central socialist polices supported by all parties. Socialism isn't bad, FFS.


He was appointed by Harper, and carbon taxes are a Conservative based policy idea.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Nothing that happened in Canada had any impact on what Trump did. Canadian's have a remarkable delusion of grandeur. We don't matter. Nobody cares. Nobody cares if we emit 0 carbons or a billion carbons.

Everybody in Canada should have supported Smith going to visit Trump and his people. If someone doesn't, that's just a tell for their TDS. It is quite likely she went down there, spoke ten words to Trump, and then had informative discussions with Trump's people. She then understood, either explicitly, or because they suggested it, that there would be limited or no tariffs on anything (especially oil). So the fact that she looked calm and informed was likely because of this trip. Her comments on expecting a tariff at some point were her respecting the Trump staffers, without throwing them under the bus. The other 9 premiers and JT looked like unhinged morons, because they had no information. It's almost like being a reasonable person who is willing to talk, and communicate and discuss things with your partners and stakeholders confers a benefit. Maybe some of the anti-Smith pearl-clutchers in this thread could learn a thing or two about how to work with allies that you perceive as imperfect.

The drama out of the RoC, and the media and half of this thread was just cringe. "Smith is a TRAITOR". lol.

I don’t get your argument here.

You agree that Smith should not have been public with her demands and that undermined her position with ROC.

You state that Canadas action did nothing to affect the Tarrifs.
Then you go give credit for smith actions which you say Accomplished nothing and undermined her position in Canada? How does she get credit here.

How is that better than the Joly Trudeau position of. We will work to avoid Tarrifs but if they are implemented we will respond in kind considering all available options.

What did the Feds do here that you believe was incorrect?

He reiterated that Canada will retaliate against U.S. tariffs, but said he hopes “we can avoid that outcome.”

As I’ve said, consistently, if the incoming American administration moves forward with tariffs, we will not hesitate to act, we will respond, and I will say it again, everything is on the table now,” he said in his opening remarks before the council meeting on Friday.

“We’re going to be true Canadians in this: strong, polite, looking for the right ways to do things that we can get win-wins out of it, but if push comes to shove, we will be strong and unequivocal in our defence of Canada and Canadians.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/10964061/...anie-joly/amp/

What part of this message do you disagree with?

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

OK, so you were afraid enough of an NDP government that took the absolute worst interpretations of how their term played out, and were scared of it being reality. And then ignored all the harm Smith could and is doing, and chose her. That's baffling. And then to continue to defend her after all the bumbles, expensive mistakes, cronyism, lies, inhumane treatment of citizens, kowtowing to conspiracy morons and on and on...


Which is why I ask, what would it take for you to turn your support off for her? How bad a scandal will it need? Would she need a policy that harms you personally? Because she's hit me with a few of those, which I know, nobody cares about.

Well first, I don't think that's an accurate representation of what I said. I clearly stated i did not ignore her warts. They were part of the decision. The harm the NDP had done, and I'm my opinion would have exacerbated given a second chance, in conjunction with what were, in my opinion, very strong stances on the Alberta economy, outweighed these acknowledged warts. They were not ignored.

As for what would it take? I honestly don't know. If our economy hadn't been so terrible, if I believed the NDP wouldn't have made it even worse yet, I don't know. Maybe. It's not just one thing. I need a full scenario to properly evaluate what I would or wouldn't do. Its an almost impossible question to honestly answer. Its hard to envision any one particular thing that a politician could reasonably do, while still having any chance of being elected, that a few circumstances couldn't outweigh.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

I cant understand how Carney is being perceived as a Centrist. He has a plethora of published material and interviews where he discusses what would be considered for certain socialist views and dabbles into Marxism.



Maybe he just decided this week he is a Centrist and had a political re- awakening? Can a Tiger change his stripes that quick?

Marxism?

He a globalist Goldman Sacs Banker that believes in market driven solutions to solve problem. Quit reading the National post articles from Foster without critical thought and read the source material.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Andy83

Well first, I don't think that's an accurate representation of what I said. I clearly stated i did not ignore her warts. They were part of the decision. The harm the NDP had done, and I'm my opinion would have exacerbated given a second chance, in conjunction with what were, in my opinion, very strong stances on the Alberta economy, outweighed these acknowledged warts. They were not ignored.

How did you isolate the effects of NDP policy on Alberta's economy from the effects of broad macroeconomic forces (like the collapse of commodity prices) on Alberta's economy?