Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 2ArmBands

A lot of people make this argument of Canadian sovereignty as their reason for voting Liberal. What is the actual reason for this? The biggest threat to Canadian sovereignty and prosperity has been the mismanagement of this country for the last decade. It’s the reason why we are in such a vulnerable position.

Do people actually believe the “Maple MAGA?” What is it exactly that makes people think PP will sell out to Trump? The conservatives have been backing proper resource management and diversified trade for a long time now. They have been constantly criticizing Canada-US trade and the ridiculous discount applied to our O&G resources. Trump has come out multiple times and voiced his disapproval of PP (not just yesterday)

I can’t really blame Trump for voicing his preference to do business with Canadian Liberals. Probably much easier for him and the US to continue to take
advantage of us.

So here’s my conundrum I asked earlier which no one really answered.

We see in Alberta that the grass roots of the UCP will turf someone when they don’t behave “right” enough. Kenny got the boot when he wasn’t extreme enough. We saw that federally that Otoole got the boot when he wasn’t right enough. So when conservatives leaders have moved toward the middle they pay for it in political blood.

We have Danielle smith making overtures to Trump and appearing on right wing media. We have PP being milquetoast in his rejection of Trump. We have posters on this thread musing that they would rather be the 51st state than under Carney. We have polling that shows about 20% of the populous would want to join.

So what does the base on the Conservative Party believe? It does not matter what the individual PM or Premier believes when the party has shown repeatedly it will elect a leader post elections to fit its views.

So politically how sympathetic to Trump is the grassroots of the conservative movement because that is who you are electing into power.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by rubecube

As an NDP supporter, I don't really want them to move to the centre. They need to firmly plant their flag in the left-wing populist/democratic socialism sphere. We don't gain anything as a country by having more centrist parties.

I think I disagree with this particularly at this point in time. Our country needs a united federal government capable of laying down the laws and righting the ship in terms of forceful direction to the provinces and it will only help by having everyone be more centrist as ultimately that is absolutely where the majority of Canadians hearts and minds are. At this particular moment we need the petty political BS stuff to be put aside and I think you’re seeing that from voters in the polls as people reject PP more and more because he won’t drop the little stuff and is still drawing right when he should have already pivoted a month or two ago.

Also why the F isn’t the pipeline being built yet? Is our sovereignty at stake or not?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by dieHARDflameZ

It’s hard to believe people could be fooled into supporting the liberals after the last 9.5 years.

It’s kind of like the UCP and the Alberta PCs before them…they get unpopular, turf their leader, then suddenly it’s a new party that everyone can get behind again, and all the stuff people hated gets blamed on the previous leader.

In this case, Central Banker Carney is a wild change from Budgets Balance Themselves Trudeau, so it’s pretty much a new party, at least by Alberta standards.

[schteve_d]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Sounds like the Fighter jet file is going to get discuss pretty heavily. The decision made CBC News today and the options they have to weigh are do they keep the 16 f35s they've already paid for and go with a 2 fleet AF?

Real question, not being sarcastic.

The two fleet sounds like a terrible idea.

Also, I don't think we want to just eat the six billion or so that we already paid. Is it at all realistic to "sublet" our purchase to another country, take a much smaller loss, and move on? Mitigate our losses and sell our current investment to another country that is interested. Not sure who.

Would the US allow that to happen? I guess that depends on who is standing at the front of the line.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by schteve_d

Real question, not being sarcastic.

The two fleet sounds like a terrible idea.

Also, I don't think we want to just eat the six billion or so that we already paid. Is it at all realistic to "sublet" our purchase to another country, take a much smaller loss, and move on? Mitigate our losses and sell our current investment to another country that is interested. Not sure who.

Would the US allow that to happen? I guess that depends on who is standing at the front of the line.

I think part of the issue here is if the US decides to be petty (and under current leadership that seems likely) is that all the other options have US content. Eg, the Gripen has a GE engine, so the US has a veto on who can buy it. So if they are butt-hurt about the F35s they coulr block the other options.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Also why the F isn’t the pipeline being built yet? Is our sovereignty at stake or not?

Which one? Who's supposed to be building it? Why are you being so lazy and not digging?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Which one? Who's supposed to be building it? Why are you being so lazy and not digging?

Well I’m not Mark Carney. If I was I’d absolutely have crew mobilized and things in motion. 110%. I am just hoping they haven’t told anyone.

And if not, great! Must mean our sovereignty isn’t under threat, because we wouldn’t prioritize the silly reasons we don’t have export capacity to rank above sovereignty, would we?

Also let’s get real- the feds are gonna need to build it, just like the last one- nobody is taking that ridiculous risk and even if there was a private company willing to do it, it’d have to be fully de-risked / backstopped federally anyway. So just commit to it and move on already since time is massively of the essence.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by schteve_d

Real question, not being sarcastic.

The two fleet sounds like a terrible idea.

Also, I don't think we want to just eat the six billion or so that we already paid. Is it at all realistic to "sublet" our purchase to another country, take a much smaller loss, and move on? Mitigate our losses and sell our current investment to another country that is interested. Not sure who.

Would the US allow that to happen? I guess that depends on who is standing at the front of the line.

I'm curious what the actual issue is with two fleets? We have more than one base, so you could split planes to specific bases and not duplicate facilities. Perhaps one plane is more suited to the north, so use it up there.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by schteve_d

Real question, not being sarcastic.

The two fleet sounds like a terrible idea.

Also, I don't think we want to just eat the six billion or so that we already paid. Is it at all realistic to "sublet" our purchase to another country, take a much smaller loss, and move on? Mitigate our losses and sell our current investment to another country that is interested. Not sure who.

Would the US allow that to happen? I guess that depends on who is standing at the front of the line.

Having two different jets causes an increase in training costs. Canada doesn't have a robust pilot pool to really get max value from a two fleet system either. So they have to spend a ton of money recruiting and training for two different systems.

I don't think for a small force like Canada it's justifiable two try and make two jets work.

Like in a perfect scenario, the U.S cures it's insanity and Canada goes ahead with the entire 88 plane order. Unfortunately, they now have to figure things out in a hurry because they're going to need some big time assurances from the U.S to keep the F-35 the only option for Canada.

Plus I think with Canada trying to diversify more into Europe, grabbing one of their planes is a good olive branch to extend while the U.S breaks ours.

It's not ideal to flip flop on the biggest procurement deal, but this time it's not Canada's fault if they do change up.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Also let’s get real- the feds are gonna need to build it, just like the last one- nobody is taking that ridiculous risk and even if there was a private company willing to do it, it’d have to be fully de-risked / backstopped federally anyway. So just commit to it and move on already since time is massively of the essence.

Yes, the feds will need to build it. But build what? You say "the pipeline" like there's one option out there. What pipeline are you whining about them not bypassing all governing process to spend billions on?

[schteve_d]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm curious what the actual issue is with two fleets? We have more than one base, so you could split planes to specific bases and not duplicate facilities. Perhaps one plane is more suited to the north, so use it up there.

True, but I think back to the old Westjet model that they seem to have abandoned now. It always seemed so clever to me. They flew one model of aircraft for a long time, whether it was empty or full. If your starter or some other widget failed in Saskatoon or Upper Rubber Boot, Nova Scotia, there was probably one on the shelf because there only needed to be one. If Bill the pilot in Kelowna called in sick, you could call any one of your other pilots in because they were trained on this model, you didn't have to get granular and figure out who, in this area, could fly this thing.

My dad was an aircraft mechanic for many, many years in the Canadian military. There are so many hours spent training all personnel, flight and maintenance, on a particular model, and then its' variants. The more you can streamline that, the better.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by 2ArmBands

A lot of people make this argument of Canadian sovereignty as their reason for voting Liberal. What is the actual reason for this? The biggest threat to Canadian sovereignty and prosperity has been the mismanagement of this country for the last decade. It’s the reason why we are in such a vulnerable position.

Do people actually believe the “Maple MAGA?” What is it exactly that makes people think PP will sell out to Trump? The conservatives have been backing proper resource management and diversified trade for a long time now. They have been constantly criticizing Canada-US trade and the ridiculous discount applied to our O&G resources. Trump has come out multiple times and voiced his disapproval of PP (not just yesterday)

I can’t really blame Trump for voicing his preference to do business with Canadian Liberals. Probably much easier for him and the US to continue to take
advantage of us.

Pierre Poilievre and frankly the entire Conservative Party suffer from being largely unserious. Poilievre has been a career politician who has spoken poorly about Canada, played up people’s fears, and used catchy slogans as part of his bottom of the barrel political strategy, a set of tactics that are very similar and echo the same kind of rhetoric as Trump. They don’t understand Trump, they don’t understand their role, they don’t understand the moment.

We are in a crisis situation and we need to have a plan. The Conservatives haven’t given me the impression at all that they have a coherent plan that understands the global economy. Carney does. He’s spoken and written about how European and Asian markets are going to have carbon as a core component and we need to be prepared for that.

Europe is our de facto new market to engage with and that carries with it significant carbon standards otherwise we will face tariffs to trade in that market. Are the conservatives even aware of this? Does cutting the corporate carbon tax as Poilievre has proposed have an impact on our ability to strengthen ties to Europe?

Carney has already solidified a number of relationships and is being clear and direct that we will not tolerate the disrespect that Trump is trying to throw at us. He’s isolating Trump and forging defence and economic ties with other countries and it’s not even been a week.

I’ve decided to volunteer for the Liberals because I want politics to return to taken on by serious people and for people to get informed about what is actually going on instead of listening to catchy phrases and rhetoric about how ####ed up our country is. We have some problems, all countries do, we need people who are driven to make Canada better, more equitable, safer, and independent. I don’t think Poilievre has that leadership. O’Toole did, even if I disagreed with his style and his inability to whip his caucus into shape about being prepared and doing the right things instead of childish politics.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Yes, the feds will need to build it. But build what? You say "the pipeline" like there's one option out there. What pipeline are you whining about them not bypassing all governing process to spend billions on?

To be honest it doesn’t really matter. Whatever one is least disruptive I suppose and cheapest? Gonna guess west coast makes the most sense.

You’re aware that without it we won’t have governing process to worry about anyway?

It’s not really whining that you are misreading I’m just taking our political leaders at their word. It’s a threat to take seriously or not?

If it is, build the ####ing pipeline. What are you even getting at?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Our country needs a united federal government capable of laying down the laws and righting the ship in terms of forceful direction to the provinces and it will only help by having everyone be more centrist as ultimately that is absolutely where the majority of Canadians hearts and minds are.

That's pretty silly. Having a party that advocates harder for labour rights, bigger social safety nets, and reducing wealth inequality isn't going to make it harder for Carney to do his job.

All three of the NDP, Greens, and Bloc have done a pretty good job of presenting a united front against Trump even if they don't agree with the Liberals. Apparently PP didn't get the memo or understand the assignment.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by schteve_d

True, but I think back to the old Westjet model that they seem to have abandoned now. It always seemed so clever to me. They flew one model of aircraft for a long time, whether it was empty or full. If your starter or some other widget failed in Saskatoon or Upper Rubber Boot, Nova Scotia, there was probably one on the shelf because there only needed to be one. If Bill the pilot in Kelowna called in sick, you could call any one of your other pilots in because they were trained on this model, you didn't have to get granular and figure out who, in this area, could fly this thing.

My dad was an aircraft mechanic for many, many years in the Canadian military. There are so many hours spent training all personnel, flight and maintenance, on a particular model, and then its' variants. The more you can streamline that, the better.

The drawback is if an aircraft type is grounded, like with the Max, you are in real trouble. The F-35 has been grounded numerous times. But the military is not a commercial airline. I get the advantages of having one fleet, but I think it overlooks the benefits of splitting it, and probably overplays a lot of the issues. I'd hope with newer aircraft they doesn't have to worry about grabbing parts from other bases.


If the worst happened with the US, we wouldn't be totally shut down. The F-35 is also not great without massive ground support, which makes it a lot more challenging to use in the north. That, and a single engine means a failure leads to an airframe loss and possible pilot death. Operational costs are also extremely high, so savings might come over time.


I guess I'm just not convinced the gains from having a single fleet are worth the tradeoffs.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That's pretty silly. Having a party that advocates harder for labour rights, bigger social safety nets, and reducing wealth inequality isn't going to make it harder for Carney to do his job.

All three of the NDP, Greens, and Bloc have done a pretty good job of presenting a united front against Trump even if they don't agree with the Liberals. Apparently PP didn't get the memo or understand the assignment.

But those aren’t the only issues a government votes on.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Kaine

Almost as if there are bigger issues for most Canadian's right now than Left vs Right. Especially when the Liberals are far closer to center than the current UCP.


I have never in my life voted Liberal but I 100% will be next election as my countries sovereignty is far more important to me than old party lines that have shifted so much in recent years they are no longer what they once were.


I strongly suspect I am not alone as a lot of conservative voters feel they no longer have a party.

Yeah, and the Liberals know that and are taking great advantage politically to distract Canadians from this. Looks like most of the bootlickers on here have been duped as well.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1902484645096440256

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

That’s why the assets are in a blind trust. They could be sold and the proceeds used to buy other assets that he has no knowledge of. That’s the point of the blind trust. The assets are out of his control.

If they're in a blind trust and he has no knowledge of them, why does he need to recuse himself from literally anything? In fact why is this even coming up and why did he say what he said?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Well I’m not Mark Carney. If I was I’d absolutely have crew mobilized and things in motion. 110%. I am just hoping they haven’t told anyone.

And if not, great! Must mean our sovereignty isn’t under threat, because we wouldn’t prioritize the silly reasons we don’t have export capacity to rank above sovereignty, would we?

Also let’s get real- the feds are gonna need to build it, just like the last one- nobody is taking that ridiculous risk and even if there was a private company willing to do it, it’d have to be fully de-risked / backstopped federally anyway. So just commit to it and move on already since time is massively of the essence.

So this crew buikding pipe what and where are they building using what materials. Hopefully they are engaging pipeline companies and reviewing the stages each is at for pipeline projects to tidewater and engaging indigenous leaders as partners. That’s step one in this project

None of the 14 oil ceos in there letter to the government proposed a shovel ready project.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

So here’s my conundrum I asked earlier which no one really answered.

We see in Alberta that the grass roots of the UCP will turf someone when they don’t behave “right” enough. Kenny got the boot when he wasn’t extreme enough. We saw that federally that Otoole got the boot when he wasn’t right enough. So when conservatives leaders have moved toward the middle they pay for it in political blood.

We have Danielle smith making overtures to Trump and appearing on right wing media. We have PP being milquetoast in his rejection of Trump. We have posters on this thread musing that they would rather be the 51st state than under Carney. We have polling that shows about 20% of the populous would want to join.

So what does the base on the Conservative Party believe? It does not matter what the individual PM or Premier believes when the party has shown repeatedly it will elect a leader post elections to fit its views.

So politically how sympathetic to Trump is the grassroots of the conservative movement because that is who you are electing into power.

Nailed it. StickMan’s comment wasn’t close to the first on here, but 2ArmBands is pretty conveniently ignoring the fact that the Conservative supporter sentiment is very pro-Trump and anti-Canadian, and that extends right up through high ranking politics like MPs and the Premier of Alberta.

PP is beholden to these people. He’s spent years kowtowing to them. Anyone who believes that doesn’t not and will not have a significant impact has their head in the sand.

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

To be honest it doesn’t really matter. Whatever one is least disruptive I suppose and cheapest? Gonna guess west coast makes the most sense.

You’re aware that without it we won’t have governing process to worry about anyway?

It’s not really whining that you are misreading I’m just taking our political leaders at their word. It’s a threat to take seriously or not?

If it is, build the ####ing pipeline. What are you even getting at?

I think he’s getting at the fact that it’s more complicated and less straightforward than your “just build it! why aren’t they building it!” comments let on.

It would probably be helpful if “it” wasn’t just “any pipeline” if it’s supposed to be a comment anyone takes seriously. It’s going to take years. It’s been days. Even in the most optimistic, bullish “push it forward and F everyone who stands in our way” approach it’s going to be a lot slower than you want it to be.

“Building the ####ing pipeline” is fun to say though. And this isn’t a criticism. I get the sentiment. We’re just going to have to be realistic.