Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Locke

Ugh...and the 'Carbon Tax' lettering should be behind the cross-out not superimposed on it!

It's like they learned nothing from Ghostbusters.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Matata

Equalization payments force us to care a lot about our relations with the rest of the country.

Fair enough. Do you know how equalization works?

[TorqueDog]

There's a really high correlation between people who complain about equalization and people who don't understand how equalization works.

Spoiler!

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-...alization.html

We don't have much to complain about.

[Nufy]

I thought the issue with equalization was that the rules aren't the same for everyone.

Isn't Quebec allowed to remove their hydro resources from the equation while others have to include them ?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

We don't have much to complain about.

My issues with equalization isn't with the concept wealthier regions help support the poorer ones, it's that the economy of Alberta doesn't get much political credit for it (and various other items that goes into the difference between Federal spending and revenue) given how big of the Alberta GDP it represents.

So when oil and gas projects come up, their indirect benefits to the Rest of Canada (through higher Federal surpluses from Alberta) are often ignored, especially by opponents of these projects who often claim private companies and the Government of Alberta are the only ones who benefit.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

As I stated, I'm happy to have that discussion with someone who wants to discuss in good faith. You don't fit that bill, as it seems you're just determined to put yourself on the higher ground so that you can punch down on others.

There's nothing that I can see in what Fuzz has said to suggest bad faith.

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Not sure if I'm misinterpreting this condescending tone and if this is rhetorical/mocking, or a serious question, but given our previous back and forths....

Any time you want to have a serious, nuanced, open conversation off board, I'm all ears, Fuzz.

I always get weirded out when somebody wants to discuss things "off board." Like, wtf. If you have something to say, just say it. If you don't want to talk to somebody, don't. You can even put them on ignore. But an invitation to talk to an antagonistic/emotional poster who is already agitated by your words? No fataing thanks. Who wants to invite BS like that into their life?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Sliver

There's nothing that I can see in what Fuzz has said to suggest bad faith.

... Really?

In his very next post he put something in quotes, as if that's what the poster he's arguing with was really saying, thereby putting words in his mouth that I'm pretty confident he wouldn't endorse. That's basically the definition of bad faith.

I don't really care about the merits of what they were arguing about but in terms of an honest engagement with someone's else's actual views, if you're not seeing a problem on that page you're not looking very hard.

[Geraldsh]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

There's a really high correlation between people who complain about equalization and people who don't understand how equalization works.

Spoiler!

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-...alization.html

We don't have much to complain about.

So the black bars are what funds the red bars…the guys with red bars should be complaining loudly about government efforts to shut down the black-bar industries.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

... Really?

In his very next post he put something in quotes, as if that's what the poster he's arguing with was really saying, thereby putting words in his mouth that I'm pretty confident he wouldn't endorse. That's basically the definition of bad faith.

I don't really care about the merits of what they were arguing about but in terms of an honest engagement with someone's else's actual views, if you're not seeing a problem on that page you're not looking very hard.

Yeah, really. His complaints about bad faith were in response to post #4126, which had no quotes whereby Fuzz was putting words in his mouth about actual discussion at hand (or anything for that matter).

Post #4130 is already after both of those "bad faith" accusations, and calls out ThePrince for being a petulant child who claims to want a discussion but in reality seems to be entirely disinterested in one where he isn't being agreed with.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

... Really?

In his very next post he put something in quotes, as if that's what the poster he's arguing with was really saying, thereby putting words in his mouth that I'm pretty confident he wouldn't endorse. That's basically the definition of bad faith.

I don't really care about the merits of what they were arguing about but in terms of an honest engagement with someone's else's actual views, if you're not seeing a problem on that page you're not looking very hard.

Did you have another way to interpret his comment? ThePrince said

But open to other interpretations/suggestions.

So I gave him a well reasoned one, and his immediate response was to dismiss it. Don't specifically ask for something if you aren't going to like the answer. Go ahead and argue that my points don't make logical sense if you can, but to ask and then dismiss? Weak sauce.

My response "in quotes" was summing up exactly what his position is. If he wanted to argue "no, I think you are wrong on these examples of how we present ourselves to Canadians as being the cause of how they view us" well go ahead with that. Discuss! But to bail that quickly? Just tells me he wasn't actually interested in alternate theories.

Anyway, has the equalization talk should be much more interesting, since we haven't been through that one in awhile.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Yeah, really. His complaints about bad faith were in response to post #4126, which had no quotes whereby Fuzz was putting words in his mouth about actual discussion at hand (or anything for that matter).

Post #4130 is already after both of those "bad faith" accusations, and calls out ThePrince for being a petulant child who claims to want a discussion but in reality seems to be entirely disinterested in one where he isn't being agreed with.

That's not what I did. I summarized his post through the line of thinking he was describing. That wasn't putting words in his mouth, and he was free to discuss that if I interpreted it wrong.

I've yet to read anyone actually argue that my points are wrong in a well reasoned way. Keep at it!

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's not what I did. I summarized his post through the line of thinking he was describing. That wasn't putting words in his mouth, and he was free to discuss that if I interpreted it wrong.

I've yet to read anyone actually argue that my points are wrong in a well reasoned way. Keep at it!

I know that's not what you did. Why didn't you bold the part where I said "had no quotes" which was me in effect saying "Fuzz didn't put words in his mouth directly or otherwise"?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I know that's not what you did. Why didn't you bold the part where I said "had no quotes" which was me in effect saying "Fuzz didn't put words in his mouth directly or otherwise"?

Sorry, misinterpreted your comment. I'll see you at the playground at high noon to settle this.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sorry, misinterpreted your comment. I'll see you at the playground and high noon to settle this.

Where you’ll have a serious, nuanced, open conversation, as is customary.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GGG

That’s an Ontarian cosplaying Albertan.

We got rid of him for a real Albertan Premier now.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by accord1999

My issues with equalization isn't with the concept wealthier regions help support the poorer ones, it's that the economy of Alberta doesn't get much political credit for it (and various other items that goes into the difference between Federal spending and revenue) given how big of the Alberta GDP it represents.

So when oil and gas projects come up, their indirect benefits to the Rest of Canada (through higher Federal surpluses from Alberta) are often ignored, especially by opponents of these projects who often claim private companies and the Government of Alberta are the only ones who benefit.

The way provinces calculate resource revenues is different where that should be a standard calculation.

Also, the formula is not quick enough to respond to provinces that quickly go from good to bad.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

We got rid of him for a real Albertan Premier now.

Wow... that makes the whole thing way more depressing. I didn't think that was even possible.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

We got rid of him for a real Albertan Premier now.

Save that for after the election. She is not operating under a democratic mandate until may.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Save that for after the election. She is not operating under a democratic mandate until may.

With any luck, she won't be operating under a democratic mandate ever.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

With any luck, she won't be operating under a democratic mandate ever.

I feel like it shouldn't be possible for a Premier to govern while not actually being elected. Sure, they could have a sort of "interim" situation when someone resigns, but their powers should be stripped to only the bare minimum required to get the job done because what we're witnessing right now is atrocious.