Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Since you couldn’t answer that question, I will give you an easy one, why is Quebec paying less?

You’re asking the wrong question.

If Quebec is getting such a good deal, why doesn’t everybody else just copy them? If Smith and the UCP want to pick a fight, surely this would be a good one. It either results in Alberta paying less, or truly exposing the favouritism that would drive change. It is fully within the province’s control to put this program in, why haven’t we?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

You’re asking the wrong question.

If Quebec is getting such a good deal, why doesn’t everybody else just copy them? If Smith and the UCP want to pick a fight, surely this would be a good one. It either results in Alberta paying less, or truly exposing the favouritism that would drive change. It is fully within the province’s control to put this program in, why haven’t we?

This is taken right from the Sun article.

Nova Scotia has a very similar cap-and-trade program, and the feds nonetheless expect Nova Scotia to raise its tax to the equivalent of 37¢ a litre by 2030, just like the rest of the country.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Is vote splitting really what you want though? Would be an easier path for a CPC majority.

I didn't say anything about my desires, just interesting to think how it might play out.

[Doctorfever]

Thanks Erick. I came here to post the exact same thing.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Firebot

She's a reporter making a fabricated claim on a question meant to promote a Liberal narrative that she cannot backup, and Poilievre called her out on her claim.

She should have been prepared to answer if these were true.

By the way, it was Trudeau who characterized Poilievre as a dog-whistler, which is why Poilievre called her out on her line of question. That is why she could not answer who.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9122622/p...udeau-visions/

Don't be ridiculous. A quick Google will show you there are many reporters and stories calling out Pierre's dog whistling(going back a long time, too). Just becuase she couldn't recall who wrote one, doesn't make it not true. I'm baffled you would even say this. Are you arguing Pierre has not being doing this?

Googles

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

This is taken right from the Sun article.

Don’t read the Sun.

https://icapcarbonaction.com/en/news...ecember%202023.

As the federal approval for Nova Scotia’s cap-and-trade system was set to expire at the end of 2022, the Nova Scotia government decided to propose an OBPS rather than extending the system.

[Fuzz]

LOL. "Look at these facts from the Sun!"


You are better off staring into the sun than believing their tripe.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Don't be ridiculous. A quick Google will show you there are many reporters and stories calling out Pierre's dog whistling(going back a long time, too). Just becuase she couldn't recall who wrote one, doesn't make it not true. I'm baffled you would even say this. Are you arguing Pierre has not being doing this?

Googles

LOL your google fu is week.

Crier media? Rabble?

did you even look at the results? Unless you want to call someone using a tag #peepee on twitter as an expert and sourcing his own tweet for a news story?

Trudeau is the only notable person who used the term. Hence Poilievre's retort to name names.

Can you name names?

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

LOL. "Look at these facts from the Sun!"


You are better off staring into the sun than believing their tripe.

Is the Globe and Mail better for you? Quebec's cap and trade system in relation to other provinces has been controversial for some time.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...s-the-rest-of/

I don't get it one minute you google fu and source rabble and crier media to counter me for some reason (which actually affirms what I stated), the very next minute you dismiss the Toronto Sun even though the statements can be easily verified. Could it be that your partisanship is clouding your judgement and comments?

I mean you don't need the Toronto Sun to tell you that Quebec is paying less per litre on gasoline with their system.

[Tron_fdc]

I'd be curious to know how Quebec is using Churchill Falls (or the proposed Gull Island) in their carbon tax pricing.

I've always found it weird that they were allowed to use it in their federal equalization formula, which excludes renewable resource revenue. Quebec quite literally pillages Newfoundland's Churchill Falls generation capacity, makes ENORMOUS profits off it, and doesn't have to include it in their equalization revenue calculations.

I'm assuming they would be somehow including it in their cap and trade or carbon tax calculations?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Is the Globe and Mail better for you? Quebec's cap and trade system in relation to other provinces has been controversial for some time.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...s-the-rest-of/

I don't get it one minute you google fu and source rabble and crier media to counter me for some reason (which actually affirms what I stated), the very next minute you dismiss the Toronto Sun even though the statements can be easily verified. Could it be that your partisanship is clouding your judgement and comments?

I mean you don't need the Toronto Sun to tell you that Quebec is paying less per litre on gasoline with their system.

Ontario was going to join the Quebec program. Then we elected a Conservative government who cancelled it. And then we got dragged into the federal carbon tax.

Is there any reason why anyone else can't just join the same Quebec program if its so much better?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I could see Notley having a Jack Layton moment seizing the fatigued Liberal voter. I'm not convinced she'd end up PM anytime soon, but depending on how things go, could find herself in opposition.

I can definitely see a Layton moment but with respect to a decline in ANDP support and numbers after Notley is gone.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Firebot

She's a reporter making a fabricated claim on a question meant to promote a Liberal narrative that she cannot backup, and Poilievre called her out on her claim.

She should have been prepared to answer if these were true.

There's nothing fabricated about it. There was a Canadian Press article 4 days ago quoting multiple political science professors talking about that exact thing; her mistake was not being prepared for getting bogged down in semantics by knowing the names of the professors:

Duane Bratt, political science professor at Mount Royal University in Calgary, said some people have long embraced conspiracies, but now they have moved into mainstream politics.

"The big shift that we have seen is that it is now being promoted by someone who could be prime minister," said Bratt.

Poilievre peddled the WEF control claims during the Conservative leadership race in 2022, and it has emerged again as a regular talking point following the federal byelection in southern Manitoba, said Bratt.

In that contest in Portage-Lisgar, the Conservatives were looking to beat back a growing challenge from the People's Party of Canada.

Maxime Bernier, the leader of that party who has long accused the WEF of having a globalist agenda, ran in the byelection. The Conservatives attacked him for having attended the Davos summit when he was Harper's foreign affairs minister in 2008. Bratt said Poilievre's embrace of conspiracy theories could be because he's attempting to steal back votes from the PPC.

"The question is does he really believe it or is he just pandering to people, and will he pivot again if he becomes prime minister," Bratt said.

Kawser Ahmed, a politics professor at the University of Winnipeg with a research specialty in conspiracy theories, said the number and uptake of conspiracy theories began to grow after the 2016 presidential election in the United States, aided by social media and encrypted messaging apps.

...

"There's a lot of ideas that are now moving into the mainstream that are simply not supported by science, evidence or facts," he said. "But it doesn't matter and some of those politicians have been elected, like the current premier of Alberta."

United Conservative Party premier Danielle Smith has said she is in lockstep with Poilievre, and will having nothing to do with the World Economic Forum.

Populism has driven politicians to feed into conspiracy theories because they need votes, and fear is a great motivator, said Ahmed. They get less interest peddling for votes using their record.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/poil...ries-1.6517247

[Yoho]

All this garbage is a deflection from the floundering liberals and their failed policy nothing more.

Try finding one fair and balanced Duane Bratt story or take.

He made a fool out of himself crying on tv when Provincial NDP lost again in Alberta.

[btimbit]

I don't need a news report to tell me something I already know. We saw it plain as day many times, one example being during the trucker occupation in Ottawa. This current brand of Conservative in Canada has no problem cozying up to the exact people that they should be distancing themselves from, and that turns traditional Conservatives like myself away.

I can't stand the current brand of Liberals either. I wish we had one party led by adults

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Firebot

LOL your google fu is week.

Crier media? Rabble?

did you even look at the results? Unless you want to call someone using a tag #peepee on twitter as an expert and sourcing his own tweet for a news story?

Trudeau is the only notable person who used the term. Hence Poilievre's retort to name names.

Can you name names?

Do I have to hold your hand for how Google works? You get a list of results and then you can click on these links to see what they have to say. It's pretty neat. It also doesn't mean the first result is one you trust.

Here's one from Dale Smith:

One of Poilievre’s campaign promises is to be “anti-woke,” though he doesn’t define what that is supposed to mean. It’s a dog whistle to those who believe diversity and inclusion to be bad things—and more to the point, who believe they are leading to societal decline.

https://xtramagazine.com/power/polit...opulism-236084

It's also mentioned by Adam Zivo of the National Post.

Let me be clear: no one is saying that there is anything shameful in being straight. Rather, many believe that the term straight pride is a dog whistle for something darker — and while accusations of “dog whistling” may be grossly abused by progressives these days, it is apt in this case.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ada...e-is-offensive


It's actually baffling you and Pierre haven't come across these stories, or similar ones about courting the far right. Am I on crazy pills here? Seems like it comes up all the time.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by opendoor

There's nothing fabricated about it. There was a Canadian Press article 4 days ago quoting multiple political science professors talking about that exact thing; her mistake was not being prepared for getting bogged down in semantics by knowing the names of the professors:



https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/poil...ries-1.6517247

I don't see the word dog-whistling, a term coined by Trudeau specifically a year ago on a congratulatory statement on Poilievre's inauguration of all things.

And yes Poilievre is well aware of that article considering he tweeted a reply on it.

If a reporter is using words that only Trudeau notably has been found to have used, and unable to provide an answer when called on it, and resorted to experts but couldn't name what experts said it, that's a partisan narrative.

Does Poilievre pander to the more right elements of the party? Yes as we have seen.

Is he dog-whistling? That's a fabricated narrative coined by a partisan source and a loaded question that got called out.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I can definitely see a Layton moment but with respect to a decline in ANDP support and numbers after Notley is gone.

Ya, and I wouldn't be surprised if she is struggling with that. She knows she is the best hope for the party. Her leaving is a big risk to future success.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

I don't see the word dog-whistling, a term coined by Trudeau specifically a year ago on a congratulatory statement on Poilievre's inauguration of all things.

And yes Poilievre is well aware of that article considering he tweeted a reply on it.

If a reporter is using words that only Trudeau notably has been found to have used, and unable to provide an answer when called on it, and resorted to experts but couldn't name what experts said it, that's a narrative.

Are you saying Trudeau invented the term dog whistling?

You’re a little better than that, come on back to reality firebot.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Is the Globe and Mail better for you? Quebec's cap and trade system in relation to other provinces has been controversial for some time.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...s-the-rest-of/

I don't get it one minute you google fu and source rabble and crier media to counter me for some reason (which actually affirms what I stated), the very next minute you dismiss the Toronto Sun even though the statements can be easily verified. Could it be that your partisanship is clouding your judgement and comments?

I mean you don't need the Toronto Sun to tell you that Quebec is paying less per litre on gasoline with their system.

No mention in that article about Nova Scotia, which was the point being discussed.