Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[belsarius]

I challenge anyone saying that Canada's emissions don't matter to just stay home on election nights.

Its 1 vote in 30 million, casting it won't make any difference so why bother.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I think I can sum up Stickman's position


1) Global emissions are all that matters, but Canada's emissions aren't global
2) Individual emissions don't matter, because apparently per capita emissions don't make up global emissions (lucky for Canada I guess)
3) even though individual emissions don't matter, it's lifestyle changes that are required
4) even though lifestyle choices are required, it's again, China's, and only China's emissions that matter, so Canadians don't need to make any changes
5) Canada should do something to help China make their lifestyle changes, but not by spending any money
6) Even if Canadians could make a difference via lifestyle changes, having a system in place to incentivize those choices, and fund initiatives that create those lifestyle changes is dumb

Corollary:
1) Standard rant about electric cars being worse than gas even though that is demonstrably untrue
2) A profound misunderstanding of equilibrium w.r.t. trees
3) something, something, Trudeau, something, something, virtue signaling

In short, he knows exactly how to solve the GHG emissions issue, except that he doesn't, and he is all in favour of a solution, provided it doesn't affect him in any way.

[PepsiFree]

I have yet to see StickMan make one cogent argument in their entire posting history. The person is either a troll, a bot, or someone with an unhealthy obsession with Trudeau stemming from some other issues. Either way, not someone worth engaging in any way.

Though I did appreciate Azure getting called out for having zero idea of how the carbon tax works. That seems to be a theme with everyone in this convo against it. Kind of an amazing coincidence, isn’t it? Fun read anyway.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

You know, now that I think of it, I think I'm actually on Stickman's side.
'Cause if I use his logic I can have a lot more fun

1) Grab an extra dessert at every meal. It's not per meal calories that matter, its daily calories. So yeah I'll have dessert after dinner, oh and a post breakfast sundae? yes please, lunch ice cream? Sign me up, one dessert isn't going to make me fat.

2) Continuously have one more round before driving home. It's not alcohol per drink that matters, it's total alcohol. Yeah, I'll have one more round, and another after that, and sure, why not, let's get another, after all, one drink isn't going to get me too drunk to drive.

3) I'm gonna spend like and extra couple hundred bucks a day with no impact to my budget, because it's not spend per day that matters, it's total spend. Heck yeah I'll go out to Hy's tonight, and tomorrow, and the day after, one day isn't going to wreck my budget

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by StickMan

The carbon tax is nothing more then theft.

Tax isn’t theft, and until you accept that reality then there really isn’t any more to discuss

[aaronck]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I have yet to see StickMan make one cogent argument in their entire posting history. The person is either a troll, a bot, or someone with an unhealthy obsession with Trudeau stemming from some other issues. Either way, not someone worth engaging in any way.

Though I did appreciate Azure getting called out for having zero idea of how the carbon tax works. That seems to be a theme with everyone in this convo against it. Kind of an amazing coincidence, isn’t it? Fun read anyway.

I seem to recall he was big on Trump as well?

[StickMan]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

You know, now that I think of it, I think I'm actually on Stickman's side.
'Cause if I use his logic I can have a lot more fun

1) Grab an extra dessert at every meal. It's not per meal calories that matter, its daily calories. So yeah I'll have dessert after dinner, oh and a post breakfast sundae? yes please, lunch ice cream? Sign me up, one dessert isn't going to make me fat.

2) Continuously have one more round before driving home. It's not alcohol per drink that matters, it's total alcohol. Yeah, I'll have one more round, and another after that, and sure, why not, let's get another, after all, one drink isn't going to get me too drunk to drive.

3) I'm gonna spend like and extra couple hundred bucks a day with no impact to my budget, because it's not spend per day that matters, it's total spend. Heck yeah I'll go out to Hy's tonight, and tomorrow, and the day after, one day isn't going to wreck my budget

Obviously you are a lost cause, and this is why this country is in such a sad state.

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

I seems like a chincy inefficient way of making a small (hard to measure) difference.
I think most people with a conscience would prefer something more effective in the long run. Something that actually changes the amount of global emissions by the largest polluters.

I have no solution. And the carbon tax may be a a microscopic step in the right direction. But it relies on tax payers. Some of whom are already struggling to make ends meet. And there has got to be a better way. Something more effective.

But everyone against the carbon tax is dumb according to this forum.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by StickMan

Obviously you are a lost cause, and this is why this country is in such a sad state.

Wow....
You've spend this whole time arguing from a place of complete ignorance.

You don't understand even the basics of a policy you're arguing against.
You parrot talking points that are demonstrably untrue, and when that is pointed out you just ignore that someone called you out on it (trees for example).
You claim any of this matters to you, but you don't want to do anything about it other than blame others.

Yes it's people like me, who take the time to understand the topics I'm actually talking about that are the problem. People that can actually debate the content of a policy rather than say "It's dumb, that's obvious"

I'll give credit to a guy like Poilievre, at least he understands that by doing what you're doing he's at least getting himself a job. He doesn't want an answer to the problem, because the problem is more valuable to him than getting a solution for it. You? You just don't want to put the effort into actually understanding what you're even talking about.

Am I wrong? Maybe, but at least I can articulate why I think I'm right.
You're just yelling "Nuh uh! You're wrong" with nothing substantive to say or even support your position.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Salt Water Cowboy #10

I seems like a chincy inefficient way of making a small (hard to measure) difference.
I think most people with a conscience would prefer something more effective in the long run. Something that actually changes the amount of global emissions by the largest polluters.

I have no solution. And the carbon tax may be a a microscopic step in the right direction. But it relies on tax payers. Some of whom are already struggling to make ends meet. And there has got to be a better way. Something more effective.

But everyone against the carbon tax is dumb according to this forum.

As I've been saying all along we are the largest polluters.
Is Canada? No.
Are Canadians? Yes
That's an important distinction to make, and it points to the fact that we have some responsibility in the matter.

As for relying on tax payers, we are all tax payers, and any solution is going to cost money. No one is going to do it on their own, it pretty much has to be government driven, and that means government spending of tax dollars.
If we could get people/industries to make changes without government intervention we would all still be paying for it, so whether it's taxpayers or consumers who are paying is really just semantics. Either way we all have to pay.

As to being against the carbon tax = being dumb.
I've never said anything like that. I know people who are against the carbon tax who I think are very intelligent, and I've spoken with them a lot about it.
What I think is dumb is arguing against a thing with almost no knowledge of how it actually works (and using examples of the exact opposite of how it works as in your reasoning) , throwing out things you've heard that you think make your point, but are factually incorrect (trees), and just ignoring the reality of Canada's disproportionately large impact on global emissions.

Being against something isn't dumb, but arguing against something without even knowing the basic facts, and using lies to try to bolster your position isn't exactly smart.

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

As I've been saying all along we are the largest polluters.
Is Canada? No.
Are Canadians? Yes
That's an important distinction to make, and it points to the fact that we have some responsibility in the matter.

As for relying on tax payers, we are all tax payers, and any solution is going to cost money. No one is going to do it on their own, it pretty much has to be government driven, and that means government spending of tax dollars.
If we could get people/industries to make changes without government intervention we would all still be paying for it, so whether it's taxpayers or consumers who are paying is really just semantics. Either way we all have to pay.

As to being against the carbon tax = being dumb.
I've never said anything like that. I know people who are against the carbon tax who I think are very intelligent, and I've spoken with them a lot about it.
What I think is dumb is arguing against a thing with almost no knowledge of how it actually works (and using examples of the exact opposite of how it works as in your reasoning) , throwing out things you've heard that you think make your point, but are factually incorrect (trees), and just ignoring the reality of Canada's disproportionately large impact on global emissions.

Being against something isn't dumb, but arguing against something without even knowing the basic facts, and using lies to try to bolster your position isn't exactly smart.

I wish I lived in Hawaii then. So I wouldn’t pollute so much. And all I had to worry about was the massive amounts of carbon and gasses produced by the volcano I lived on. But at least I wouldn’t get taxed on it.

But yes I know nothing and just enjoy arguing with people. There are no better solutions to this than an awesome tax.
Who are these intelligent people you spoke with that are against carbon tax? I should probably chat with them instead

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Salt Water Cowboy #10

I wish I lived in Hawaii then. So I wouldn’t pollute so much. And all I had to worry about was the massive amounts of carbon and gasses produced by the volcano I lived on. But at least I wouldn’t get taxed on it.

But yes I know nothing and just enjoy arguing with people. There are no better solutions to this than an awesome tax.
Who are these intelligent people you spoke with that are against carbon tax? I should probably chat with them instead

Naw, you would be worse there:



https://energy.hawaii.gov/wp-content...gures-2020.pdf

[Derek Sutton]

The blind faith some posters have in our government is comical.

[StickMan]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Wow....
You've spend this whole time arguing from a place of complete ignorance.

You don't understand even the basics of a policy you're arguing against.
You parrot talking points that are demonstrably untrue, and when that is pointed out you just ignore that someone called you out on it (trees for example).
You claim any of this matters to you, but you don't want to do anything about it other than blame others.

Yes it's people like me, who take the time to understand the topics I'm actually talking about that are the problem. People that can actually debate the content of a policy rather than say "It's dumb, that's obvious"

I'll give credit to a guy like Poilievre, at least he understands that by doing what you're doing he's at least getting himself a job. He doesn't want an answer to the problem, because the problem is more valuable to him than getting a solution for it. You? You just don't want to put the effort into actually understanding what you're even talking about.

Am I wrong? Maybe, but at least I can articulate why I think I'm right.
You're just yelling "Nuh uh! You're wrong" with nothing substantive to say or even support your position.

You're an idiot, you haven't listened to a thing I've said. You parrot back left-wing garbage without any thought. I think you are arguing from ignorance, your per Capita arguments are complete garbage, dividing a countries emissions by the population is not a way to show how much co2 each individual person emits and is completely irrelevant when discussing global emissions and carbon tax. You are a lost cause who will happily and mindless keep paying Trudeau's taxes thinking it somehow absolves you of any environmental responsibility. When you grow up and want to discuss how to make a real difference with global emissions then let me know, until then keep paying your garbage tax and watch the environment self destruct. It is people like you why we won't win the climate change battle, good luck saving the world with your per Capita co2 reduction plan.

[Monahammer]

Every oil company in Canada wants a carbon tax because it sets the baseline price for a carbon market. They would be deploying large CCUS projects here if they were confident that a change of government wouldn't potentially destroy that market.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Salt Water Cowboy #10

I wish I lived in Hawaii then. So I wouldn’t pollute so much. And all I had to worry about was the massive amounts of carbon and gasses produced by the volcano I lived on. But at least I wouldn’t get taxed on it.

But yes I know nothing and just enjoy arguing with people. There are no better solutions to this than an awesome tax.
Who are these intelligent people you spoke with that are against carbon tax? I should probably chat with them instead

wrt volcano: well humans haven't done a lot to influence the number of volcanos erupting over the last thousand years or so, so that is already baked into the pre industrial CO2 emissions for the planet...again...equilibrium is a thing

As for the bolded part. I never said that was the case, no one here has said that. What we've said is that is one part of a solution and it's the part we have now. It has merits, and it's not perfect, but you gotta start somewhere.

I love talking about this kind of stuff with people who are willing to have an honest conversation from either an informed or curious position.

Stickman is neither.

He's not informed, he doesn't understand the basic mechanics of the program he is against, and he tries to defend is position with nonsense about trees.

He's not curious.
He clearly doesn't know how the program works.
He doesn't understand why things like the number of trees Canada has doesn't matter in the equation.
And he ignores the fact that the only way to get global/absolute emissions down is by reducing per capita emissions (ie he doesn't want to discuss the fact that the 2 numbers are coupled, he just flat out dismisses a mathematical truth)
But instead of following up on any of that, or asking a question, he just doubles down, and says "That's stupid"

You don't have to be an expert on something to have a conversation or debate about it. Lord knows I'm not an expert on any of this. But you at least have to be ready to either back up your position with facts, be ready to consider facts that you previously didn't know, and to acknowledge when what you though were facts are show to be untrue, that you should reconsider any position that was based on that incorrect information.

Edit:
And while I was typing this, I see he called me an idiot.
He hasn't pointed out anything factually incorrect about what I've said, his only argument is per capita numbers don't matter because I guess the mathematical certainty that the only way to reduce absolute emissions is by reducing per capita emissions is just, like, my opinion...and a stupid one at that.

He got me real good with that parrot bit too.
I guess that makes sense when my our opposing positions are essentially:

BBS: the carbon tax is an imperfect system, but it is one method to incentivize Canadians to lower their own GHG emissions which will result in a lower overall number for Canada, which is ultimately all we can control, and without taking care of our own back yard, our calls for anyone else do do anything will fall on deaf ears, and be met with replies of "Every one of your citizens is 4x worse than one of ours"

Stickman: If I ignore math, I can conclude Canada doesn't matter. We have trees, and someone told me that was a good thing. I really don't care about this, but I can sound like I do by presenting a solution that doesn't impact me, and has no more substance than "China bad".

[Johnny Makarov]

Things were alot better in here when Schtickman was only allowed to post once a week.

[StickMan]

This left-wing Trudeau support forum is always a good time, I hope you have enjoyed your entertainment for today, see you next week.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by StickMan

This left-wing Trudeau support forum is always a good time, I hope you have enjoyed your entertainment for today, see you next week.

Wait....leave the ball please.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by StickMan

This left-wing Trudeau support forum is always a good time, I hope you have enjoyed your entertainment for today, see you next week.

You show them whose boss in the Calgary Sun comment section! Don't hold back!