• We are delighted to introduce GiftBot 2.0, the next generation of our popular gifting feature. To celebrate, we'll be giving away some incredible prizes over the coming weeks in one big Giveaway Extravaganza!

Canadian Election 2019 |OT| One Long Year of Scheer Stupidity

weirder

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
2,833
Environmental concerns too often take a back seat to the ideological. It might be part of the problem.
Maybe it isn't only the Cons that are keeping environmental policies from gaining prominence.

For some it appears there can only be enviromentalism if it fits their ideology.
 
OP
OP
Caz

Caz

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,556
Canada
In more "pandering to sovereignists voters" news: Scheer's Conservatives target Bloc Québécois votes to make gains in Quebec
"It's not the Bloc that's going to replace Justin Trudeau, that's clear. It's not the Bloc that will give you more money in your pocket. Quebecers can only count on us," he said.

"It doesn't matter who the leader is. The Bloc will always be powerless spectators."
...
While the election has not been called yet, early pre-campaigning indicates the party is looking to attract sovereigntist voters who might otherwise vote Bloc.
 

Kernel

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,468

Liberals should copy that line since he toots his horn so much.


Already beaten to it but they should have just used Cuts Like a Knife.
 

killerrin

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,805
Toronto
no problemo

Hey. Stop looking over there. Look over here.

Remember, the reason we can't have a proper Healthcare system with Dental, Pharmacare, Ambulance, Optical, Mental and more is because we can't afford it. I mean, just look at our deficit! Somebody has to do something about that first. And don't even think about Free Post-Secondary Education or UBI. We. Can't. Afford. It.

We can never afford any new programs. Taxing the 1% never works and even if it did, Canadians are taxed to the brim and the 1% are already shouldering the entierty of the burden. The money always has to come from somewhere, stop lying to Canadians and tell us how much are you going to raise Middle Class Taxes in order to afford your socialist programs.
 

weirder

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
2,833
But remember. We can never afford any new programs. Taxing the 1% never works and even if it did, Canadians are taxed to the brim and the 1% are already shouldering the entierty of the burden. The money always has to come from somewhere, stop lying to Canadians and tell us how much are you going to raise Middle Class Taxes in order to afford your socialist programs.

Hey. Stop looking over there. Look over here.
Lol. I do hope the pbo release makes it into the debate Thursday.
It's good that he leaned into social programs.
May could do something similar except with the environment instead. She'll have no problem discussing the hypothetical I imagine.
Scheer will give trickle piss.
 

Lexxism

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,282
Canadian tax policy experts say they’re pleasantly “surprised” by a new estimate from the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimating a 1% tax on the super wealthy could generate nearly $70 billion dollars in new revenue.

The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a new cost estimate of an NDP campaign proposal to create a new 1% tax on Canada’s wealthiest individuals, applying only to people whose net wealth is $20 million or more.

According to the PBO estimate, a 1% wealth tax would generate $68.6 billion in new revenue over ten years, rising from $5.6 billion in 2021 to $9.5 billion in 2029.

Sanger and Macdonald both agreed the $6-9 billion per year in new revenue would be “substantial.”

Sanger estimates that sum of money would be enough to eliminate tuition fees for every post-secondary student in Canada or cover a good chunk of a national pharmacare plan, while Macdonald suggested the new revenue would be enough to cover a “major push on affordable housing” or “affordable childcare.”
Damn. Just 1% tax on it can generate this much revenue for the government. It's too bad it won't happen.
 

djkimothy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,584
The problem with a 1% wealth tax is that it can easily be evaded as has been covered previously. The Liberals taxed the upper income levels by 2% (IIRC) but no one cared as there are so many tax shelters the money was just re-profiled as something else. You'd have to close a lot of doors to make a wealth tax effective.
 

Vamphuntr

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,587
Damn. Just 1% tax on it can generate this much revenue for the government. It's too bad it won't happen.
Mainly because their money is stashed outside the country in tax havens or in complex organizations that spread the money around the globe.
What a surprise that the Bloc are running a sovereignist.

Also: The Green's stating they won't whip an MP who's in favor of it is the point of contention most people in this thread have with the above news. While the LPC (or any of the major federal parties) should not be running any candidates who were PQ/CAQ/Bloc/literally any party advocating for any province to be sovereign, there is no chance that the LPC is going to allow an MP to publicly support Quebec sovereignty/another referendum while remaining an LPC MP, assuming they win that riding.
Not all of them were in all the way though. My point was more that it was one of their few prestige candidate they are running there because they have a chance to win hence why many of them are running that kind of candidate.

Considering what Réjean Hébert did as health minister under Marois it will be interesting to see what will happen on social media between the different levels of "woke" individuals.
 
Last edited:

GSG

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,955
This will be the only time I use a South Park clip.
Bryan Adams has always been scummy so this isn't surprising.
The wording in the tweet is a bit confusing, it's actually Jim Valance(who co-wrote some of Bryan Adams' songs) who's writing these songs for the Cons, Bryan Adams has nothing to do with this.
 

weirder

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
2,833
9/11
Such a eerie day to announce an election. It's been awhile.
Maybe the Libs are trying to de-stigmatize the day. The attempts to de-stigmatize Fri. 13th have been so successful.

Thought they'd launch the Saturday or Sunday to allow people to really generate some fanfare without feeling a little awkward over doing it on Wednesday over the memorial next door and for the people in Canada that lost people in the event.
 
Oct 27, 2017
931
9/11
Such a eerie day to announce an election. It's been awhile.
Maybe the Libs are trying to de-stigmatize the day. The attempts to de-stigmatize Fri. 13th have been so successful.

Thought they'd launch the Saturday or Sunday to allow people to really generate some fanfare without feeling a little awkward over doing it on Wednesday over the memorial next door and for the people in Canada that lost people in the event.
It has nothing to do with 9/11 and everything to do with having the legally-mandated minimum campaign length.
 

lunarworks

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,807
Toronto
9/11
Such a eerie day to announce an election. It's been awhile.
Maybe the Libs are trying to de-stigmatize the day. The attempts to de-stigmatize Fri. 13th have been so successful.
I didn't even remember that was today until this post mentioned it.

It's been so long since now, 18 years, that yes, it does feel like a normal day.
 

weirder

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
2,833
It has nothing to do with 9/11 and everything to do with having the legally-mandated minimum campaign length.
of course there is that minimum, but they had a few more days to call the election. I wasn't saying it was only about 9/11.
The date falling on 9/11 had to have been discussed.
Obviously, they felt it wasn't important enough to wait until the weekend to avoid the day.
 

Kitschy Kitty

Member
Oct 25, 2017
469
of course there is that minimum, but they had a few more days to call the election. I wasn't saying it was only about 9/11.
The date falling on 9/11 had to have been discussed.
Obviously, they felt it wasn't important enough to wait until the weekend to avoid the day.
There will be people voting in this election that weren't even born when 9/11 happened. If you want to maintain the significance you should pick up the fight to have it declared a national holiday or accept that in the grand scheme of things it's not actually important enough to Canada to avoid scheduling conflicts with the date eternally.
 

weirder

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
2,833
There will be people voting in this election that weren't even born when 9/11 happened. If you want to maintain the significance you should pick up the fight to have it declared a national holiday or accept that in the grand scheme of things it's not actually important enough to Canada to avoid scheduling conflicts with the date eternally.
I'm not for making Fri 13th a national holiday either. What I'm saying is it wasn't a great choice and that it dampens the announcement a bit for those who still memorialize and know people that died or suffered from the event.
 

weirder

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
2,833

The poll also asked respondents to choose the best campaign slogan.

The Greens' "Not left. Not right. Forward Together" was preferred by 22 per cent, followed by 19 per cent for the People's Party's "Strong and Free," 16 per cent for the Conservatives' "It's Time for You to Get Ahead," 13 per cent for the Liberals' "Choose Forward" and six per cent for the NDP's "In it for you."
The big green tent slogan getting the nod.
I hope it might indicate a growing desire for voters to get past left/right tribalism, too.
 

Apathy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,620


The big green tent slogan getting the nod.
I hope it might indicate a growing desire for voters to get past left/right tribalism, too.
That's bull. The greens and their slogan are trash. Regardless of what you think, people lean left or right on topics. Specially when it comes to social issues, a side has to be picked and no be wishy washy on it. That's the problem here, the greens not giving a shit what their candidates want to bring up makes them the wrong choice
 
Oct 27, 2017
8,354

weirder

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
2,833
It seems that candidates having the right to speak out makes things more transparent and easier to discuss as subjects are less taboo. Vetting and selection gives the general direction of the party.
Not sure if it's true but I read this is a bit more free and like how many European parties run things. It's Canadians that are uncomfortable with politicians having the ability to speak out.

This was an interesting bit from that article

Not all topics fall to one side or the other.

Among Green supporters, 31 per cent picked the NDP as their second choice, 22 per cent the Liberals and just five per cent the Conservatives. Among New Democrat supporters, 33 per cent picked the Greens as their second choice, the same percentage as picked the Liberals, with just 14 per cent choosing the Conservatives.
14% of NDP would go Conservative. 3 times as many as the greens. Who's making the wrong choice?


I too desire Both Sides: The Party
The tribal way to interpret it.
It's about you you you you you.
The NDP/Con slogan
 

Alavard

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
906
It seems that candidates having the right to speak out makes things more transparent and easier to discuss as subjects are less taboo. Vetting and selection gives the general direction of the party.
Not sure if it's true but I read this is a bit more free and like how many European parties run things. It's Canadians that are uncomfortable with politicians having the ability to speak out.

This was an interesting bit from that article

Not all topics fall to one side or the other.



14% of NDP would go Conservative. 3 times as many as the greens. Who's making the wrong choice?




The tribal way to interpret it.
It's about you you you you you.
The NDP/Con slogan
I mean, maybe you'd have a point if the examples that came up this week weren't abortion and separatism.
 

Alavard

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
906
Abortion, separatism AND racism lol.
I think you'll find that most of us aren't against the concept of candidates having differing opinions than their leaders in general, and being able to speak about that, but there are certain issues that are important to us that the party must be in solidarity about.
 

weirder

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
2,833
We can't live in denial of the reality of the Canadian political landscape either.
There's the fight to change minds and the fight to work with what's there, who voters are, to make thing better.
Greens aren't going to give into abortion debate, they aren't going to separate Canada or allow racism or sexism.
They'll just work on environment policy with those that have these positions as long as they don't interfere with saving the environment. That's my read.
It's come to that point where environmental people will work with whoever to get things done since Canada's not meeting targets with any other party.
 

Rocket Man

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,350
I wonder how the Cons would be doing if they elected someone like Michael Chong. Dude seems infinitely better than Scheer
 

Kernel

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,468
I wonder how the Cons would be doing if they elected someone like Michael Chong. Dude seems infinitely better than Scheer
I'd have considered voting for someone like Chong.

But there's too many social conservatives and libertarians in the party given that Scheer and Bernier were the 2 finalists.

Regardless of who the leader is, that's the party.
 

Static_Void

Member
Oct 30, 2018
2,519
north of the Dreamlands
It's crazy how to political landscape has changed in Quebec. I remember about 20 years ago, when I could vote for the first time, there wasn't much discussions about left and right. Either you voted federalist, or separatist. The left and right debate – while still somewhat present – was really on the back burner compared to the federalist/separatist dichotomy.

Now it's the opposite. Everybody talks about the left or the right, and very little in term of federalism or separatism. It still pops up once in a while, of course, and some federal/provincial parties are still clearly separatist, but it has taken WAY less importance than 20 years ago.
 

Tiktaalik

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,171
Listening to the CBC Radio broadcasting the live election launch speeches and subsequent Q/A's from Trudeau and Singh.

Both sounding pretty good to me and both candidates of course dodging a few questions as expected and pivoting to what they want to talk about.

The PM dodging questions about SNC Lavalin, the environment and Quebec's bill 21 and spinning back to the strength of the economy. Really interesting to me to hear almost every Quebec reporter grilling the PM about why the Feds aren't getting involved in Bill 21 and won't defend charter rights. I didn't realize how much that's lingering as an issue in QC. Obvious Trudeau doesn't believe in Bill 21, but yeah his answer for why he's sitting out the fight is pretty weak.

Singh dodging his own questions. The first question about the NDP's weakness in the polls was completely unaddressed lmao. The big thing Singh kept pivoting to was that both the Conservatives and Liberals are one in the same in helping out their buddies in the corporate sector. He drew parallels to this to explain why Canada didn't have pharmacare. This sort of lines are classic NDP, (Liberal, Tory same old story) but with the NDP's centrist drift in the last few years under Layton and Mulcair we hadn't heard it expressed so strongly. It's clear it's going to once again be the core theme under Singh.

Speaking in London Singh was asked by a local reporter about cancelling arms deals with Saudi Arabia which would affect local workers, and he explained that he would cancel these deals but jobs would be protected since there's plenty of other work to build supplies for Canada.

Of course now the CBC talking heads are trashing Singh saying he was all over the place in contrast with the 'skillful' PM. Good grief the media bias is so obvious and incredible.
 

Apathy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,620
We can't live in denial of the reality of the Canadian political landscape either.
There's the fight to change minds and the fight to work with what's there, who voters are, to make thing better.
Greens aren't going to give into abortion debate, they aren't going to separate Canada or allow racism or sexism.
They'll just work on environment policy with those that have these positions as long as they don't interfere with saving the environment. That's my read.
It's come to that point where environmental people will work with whoever to get things done since Canada's not meeting targets with any other party.
Again, bullshit. If they are going to allow their members to bring up anything they want and not follow a defined party policy, you can't go and claim that "aren't going to give into" important social issues.
 

Kernel

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,468
Again, bullshit. If they are going to allow their members to bring up anything they want and not follow a defined party policy, you can't go and claim that "aren't going to give into" important social issues.
Yeah.

If you want to be taken seriously than take a serious stand on something, especially key progressive issues like abortion and racism.

Can't call yourself a progressive party if you're unwilling to make a stand on those.
 

weirder

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
2,833
Even if you don't believe in the climate crisis...we're going to save you too!

paraphrase of May but kick ass...
 

weirder

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
2,833
Glad she talked about how important Canadian leadership is in environment policy for the world. Not that Canada's so special or anything. just that we should make it work. They can point to us and go..oh ok..we can do that better.
 

Tiktaalik

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,171
I obviously watch too much Star Trek, because lol I liked that Eliz May "First and foremost we're earthlings" line.