The "LOLCANADA" thread...again
So what's new?
I've noticed the Liberals are now ahead in all major polls and Trudeau hasn't even started to campaign yet
FWIW there isn’t much conservatism left in your “old reform ” polievre ….
He throw them all under the bus , rather siding with maga Bernier ….
lol poilievre still bleating on about this insane conspiracy theory that cancelling the carbon tax is just something they will reverse. Shows how desperate you gotta be that the liberals removed your main fearmongering for two years that you just keep fearmongering about it after you are done.
Barring a miracle comeback by the Conservatives I think Justin Trudeau has a better chance at becoming PM down the line than Poilievre ever will
Harper, Scheer, O'Toole, Poilievre all victims of the Liberal red wave...time for a CPC split?
Watching Fox News Sunday Canadas ambassador Kirsten Hillmen says the tariffs are coming April 2
She was at the meeting with Rob Ford and the USA
Regardless of who wins the next election, I for one am excited for the NDP to finally shed Singh and hopefully find something anything that represents an actual serious progressive option in the future. Like Singh just made a big announcement about f35s being built in Canada and it is just a deeply unserious suggestion like no way Lockheed Martin is ever selling the IP or that Trump would agree or that we have any capacity in Canada to do this. It’s just an endless comical joke. I find this so frustrating with Singh like I watched a “get ready with me” video of his the other day speaking about his background and values and it was genuinely great and personable and in some ways he is an accomplished politician, but ever policy idea is so ridiculous.
Regardless of who wins the next election, I for one am excited for the NDP to finally shed Singh and hopefully find something anything that represents an actual serious progressive option in the future. Like Singh just made a big announcement about f35s being built in Canada and it is just a deeply unserious suggestion like no way Lockheed Martin is ever selling the IP or that
You are so racist !
😀 …
Regardless of who wins the next election, I for one am excited for the NDP to finally shed Singh and hopefully find something anything that represents an actual serious progressive option in the future. Like Singh just made a big announcement about f35s being built in Canada and it is just a deeply unserious suggestion like no way Lockheed Martin is ever selling the IP or that
Singh in a way is tied to Trudeau and its a big reason why he is polling single digit. He comes across as very elitist . He is no Jack Layton or Thomas Mulclair who I like on the Front Bench regularly
Though I doubt $10 childcare or dental coverage happens without him holding the liberals hostage
Too bad Carney killed the carbon tax. We have a moral responsibility to lower our emissions, I guess it's ok to cancel carbons taxes for elections. Personally I know I won't be sleeping well at night knowing we aren't fulfilling our moral duties.
Called it. For two years, poilievre has been chanting axethetax, without clarifying a crucial detail: does he only mean the less impactful consumer portion or does he ALSO mean the industrial part. There was a real hope that he wouldn’t feel he had to cancel the industrial part when he was soaring to victory. But when carney announced he was running and planning to cancel the consumer portion only I predicted ITT that poilievre would want to differentiate himself and still run on the carbon tax and thus cancel the industrial part as well.
Today he finally announced just that. And just that. No plan. Nothing. A void. A lost decade.
And of course the sniveling mockery from the usual crowd at the basic idea we should try to act on climate change is present.
And of course the sniveling mockery from the usual crowd at the basic idea we should try to act on climate change is present.
You've admitted climate change is your number one concern when voting. You have argued for the carbon tax to be higher, that we need to do more, any policy that keeps more oil in the ground is a new one, you cheered gleefully when a hardcore climate activist was named minister of environment. Your argument was we have a moral responsibility to fight climate change and change consumer behavior.
But because the liberals lose the election if they keep the carbon tax you will now make word salad posts performing mental gymnastics to justify it.
You've admitted climate change is your number one concern when voting. You have argued for the carbon tax to be higher, that we need to do more, any policy that keeps more oil in the ground is a new one, you cheered gleefully when a hardcore climate activist was named minister of environment. Your argument was we have a moral responsibility to fight climate change and change co
I think it's called being grounded in reality and advocating for the best available outcome. I don't see how a policy adjustment in reaction to public sentiment is some sort of liberal hypocrisy or whatever the failed glib remark you are going for is.
Democracies are about building policy through compromise. If the people don't give you the political capital and mandate to do something, you can't do it.
Also as an aside, obviously humanity does have those moral obligations and I would love to hear you argue otherwise.
Called it. For two years, poilievre has been chanting axethetax, without clarifying a crucial detail: does he only mean the less impactful consumer portion or does he ALSO mean the industrial part. There was a real hope that he wouldn’t feel he had to cancel the industrial part when he was soaring to victory. But when carney announced he was running and planning to cancel the c
You've admitted climate change is your number one concern when voting. You have argued for the carbon tax to be higher, that we need to do more, any policy that keeps more oil in the ground is a new one, you cheered gleefully when a hardcore climate activist was named minister of environment. Your argument was we have a moral responsibility to fight climate change and change co
I think it's called being grounded in reality and advocating for the best available outcome. I don't see how a policy adjustment in reaction to public sentiment is some sort of liberal hypocrisy or whatever the failed glib remark you are going for is. Democracies are about building policy through compromise. If the people don't give you the political capital and mandate to do s
Lets be clear Uke is upset that Pierre is going to scrap the industrial carbon tax as well . He is upset that Pierre has no plan at all to combat climate change . Well neither did Justin Trudeau.
Justin's climate actions would do nothing to reduce climate change
Trudeau failed to plant 2 billion trees I think he got to 9 million Tress suck in carbon He had no plan to get this done it just sounded good
Trudeau pledged to end coal exports by 2031 instead they have gone up every year and he had no plan to end it It just sounded good
If anything Uke should be upset at the liberals for dropping the carbon tax
Lets face reality when you have two of the biggest climate polluters India and China adding more and more coal fired power plants in the 100's and not required to do anything till 2060 and 2070 emissions are never going to fall
Yes humanity has a moral obligation but when 7 billion folks dont care ....
Reality our deficits are a greater threat than climate change to our grandkids but Uke doesn't care about that one
Lets be clear Uke is upset that Pierre is going to scrap the industrial carbon tax as well . He is upset that Pierre has no plan at all to combat climate change . Well neither did Justin Trudeau. Justin's climate actions would do nothing to reduce climate change Trudeau failed to plant 2 billion trees I think he got to 9 million Tress suck in carbon He had no plan to get this
By your logic :
China and India should kill half its population to lower gas emission since u dont understand what gas emission per capita means .
And yes I agree , Trudeau or any other Canadian leaders could not find a policy that would equal to eradicate over 1 billions of human on this earth to lower gas emissions as a whole …
See how dumb it’s sounds your logic ?
Ps: I hope u include yourself in the 7 billions that do not care .
I think it's called being grounded in reality and advocating for the best available outcome. I don't see how a policy adjustment in reaction to public sentiment is some sort of liberal hypocrisy or whatever the failed glib remark you are going for is. Democracies are about building policy through compromise. If the people don't give you the political capital and mandate to do s
It was never popular, and we were told it's revenue neutral, we have a moral obligation, we must continue to fight climate change. Popular opinion on it didn't just suddenly change because there an election soon.
Also as an aside, obviously humanity does have those moral obligations and I would love to hear you argue otherwise.
I don't have to argue it. My stance is the morally correct one. Why don't you explain why should have policies that make energy more expensive when 3 billion people use less than your refrigerator.
It was never popular, and we were told it's revenue neutral, we have a moral obligation, we must continue to fight climate change. Popular opinion on it didn't just suddenly change because there an election soon. I don't have to argue it. My stance is the morally correct one. Why don't you explain why should have policies that make energy more expensive when 3 billion people us
- it was revenue neutral for the vast majority but people wouldn’t care about it or wouldn’t believe it shrug
- If Canada pay more for energy it does not mean the 3 billions people using less energy elsewhere would pay more …
Ah yes , having prices rising when demands and consumptions going higher is such an unknown concept .
By your logic :China and India should kill half its population to lower gas emission since u dont understand what gas emission per capita means .And yes I agree , Trudeau or any other Canadian leaders could not find a policy that would equal to eradicate over 1 billions of human on this earth to lower gas emissions as a whole …See how dumb it’s sounds your logic ?
No I am a realistic knowing that nothing but technology or an extreme pandemic solves that problem. So why destroy our economy for China and India
It was never popular, and we were told it's revenue neutral, we have a moral obligation, we must continue to fight climate change. Popular opinion on it didn't just suddenly change because there an election soon. I don't have to argue it. My stance is the morally correct one. Why don't you explain why should have policies that make energy more expensive when 3 billion people us
Neither of these paragraphs make any sense. What does this have to do with the new Prime Minister deciding it's not a policy of his government?
What does 3 billion people using less energy than a refridgerator have to do with building an economic framework that accounts for externalities like pollution?
Feels like we need to do economics 101, logic 101, science 101,
policy 101, and possibly english 101 to even start this argument.
Neither of these paragraphs make any sense. What does this have to do with the new Prime Minister deciding it's not a policy of his government?
Because since it's been implemented all we've heard from Liberals is how important it is. Now that there is an election they will lose if they don't remove it we here excuses for it being removed.
You claimed we have a moral obligation to combat climate change and for me to argue why we shouldn't. We need more energy not less, we have a moral obligation to provide humans with more energy. The policies and party you endorse help prevent that therefore it's on your to argue why it's morally ok to have policies that keep 3 billion people in energy poverty.
have to do with building an economic framework that accounts for externalities like pollution?
Pollution or carbon?
With how fast the Conservatives are falling in the polls I think Trudeau probably would have won again.
Watching Poilievre's concession speech is going to be so satisfying
Because since it's been implemented all we've heard from Liberals is how important it is. Now that there is an election they will lose if they don't remove it we here excuses for it being removed. You claimed we have a moral obligation to combat climate change and for me to argue why we shouldn't. We need more energy not less, we have a moral obligation to provide humans with
Oh man if you think that is a moral imperative then you must REALLY like foreign aid programs. Big advocate for increasing those right?
A carbon tax is a market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by putting a price on carbon pollution (yes, pollution!). The point of a carbon tax is not to make energy more expensive, but to price in the future environmental costs of emissions while incentivizing businesses and consumers to shift toward cleaner energy sources, increase energy efficiency, and develop new technologies. Economics are constantly trying to effectively capture all the costs and benefits in the equation. It's about creating an efficient market that actually accounts for the public good. The problem, of course, is that other actors in the world don't price these things which can leave an unfair playing ground. And I actually agree with this point that these policies have to be thought through from that perspective and I would like our government to focus more on cutting the red tape towards energy and resource production. It's a continued process of refinement though, not one of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and giving into weird cults of hate and negativity.
Global access to energy and production levels have actually been steadily increasing with all these stupid progressives ruining the world btw.
Oh man if you think that is a moral imperative then you must REALLY like foreign aid programs. Big advocate for increasing those right? A carbon tax is a market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by putting a price on carbon pollution (yes, pollution!). The point of a carbon tax is not to make energy more expensive, but to price in the future environmenta
detail here is you are accounting for costs that aren't caused by Canadian fossil fuel consumption, and that doesn't damage Canada at all (a warmer world is obviously beneficial to you massively).
so you are internalizing costs paid elsewhere by others to which maybe Canada contributes in a slight manner, and I ternalizing utility functions of non Canadians to justify utilitarian Canadian legislation is a complete and absolute violation of the democratic principle.
Canadian laws should exclusively be written with the benefit of Canadians in mind and never, without exception, anyone else at all in the slightest and it is borderline treasonous, and deeply inimical to your country, to even suggest the contrary.
A piguvian tax to solve externalities paid by Canadians Might make sense. for non Canadians, it's always obscene and deeply immoral and disqualifing for proponents to the fullest. one of the worst possible approaches to national politics I could think of. a complete violation of the social contract. Treason
