Canadian Federal Election

[casper]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Isn't that all you need to know?

Yes WEF wants a greener more sustainable world. The crazy conspiracy is that is going to enforce some world government which is also contradictory if we need to choose our PM based on resisting that. (If we have no control why does it mater?)

Yes Carney supports the carbon neutral agenda. He's pretty upfront about that.

The WEF fundamentally is about public-private cooperation and global citizenship. That means in a very lose way rules-based-order, international trade and respect for the environment. Given it has no authority and basically just organizes a conference every year its impact is fairly limited.

Carney is also pragmatic. We can't get to a carbon neutral world overnight. It is going to take years and decades. Keep the economy growing while we do what we can where we can to get there over time.

Much happier with that than a government that is in the back pocket of the oil companies. We want to see the oil companies be successful but its not a blank cheque.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

It's almost the same thing that Acajack did, where he just dropped a statement and then didn't follow it up with anything for a couple of posts, which drove people nuts.

In which case the problem obviously was on the side of the handful of people who were “driven nuts” by so little…

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lio45

In which case the problem obviously was on the side of the handful of people who were “driven nuts” by so little…

You might want to review the thread, if the posts are still up. Acajack starting swearing and freaking out almost immediately.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The point of a discussion forum is to discuss our opinions and biases. Just dropping in a video link doesn't further that. You posted the video for a reason, let us know what that reason is!

Because you don't need a middleman to report what an expert is saying. I'm asking for debate on what she is saying, I'm not the expert, you should be agreeing or disagreeing with her not me. I'm not the one making the statements, she is.

There seems to be a whole lot of deflection going on to not watch a video, I am missing the whole point on that. I can delete it if you guys want.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by lio45

In which case the problem obviously was on the side of the handful of people who were “driven nuts” by so little…

Sure seems to be the case. His only sin was the occasional light opposition to the prevailing narrative. I guess after 20 years anybody can get frustrated by overwhelming goading and bullying.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Many people argue that a pipeline heading east is not financially viable. I’m all for investing in profitable infrastructure but if this is purely to feed Albertan fantasies of victimhood, then no. Carney seems like someone who will make the right choice based on facts not emotion.

I completely agree. Although I support the Energy East pipeline in principle, the reality is that it simply doesn't make financial sense.

The reason why EE was once financially viable is because TC was going to build it and 2/3rds was already built as they would have simply transferred their NG pipeline to oil. No other oil company had that huge advantage but TC has made it VERY clear recently that they have absolutely no intention of reviving it regardless of whether Quebec supports it or not. This means any new proposals would basically have to start from scratch costing a minimum of $50 billion in todays dollars so probably $100 billion by the time it's built. The earliest it could go on-line would be 2035 and that makes the stupid assumptions that it would not be held up in the courts by environmentalist/municipalities/First Nations. The only pipeline that makes sense is getting from Alberta to Kitimat. It would actually be much easier/faster/cheaper to build as the routes generally go thru mountain valleys while going thru northern Ontario would mean crossing hundreds of lakes and rivers in completely isolated areas.

Alberta may have a hissy fit but the reality is that if no oil company is willing to build it then that speaks volumes about how financially unviable it is. Unfortunately, Smith is going to play the rejection for all it's worth to stoke even more Alberta alienation.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Alberta may have a hissy fit but the reality is that if no oil company is willing to build it then that speaks volumes about how financially unviable it is. Unfortunately, Smith is going to play the rejection for all it's worth to stoke even more Alberta alienation.

Albertan politicians knowingly lying about these economic realities infuriates me. They do not care about the consequences to national unity whatsoever.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Albertan politicians knowingly lying about these economic realities infuriates me. They do not care about the consequences to national unity whatsoever.

It is infuriating but I disagree they don't care about the consequences to national unity. People like Smith know it will cause a rift between Ottawa and Alberta and that is fine with her. She is a closet Alberta separatist and so a refusal of EE, regardless of the reasons, would make her grin like the Grinch.

Where Alberta does have a legitimate complaint is the ban on oil freighters on the West Coast. They say it is an environmental concern but somehow they are allowed on the East Coast. The oil tankers today are VASTLY safer than the ones that caused the Exxon Valdez disaster. Back then tankers had only one hull but now must be double hull and the that is not only the sides but the bottoms as well. Added to this, the halls are about a meter apart. This has been the law by international treaty for all new tankers delivered since 1993. Now almost all are out of commission and Canada and the US no longer allow single hull oil tankers in their waters. No double hulled tankers have ever had an major oil leak.

Comparing the safety of oil tankers of today to yesteryear is like comparing the safety of cars today to the ones in the 1950s............there is no comparison.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Taeolas

Yeah, I'm puzzled by this odd poll, and a bit concerned about it (mainly due to how messy polling was in the States). It makes me worried the other polling companies are chasing an illusion for some reason and the Hopium levels have gotten too high.

Maybe/hopefully this is just a proper outlier and it will snap back in their next polling cycle, or something else will happen.

The U.S. polling did seem to show Harris ahead more often than not, but the race was always closer than people often remember. Looking at wikipedia's page on the polling results for the election, both parties regularly took the lead in the polls (though the Dems more often) and Harris' leads ranged mostly from 1-3 percent. The polling aggregators mostly had Harris leading by one point or less, whereas Canadian aggregators currently have the Liberals in the lead by five or six points--and we know that due to the vote efficiency problems the Conservatives have, that's effectively a lead of more like eight points. The polling in Canada could be wrong by triplethe margin of error and the Liberals would still likely win.

Now, again, maybe Mainstreet is picking up on something. Or maybe it's the inevitable occassional bad poll. We should have a much clearer idea by mid-week, at which point there will be the opportunity for the debates to move things one way or another.

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You might want to review the thread, if the posts are still up. Acajack starting swearing and freaking out almost immediately.

I didn't read it that way, but my posts were deleted, so I guess my opinion doesn't count.

Maybe this will get deleted, too. Still never had an explanation.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The U.S. polling did seem to show Harris ahead more often than not, but the race was always closer than people often remember.

Don't forget the infamous Iowa poll, done by the lady who was supposed to be the Gold standard of polling.

[MolsonExport]

Most people are not going to want to watch a 1-hour long video, no matter who is being featured. If it is someone unknown, that proportion becomes vanishingly small.



As to the other issue, which keeps coming up, if you tell members to "fuck off" you will be suspended immediately. There is no ambiguity here, and it is entirely disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Discipline

Personal insults made in this section and elsewhere on the forum, such as name calling and or insulting someone's intelligence on the forum will result in a 7 day suspension without further warning issued.

how's that for an explanation?

[elly63]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Most people are not going to want to watch a 1-hour long video, no matter who is being featured. If it is someone unknown, that proportion becomes vanishingly small.

As to the other issue, which keeps coming up, if you tell members to "fuck off" you will be suspended immediately. There is no ambiguity here, and it is entirely disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

how's that for an explanation?

Just wondering, is calling people you don't know incels a personal insult or is group insulting ok?

[FrankieFlowerpot]

Originally Posted by elly63

I don't understand what you're asking?

I mean it's pretty simple

Who is the guest?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by elly63

Just wondering, is calling people you don't know incels a personal insult or is group insulting ok?

No it is not. If it was unambiguously directed to you personally, he'd be suspended for a week. As it happens, the mods will discuss things.

[MolsonExport]

Carney apologizes for fake Trump-style buttons, Liberal staffers 'reassigned' (Nat Post)

OTTAWA — Liberal Leader Mark Carney said on Monday he was “unaware” that Liberal staffers had planted some fake Trump-style buttons at a conservative conference last week but nonetheless apologized for this “unreservedly” on behalf on his campaign.

“This is totally unacceptable, to be absolutely clear,” he said at a campaign stop in Montreal in response to CBC News, who broke the story on Sunday. “I was unaware of this behaviour, but on behalf of my campaign, I apologize for it unreservedly.”
Article content
Article content

“I’ve made it absolutely clear to my campaign that this behaviour or anything approximating it or in that spirit is unacceptable (and) cannot happen again,” he added.

[dleung]

elle63, with all the time you just spent disrespecting everyone's time by insisting they give clicks to an alt-right misinformation site and watch with an oPeN mInD, you could've articulated and defended your own opinion instead of feebly hiding behind some pundit's.

Right wing SSPers seem to do this all the time... why are they so ashamed of owning up to their opinions?

[casper]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

It is infuriating but I disagree they don't care about the consequences to national unity. People like Smith know it will cause a rift between Ottawa and Alberta and that is fine with her. She is a closet Alberta separatist and so a refusal of EE, regardless of the reasons, would make her grin like the Grinch.

Where Alberta does have a legitimate complaint is the ban on oil freighters on the West Coast. They say it is an environmental concern but somehow they are allowed on the East Coast. The oil tankers today are VASTLY safer than the ones that caused the Exxon Valdez disaster. Back then tankers had only one hull but now must be double hull and the that is not only the sides but the bottoms as well. Added to this, the halls are about a meter apart. This has been the law by international treaty for all new tankers delivered since 1993. Now almost all are out of commission and Canada and the US no longer allow single hull oil tankers in their waters. No double hulled tankers have ever had an major oil leak.

Comparing the safety of oil tankers of today to yesteryear is like comparing the safety of cars today to the ones in the 1950s............there is no comparison.

From a pragmatic perspective we should do away with the ban. We already have oil tankers off the northern coast of BC. Regardless of what ban we have in Canadian water there are oil tankers going to/from Alaska and to/from Asia in international waters just off the coast.

On the south coast, the deal with Trans Mountain was the project would need to commission and pay to man a series of spill response vessels and cover their operating costs. That significantly improved the environmental protection and response capabilities in Sothern BC. We now should do the same for Northern BC.

Remove the ban, but have as a condition that they increase coverage and providing additional funding for the response team.

This is what industry is expected to cover:
https://wcmrc.com/preparedness/vessels/

[elly63]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

No it is not. If it was unambiguously directed to you personally, he'd be suspended for a week. As it happens, the mods will discuss things.

Good to know

[Taeolas]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

No it is not. If it was unambiguously directed to you personally, he'd be suspended for a week. As it happens, the mods will discuss things.

Another thing many users may not be aware of, is that there's a "Report Post" button on the top right corner of every post (A red bordered triangle with an exclamation point).

If you see a post that you feel is rule breaking or otherwise inappropriate, it's best to just report it and move on.

Mods can't be everywhere all at once, and may miss something, but reporting it draws their attention so they can take action faster.