General Canadian Politics eh.

DiSmAnTLeR said:
I never once said that they would be similar systems with similar issues and implementation strategies. I pointed out a similarity in the two systems, regarding voter turnout. I made a COMPARISON

I’m not wasting my time answering your tangent that follows. It’s a typical tactic of yours. Why dont you explain your views on Quebec, First Nations, and rural citizens living in the territories? I simply posted a statistic to help illustrate how little of a population can determine an election.

For some reason, you feel that the info that I provided has no bearing in a discussion about AN ELECTION and have now moved the goalposts to ‘First Nations and Quebec”
Click to expand...
Im not sure what point you are trying to make anymore.

The discussion was revolving around urban vs rural votes and if they should hold equal weight. Concern was being expressed urban voters would be over looked under a Provincial proportional representation system.

You chimed in with stats on the last federal election and expect people to follow your comparison?
 
MC Gusto said:
Im not sure what point you are trying to make anymore.

The discussion was revolving around urban vs rural votes and if they should hold equal weight. Concern was being expressed urban voters would be over looked under a Provincial proportional representation system.

You chimed in with stats on the last federal election and expect people to follow your comparison?
Click to expand...

You commented...

MC Gusto said:
That is how a democracy works. Numbers = votes.

You have advocated for rural voters to hold more weight and for the current system in which a small portion of votes can win a majority control of a province... at this rate you will have a small minority of rural voters controlling a province via a majority win by less than the physical majority of voters participating in the vote.

#ProRepIsLit
Click to expand...

I replied with a statistic illustrating how our Federal Election results werre similar to the scenario that you described. (I made a comparison). I wasn’t trying to refute a single point that you were attempting to make.

DiSmAnTLeR said:
We had a 68.3% voter turnout in the last federal election. 40% of 68.3% is 27.72%.
Click to expand...

When that flew over your head by a country mile, I then compared the Federal participaction rate to your own Provincial participaction rate in an effort to again illustrate my point. Unfortunately, for some reason, you have your head stuck up your own ass and think that I was trying to refute you. You even decided to make me explain “First Nations” as if they will be participating together in any sort of fashion.

“First Nations” do not share a common consensus. Grouping diverse groups such as the Metiś and Inuit together is a disaster waiting to happen. Do you really think that Nunavut would think that #ProRepisLit, or even understand the fact that they don’t need need such a reform due to the way that their government functions? (Unless you are talking about on a Federal level, which you have a strange aversion towards discussing.)

Do yourself a favour...


View: https://youtu.be/Lrj-I7tEfv0
 
ConorMcGregorsBeard said:
Nobody has that concern.
Click to expand...


Gee I dont know how I got that wrong?

ConorMcGregorsBeard said:
IPeople in urban centers insisting they should dictate how others should live.
Click to expand...

ConorMcGregorsBeard said:
I've advocated for rural voters to have more weight over what happens in their communities.
Click to expand...

ConorMcGregorsBeard said:
No, because you're removing the ability of one municipality to directly effect the policies that apply to another. If you didn't like how things were going in Gustoville, you could pack up and move to Beardville where the laws might be more to your liking.
Click to expand...

ConorMcGregorsBeard said:
This ends up being a big problem because you end up with governments elected by large urban centers, which means those urban centers are also determining the legislation that gets written up even though they don't have the most basic understanding of how other people live.
Click to expand...
 
DiSmAnTLeR said:
You commented...



I replied with a statistic illustrating how our Federal Election results werre similar to the scenario that you described. (I made a comparison). I wasn’t trying to refute a single point that you were attempting to make.



When that flew over your head by a country mile, I then compared the Federal participaction rate to your own Provincial participaction rate in an effort to again illustrate my point. Unfortunately, for some reason, you have your head stuck up your own ass and think that I was trying to refute you. You even decided to make me explain “First Nations” as if they will be participating together in any sort of fashion.

“First Nations” do not share a common consensus. Grouping diverse groups such as the Metiś and Inuit together is a disaster waiting to happen. Do you really think that Nunavut would think that #ProRepisLit, or even understand the fact that they don’t need need such a reform due to the way that their government functions? (Unless you are talking about on a Federal level, which you have a strange aversion towards discussing.)

Do yourself a favour...


View: https://youtu.be/Lrj-I7tEfv0
Click to expand...

Is there a differentiation in weight between urban vs rural votes under our Federal election?

If not, still dont understand the relevance of your comparison.

And I dont like need a new vehicle.

DiSmAnTLeR said:
“First Nations” do not share a common consensus. Grouping diverse groups such as the Metiś and Inuit together is a disaster waiting to happen. Do you really think that Nunavut would think that #ProRepisLit, or even understand the fact that they don’t need need such a reform due to the way that their government functions? (Unless you are talking about on a Federal level, which you have a strange aversion towards discussing.)
Click to expand...
Thanks for further articulating the point I was originally making. Apples vs oranges.
 
Last edited:
MC Gusto said:
Is there a differentiation in weight between urban vs rural votes under our Federal election?

If not, still dont understand the relevance of your comparison.

And I dont like need a new vehicle.


Thanks for further articulating the point I was originally making. Apples vs oranges.
Click to expand...

I have already explained the relevance multiple times, Gusto. You expressed concerns regarding the amount of people that can sway a particular vote and I gave an example of both federal and provincial elections that were decided by less than 30% of the population. The fact that you cannot glean any sort of valuable information from that rests on your shoulders, not mine.

Regarding your apples comment, I didn’t want to take the time to explain this because it will go over your head, but here it goes...

This is our quote chain. First you asked about one topic (the time that you couldn’t grasp that left of centre policies are liberal policies, but not necessarily the policies of the Liberal Party of Canada) I even posted screenshots out of a social studies textbook to illustrate how wrong you were.

MC Gusto said:
So where in what you just posted did I claim, "the NDP doesn't have liberal politics".

When we were involved in that discussion, we were discussion Ted's use of the word Liberal as a catch phrase to include anything left of the far right.
Click to expand...

Rather than explain the concept multiple times (you have a habit of conveniently forgetting when you are wrong), I simply posted that...

DiSmAnTLeR said:
We have been over this. It was you that didn’t grasp the concept, which is why I replied to you.
Click to expand...

Then you replied to the comment (even quoting it) and your reply had nothing to do with the quote chain (which discussed your lack of comprehension of liberal policies). Instead you chose to reply to my comment regarding the small amount of voters as if the two discussions were one and the same. On top of that, rather than address my point, you then went on your little tangent.

MC Gusto said:
Apples and oranges.

Just because you compared the voter turn out does not mean they (fed vs prov pro rep) would be similar systems, with similar issues and rolled out in similar ways.

How do you think Quebec would factor into Pro Rep?

How about the First Nations? Would they be participating as a Nation?

How about the vast amounts of extremely rural living in the territories?
Click to expand...

I know that your initial reaction to reading this post will be a knee jerk denial, but it’s there clear as day if you follow along more carefully. You have to slow down and read more carefully, Gusto. Either that, or stick to hashtags, jingoisms, and insults.
 
DiSmAnTLeR said:
I have already explained the relevance multiple times, Gusto. You expressed concerns regarding the amount of people that can sway a particular vote and I gave an example of both federal and provincial elections that were decided by less than 30% of the population. The fact that you cannot glean any sort of valuable information from that rests on your shoulders, not mine.

Regarding your apples comment, I didn’t want to take the time to explain this because it will go over your head, but here it goes...

This is our quote chain. First you asked about one topic (the time that you couldn’t grasp that left of centre policies are liberal policies, but not necessarily the policies of the Liberal Party of Canada) I even posted screenshots out of a social studies textbook to illustrate how wrong you were.



Rather than explain the concept multiple times (you have a habit of conveniently forgetting when you are wrong), I simply posted that...



Then you replied to the comment (even quoting it) and your reply had nothing to do with the quote chain (which discussed your lack of comprehension of liberal policies). Instead you chose to reply to my comment regarding the small amount of voters as if the two discussions were one and the same. On top of that, rather than address my point, you then went on your little tangent.



I know that your initial reaction to reading this post will be a knee jerk denial, but it’s there clear as day if you follow along more carefully. You have to slow down and read more carefully, Gusto. Either that, or stick to hashtags, jingoisms, and insults.
Click to expand...

O4gVZm1.gif
 
KWingJitsu said:
Fascinating.

Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau is painting his conservative rival as a northern Trump, leveraging Canada's distaste for the US president to keep his party in power

Only 25%? Lol. They must post here...
Click to expand...

People have such short memories, or rather they tune out information that doesn’t suit our narrative. From the article...

In July, the Conservative Party withdrew an ad that had been posted on its Twitter feed showing a black asylum seeker entering Canada through a broken fence while walking over the text of a 2017 Trudeau tweet that read: "Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength."

The ad alleged that Trudeau's tweet lured thousands of people into Canada from the United States to file refugee claims. Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen said the Conservatives were "peddling false information to stoke fear."


————————————
The ad absolutely was used by many refugees as confirmation that Canada would accept them. To the point that Trudeau had to issue a clarification.

“Canada is an opening and welcoming society,” Trudeau said during a press conference Sunday. “But let me be clear. We are also a country of laws.”

“Entering Canada irregularly is not an advantage. There are rigorous immigration and customs rules that will be followed, make no mistake,” said Trudeau.”


https://nationalpost.com/news/polit...ies-confusion-within-government-emails-reveal


“In addition to requests from media there were queries from Canada’s own officials posted abroad. Concerns from the embassy in Mexico appear in an email chain with the subject line “Guidance required on how to respond to increasing number of refugee enquiries in the region following change in US administration and Prime Minister’s tweet.”

The first secretary and “risk assessment officer” at the embassy, whose name is redacted, sent an initial message on Feb. 1, 2017, four days after the tweet.

“I am seeking official guidance/response from Ottawa on how to address refugee enquiries following all the publicity around the US ban on some nationalities, and our Prime Minister’s tweet on welcoming refugees,” the email began.

“We are receiving an increasing number of enquiries from the public about requesting refugee status in Canada, and a number clearly having links with our Prime Minister’s tweet this weekend. A significant number of the enquiries received since the weekend have been from nationals of the ‘US banned countries’, but we are also receiving them from all nationalities, both through emails and directly at our reception.”

————————————

Edit- removed double posted wall of text



1deXwhK.jpg
 
Last edited:
KWingJitsu said:
Fascinating.

Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau is painting his conservative rival as a northern Trump, leveraging Canada's distaste for the US president to keep his party in power

Only 25%? Lol. They must post here...
Click to expand...

“Speaking in Ottawa's National Gallery in front of a wall-sized picture of an old-growth forest on Oct. 29, Trudeau said Scheer's criticism shows the Conservatives want to "make pollution free again".

I’m sorry, but anytime I hear about old growth, I think of this clip!


View: https://youtu.be/ElJFYwRtrH4



Then there’s the remix!


View: https://youtu.be/RjTiYX3tm0U
 
DiSmAnTLeR said:
“Speaking in Ottawa's National Gallery in front of a wall-sized picture of an old-growth forest on Oct. 29, Trudeau said Scheer's criticism shows the Conservatives want to "make pollution free again".

I’m sorry, but anytime I hear about old growth, I think of this clip!


View: https://youtu.be/ElJFYwRtrH4



Then there’s the remix!


View: https://youtu.be/RjTiYX3tm0U
Click to expand...

Any way you slice it.... "the Conservatives want to "make pollution free again"", is a great quote.
 
KWingJitsu said:
Any way you slice it.... "the Conservatives want to "make pollution free again"", is a great quote.
Click to expand...

I’ll preface my reply with the statement that I am not a CPC supporter by any stretch of the imagination. The last time that they were in power, they had me monitored by CSIS for my criticism on a variety of topics.

It’s a terrible quote in terms of accuracy. I cannot fathom how a person would consider it to be a great quote, as it is contrary to their official policy declaration on the environment, greenhouse gases, and renewable energy.

I’m also not a fan of sloganeering. It’s generally used by people unable to articulate a logical opinion of their own, so they simply parrot the rhetoric that they pick up form their peers. I’d be more impressed if you actually formulated a unique criticism or statement of your own.


2JAcCC8.jpg







Dtndfj3.png

UfAQswL.png
 
For those wondering. The guy in the middle posted this to his twitter. He's also the president of Unifor. Unifor is the largest media union in Canada.

Dias-Bias-640x380.png
 
ConorMcGregorsBeard said:
For those wondering. The guy in the middle posted this to his twitter. He's also the president of Unifor. Unifor is the largest media union in Canada.

Dias-Bias-640x380.png
Click to expand...







I absolutely cannot believe that you would even attempt to imply that Jerry Dias will be anything but impartial in his coverage of the upcoming election. I’m sure that he will treat Andrew Scheer and Justin Trudeau will fair and equal coverage. I’m actually pretty stunned and disappointed that you would post this @ConorMcGregorsBeard






















d1XkhdT.jpg





XFCCcGc.jpg
 
About time:

B.C.’s NDP government to introduce ridesharing legislation Monday
British Columbians will finally get a road map to the implementation of ridesharing services like Uber and Lyft on Monday.

That’s when the province says Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Claire Trevena will introduce the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, described as “government’s next step to enable ride-hailing in British Columbia.”


The bill will need to amend at least six pieces of existing legislation, including the Passenger Transportation Act, Insurance Vehicle Act, Motor Vehicle Act and Commercial Transport Act.

Even with the new legislation in place, ridesharing services likely won’t be in place until at least fall 2019 – based on statements made by Minister Trevena over the summer.

However BC Green Leader Andrew Weaver said he’s hopeful the job can be done sooner.

“We’re going to push for spring, we’ll see how that plays out. Honestly there’s no reason why we can’t push forward,” he said.

“Again, I hear a litany of complaints from people who get off at Vancouver Airport, there’s no taxis, it’s essentially happening all over the world, we need to get with the program here.”
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top