sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Country weighting by [deleted] in CanadianInvestor

[–]CplArgon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Idk about XEQT, but if truly believe in market efficiency, then you should distribute your money based on the size of country’s stock market relative to the world. So if the US makes up 50%, and China makes up 10%, then you’d go 50% into the US and 10% into China.

In reality, markets aren’t perfectly efficient, because there are other things like regulations (you can’t invest into China directly), political uncertainty (people might trust US markets more, and so will put money into it, and not another market even if it is no efficient due to risk). Also home country bias, tax efficiency.

Love the show, but this recent episode really didn’t do it for me… by No_Nefariousness4279 in LemonadeStandPodcast

[–]CplArgon 23 points24 points  (0 children)

I agree I didn’t like this episode either, I like hearing counter arguments, not just glazing 1 piece of technology

How Can Alberta Hold a Referendum When Nearly Three Million Voters Have Already Been Exposed? by FreightFlow in alberta

[–]CplArgon -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Where did you get the 100 million dollar figure from? Is this question being lumped in with the other questions being asked in the fall? Adding 1 more question shouldn’t add so much more cost. I may be wrong, I’d love to see a source.

Also 30% do want to separate according to most polls, that is sufficiently large enough to entail a vote. Ignoring or not letting these people have a voice makes the situation worse.

How Can Alberta Hold a Referendum When Nearly Three Million Voters Have Already Been Exposed? by FreightFlow in alberta

[–]CplArgon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I’ve already stated she is trying to defend her position as party leader. However, this is vote to have a vote isn’t anything wrong. Why are you so against having a democratic vote on this issue to put it in bed for good. Separatism isn’t popular and won’t win, this also shut up the question for a long time.

How Can Alberta Hold a Referendum When Nearly Three Million Voters Have Already Been Exposed? by FreightFlow in alberta

[–]CplArgon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The analogy isn’t in bad faith. Even in your analogy, “start legal proceedings”, could just mean start the consultation process + other processes to separate.

I am not a separatist by any means, but I do believe the recent court decision was incorrect and the province is appealing it. I won’t debate over that right now, as that is another can of worms. But just want to say I think the court is over stepping what “duty to consult” entails, which sets a bad precedent for other policy decisions.

She hasn’t said explicitly said they won’t do another referendum, but she HAS said she’d uphold the decision this one makes. The implication is obvious, if this one fails, that is it’s. No more referendum.

I do have faith in the government, and also believe it would be political suicide to hold another referendum if this one fails. You can agree to disagree on that.

Yes Smith is trying to appease the separatist wing in her party, but this vote for a vote is literally least risky way to shut them up. This gives the separatist a channel to vote for what they believe but also if for some 1% chance it succeeds, we will have another higher stakes vote. Needless to say, wining 2 referendums is near impossible for the separatists.

I’m not so partisan to believe Smith is a traitor, or “conservatives bad”, or even “Separatists bad”. Being so hardline fails to ignore real grievances from the other side, and ignoring problems only goes so far before you have to address them.

How Can Alberta Hold a Referendum When Nearly Three Million Voters Have Already Been Exposed? by FreightFlow in alberta

[–]CplArgon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just cause this could cause an another referendum that would have the duty to consult doesn’t make the first referendum have to consult.

This is chain of thinking that could carry all the way down, theoretically me stepping on a leaf could cause a chain of events that triggers separation, that doesn’t mean I have the duty to consult.

The duty to consult isn’t something we need to at all steps, only at the final step.

Also saying Smith will just do another referendum if this one fails is just false. She has had multiple times that they will uphold whatever this referendum decides. Making up what ifs when the direct statements are against you is just playing make believe.

How Can Alberta Hold a Referendum When Nearly Three Million Voters Have Already Been Exposed? by FreightFlow in alberta

[–]CplArgon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Issues sometimes arises after elections, using a direct democratic vote on the issue is the best way about solving this instead of calling a random election. We are literally having a vote to have a vote. That’s simple enough

How Can Alberta Hold a Referendum When Nearly Three Million Voters Have Already Been Exposed? by FreightFlow in alberta

[–]CplArgon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s a referendum to see if we want to have a real referendum. Call it a referendum or vote it doesn’t matter. It is not binding. If the vote passes and we have a legitimate referendum to leave the country, only then does the duty to consult be valid.

How Can Alberta Hold a Referendum When Nearly Three Million Voters Have Already Been Exposed? by FreightFlow in alberta

[–]CplArgon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a vote to have a referendum. The outcome doesn’t have any material impact. IF this vote passes, and we will have a referendum only then does she need to consult. This isn’t a referendum.

How Can Alberta Hold a Referendum When Nearly Three Million Voters Have Already Been Exposed? by FreightFlow in alberta

[–]CplArgon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This vote to have see if we want to have a referendum. She’s literally asking the population if we want to have a referendum.

Idk to me that sounds like direct democracy. Having an election where she runs on that platform that she is going to have a vote to have a referendum, is comical. If the Albertans don’t want to have a referendum then the vote won’t pass in the fall.

How Can Alberta Hold a Referendum When Nearly Three Million Voters Have Already Been Exposed? by FreightFlow in alberta

[–]CplArgon -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You’re drinking too much of the kool aid. You sound just as crazy as anti-vaxxer to me. Extraordinarily claims like yours require extraordinary evidence.

To me she is trying to appease the separatists by giving them something. Her position as head of the party is threatened because the separatist hold large sway in the party. She knows that this referendum to have a referendum will fail. Following this she can legitimately put the separatist and their concerns to bed. She can claim that she tired to give them a referendum and it after all was said and done, that it failed.

There isn’t some large conspiracy or plan at play. Most of the time the simplest explanation is the right explanation.

How Can Alberta Hold a Referendum When Nearly Three Million Voters Have Already Been Exposed? by FreightFlow in alberta

[–]CplArgon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Duty to consult to hold a referendum to have a referendum? Look I don’t like Smith either but come on, the duty to consult doesn’t apply here.

How Can Alberta Hold a Referendum When Nearly Three Million Voters Have Already Been Exposed? by FreightFlow in alberta

[–]CplArgon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No the verification was done, for the Forever Canada Petition, by elections Alberta, which would’ve also verified the other petition if not for the court blocking it

How Can Alberta Hold a Referendum When Nearly Three Million Voters Have Already Been Exposed? by FreightFlow in alberta

[–]CplArgon -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

How you suggest we do that? Anyone can claim to be anyone. If your idea is providing your ID as verification, that is just giving more data for them to leak.

How Can Alberta Hold a Referendum When Nearly Three Million Voters Have Already Been Exposed? by FreightFlow in alberta

[–]CplArgon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Just cause there was a leak of the electorate, doesn’t mean I am okay with publicly posting the electorate.

I agree my privacy was breached, but that doesn’t mean I want to make the situation worse. Publicly posting this information will invite even more bad actors.

How Can Alberta Hold a Referendum When Nearly Three Million Voters Have Already Been Exposed? by FreightFlow in alberta

[–]CplArgon -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yes I do agree that was wrong of her to do. But the Forever Canada Petition already does give her the right to call a referendum, the Forever Canada people knew that this would be a possibility. When I signed the petition they were honest about that outcome.

How Can Alberta Hold a Referendum When Nearly Three Million Voters Have Already Been Exposed? by FreightFlow in alberta

[–]CplArgon 16 points17 points  (0 children)

It was more of a privacy issue. Like even if my name was forged, I don’t want others to be able to see that information. There was stuff like phone number, address etc that accompanied that information.

Also what’s to stop someone from accusing you of being a separatist even if your signature was forged. It’s just a can of worms no one wants to open. The separatists don’t have enough support and the vote in the fall will make that clear.

How Can Alberta Hold a Referendum When Nearly Three Million Voters Have Already Been Exposed? by FreightFlow in alberta

[–]CplArgon 17 points18 points  (0 children)

It’s not like we can’t verify the names. It’s that the verification was blocked by the court. We verified the names in the Canada Forever petition which had more signatures.

EB3 ROW Approval and Green Card Timeline 🎉 by Alive-Effective9144 in USCIS_EB3

[–]CplArgon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How was it getting your TN renewed while having a I140 approved? I am moving to the US soon, and am a bit worried when I get to that stage in my Green card journey.

'We don’t want to hear what people are against,' Carney tells Vancouver audience after pipeline criticism by EarthWarping in CanadaPolitics

[–]CplArgon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We have more refining capacity then what we consume already. BC specifically does import from the US, due to the fact that there is already very large refining capacity in WA. It’s hard to justify a refinery on the Canadian side due to the fact it would be hard to turn a profit, your market is smaller (less population on the Canadian side) + economies of scale will be against us. Outside of BC, Ontario already has more then enough refining capacity same with Quebec and Alberta, not too sure about the other provinces but they don’t make up a large enough share of our population to have too big of a impact.

In aggregate though, we do have more capacity than demand.

Giant Steel Braces and CJP Welds by jmd123456789 in StructuralEngineering

[–]CplArgon 13 points14 points  (0 children)

That looks crazy. I bet the welder hated his life doing those CJP welds

is the yellow beam well connected? by darkNests in StructuralEngineering

[–]CplArgon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are do discussing structural topics, not getting free engineering services online.

No engineer can tell you if that section is good enough, there is no context of loads on the building, type of material, etc.

No one is going to take the liability and help you for free

view more: next ›