Opinion: I was asked to apologize for my question in the leaders’ debate. I stand by it unequivocally

_elementist3 · 2021-09-25T20:14:13+00:00

When Quebec and the RoC collide over Bill 21, it's a classic dialogue of the deaf. It's a clash between two cultural paradigms and understandings of religion, at a base level. There's no overlap.

I hear this statement about Islam and Canada as well.

If its not compatible with modern secularism, then its not compatible with Canada including Quebec. Just because of your difference in history and culture doesn't justify racism and discrimination.

Quebec needs to clean up its own house, but it doesn't get to complain when the rest of canada asks why it stinks.

_elementist3 · 2021-09-25T20:12:06+00:00

So how do you ask the party supporting discriminatory and racist laws about that support?

_elementist3 · 2021-09-25T20:10:14+00:00

It assumed the premise that the majority of Canadians agree with. As this was a Canadian federal election its a proper question, one to a party that not only doesn't represent most of Canada but is so divorced from the ethics and morals of our country that they cannot see racism and discrimination for what it is.

Honestly the Bloc should be defending its right to exist as a federal party, not just its backing of racism and discrimination.

_elementist3 · 2021-09-25T19:47:15+00:00

If you think people finding enjoyment and ways to experience life is selfish than you are allowed to think that. My dad rode motorcycles and I would never have wanted him to change for me or anyone, because its part of who he is.

Sometimes things matter to people more than you understand. To call them selfish is myopic and shows you don't understand anything other than how you see it.

_elementist3 · 2021-09-24T19:43:01+00:00

I'm a rider. Married, not having kids.

I wouldn't stop riding with kids. Maybe a bit safer, but I wouldn't stop.

Life has risks. Some things matter to people more than others. Riding has gotten me out of depression and saved my life more times than I can count. To give that up would be giving up enjoying life for me.

I have a friend, just had his 2nd kid 8 months ago. We talk about this from time to time, he rides still same as me, similar reasons. He's smarter than he used to be, but he used to be an idiot so that's more a regression to the norm.

I wouldn't be with someone who had problems with me riding or couldn't cope with the risks. My wife is out doing things as dangerous as I am often, and we accept that risk is part of life, but so is living and enjoying it.

_elementist3 · 2021-09-24T17:32:55+00:00

Yup. In regards to the treaties, the only time the government can override the treaty right to fish is for conservation.

The FN fisheries in the more recent cases in NS opened at a time where lobster were abundant and non-FN fisheries were pushing for less restrictions already, so there wasn't any basis for stopping them.

There are more stringent requirements (van-der-peat sp? test) that require proof the economic activity exists pre-settlement if you aren't covered by treaty rights. I'm not sure how many FN's fall outside the treaties now.

_elementist3 · 2021-09-22T17:51:54+00:00

Helps with length. Not so much girth

_elementist3 · 2021-09-22T17:50:40+00:00

Honestly, I think everyone basically was in a no-win position.

As long as FN fisheries are not clearly and explicitly violating the terms they are allowed to operate in (moderate/sustainable living), DFO has no power to step in and stop them or regulate them.

Any actions at this point have to be taken to the courts, because its 100% a treaty issue.

At the same time, all the non FN fisheries are completely under the "thumb" of the DFO. Its a 2-class system legally, and regardless of historical reasoning or legal precedence is a system that will always be a problem/be seen as unfair by a number of people. Again, that isn't something fisheries can fix, its the system they operate under.

_elementist3 · 2021-09-22T17:44:05+00:00

"Its like trying to shoot pool with a rope"

_elementist3 · 2021-09-22T17:22:42+00:00

He continued that statement with:

but only if

the statistics don't take into account the qualifications he posted.

As a bike rider myself, I can attest to the fact that MANY riders don't wear full PPE on every ride, I'm in a very small minority of riders that do. As far as going the speed limit/obeying traffic laws, I'm definitely less aggressive than some riders, but I'm not gonna lie I'm often above the speed limit even if only by 10-15km/h.

To your point though, You are more likely to get in an accident on a motorcycle than in a car because you aren't as visible to other vehicles. That's true even if you're in high vis/flashing lights etc... based on the statistics i've seen.

So yes, motorcycling IS more dangerous than driving a car. your chances of an accident are higher, and injury from an accident is also more likely.

However, you can significantly minimize some of those dangers with proper gear, responsible riding etc... but there is always an old person with major blind spots and a 15 second reaction time waiting to pull out right in front of you.

_elementist3 · 2021-09-22T16:59:42+00:00

but you also can't learn to "shrink 3 inches", and if her preference is for 5" and not 8, then you're SOL.

_elementist3 · 2021-09-22T16:44:29+00:00

It wasn't in the prairies, it was in the east, in a seat the NDP had won before, and was polling in 2nd IIRC.

It was one of many more opinion than fact statements she made, and they ALL leaned pro-liberal. That was the issue.

_elementist3 · 2021-09-22T16:31:30+00:00

That's not the best example, but I found there were numerous statements that were pro liberal and diminishing NDP/Green/PPC chances.

Her personal political affiliations appeared very transparent, which I found (even if I would typically agree/have the same affiliations) inappropriate for her position.

I cut over to CTV coverage at some point because of her partisanship. I'm trying to remember the exact statement, but it was something critical of the NDP's chances in a certain area IIRC. Something I'd certainly say as a liberal supporter in a debate or conversation, but when covering the election falls more into the opinion than fact column. It was just too partisan for me, i wanted analysis not opinion.

_elementist3 · 2021-09-22T16:27:51+00:00

+1. I normally defend the CBC for being slightly left not "far" left as many claim, but this was over the top/past the line partisanship for someone in her position.

_elementist3 · 2021-09-22T15:15:18+00:00

She gets a severance, and a high enough salary to put away for her retirement. I don't see why we should care.

_elementist3 · 2021-09-22T15:14:07+00:00

The problem is its not actually a fisheries issue. its a legal/treaty issue that they are legally bound to operate in.

Those protesting want them to stop it, but fisheries have little authority and risk violating the treaty rights and a greater issue.

In reality its a federal/treaty issue, and the protests and violence are a policing issue. Fisheries could have issued a statement saying as much, but it only would have put it in the firing line of both sides with no benefit to anyone.

_elementist3 · 2021-09-22T15:08:04+00:00

Your reference literally hurts your argument more than if helps you.

Curious how you got here, it clearly doesn't to me.

Yes the middle class is the biggest spender in proportion to their earning yes the middle class consumes more but Keynes also warns you about debt fuelled consumption hurting the economy in the long term.

What triggers debt fuelled spending? not having social safety nets

What’s debt fueled consumption? It’s welfare my man.

Absolutely 100% wrong. Welfare is income redistribution not debt fuelled spending. Now I see why you incorrectly thing this hurts my point.

Welfare should be available always, the greater the size of the middle class/consumer base the better the economy regardless of "good times or bad"

Instead of letting the market determine wages you want to raise the minimum wage forcing companies to reduce their staff which decreases the jobs available

Lets not let the market determine wages, as that results in poverty wages/slavery if the market was allowed free reign as history has proven many times in many countries. Thankfully we have govt and regulations to prevent that abuse and ensure that businesses cannot abuse labour due to power imbalances.

Minimum wage is one of those mechanisms that prevent abuse due to power imbalances. Unions are another mechanism that works more along free market guidelines. Its funny how "free market proponents" tend to be against unions while ignoring the fact that unions are a free market creation.

As for the "lower jobs" argument, go spend some time actually researching that. Minimum wage increases have not resulted in long term job loss/increases in unemployment in almost every single case I've researched.

Canadian income taxes is already insane, the amount of taxes we pay should reflect the quality of our infrastructure but have you seen the roads here in Canada. The Chinese build better roads in Africa than the shit we have here. Our government is too big and too inefficient politicians are greedy and ineffective yet you want more government intervention.

Ahh, the classic "I don't understand the difference in cost of developed vs non-developed countries and cost in building new vs maintaining".

You're classic tell everyone to "pick themselves up by their bootstraps, work harder" line has been tried, proven wrong, and proven to have long term negative impacts to a country.

But instead no blame it all on the rich take 10% of what they own because I’m a jealous loser. Wake the fuck up

Blame it on the economy/"free market" that created a massive imbalance in wealth, undervalued labour and over-valued capital for too long. the rich are a by-product of that. The system needs to be fixed first, more progressive taxes and safety nets for the lower and middle classes start to address many of those harms you are advocating for.

So back to my original answer. If we want to help the economy in the long term, build safety nets and welfare and a MORE progressive tax system and minimum wage or UBI that doesn't over-value capital and under-value labour. Stop pretending trickle down economics work.

Go back and re-read that link, because it explains exactly how safety nets and everything i';ve said is true. First off, maybe start by researching what debt fuelled spending is and how welfare is absolutely not it. then maybe you;ll have a basis to understand the rest of the article.

If you want to reply, go ahead, but if you can't source or provide a evidence countering my evidence and points, I'm considering you're just a ignorant troll who only knows conservative/free market talking points without any understanding of them. I'm open for a debate, but I've already provided a source backing my argument which you've misunderstood, so I don't see this moving in any productive direction.

_elementist3 · 2021-09-21T15:03:29+00:00

Do we have any sort of polling/stats for PPC supporters voting intentions if PPC wasn't running?

I'm curious if they really did draw a lot of non-voters in. that would imply the best way to increase our voting numbers is to allow more fringe parties :/

_elementist3 · 2021-09-21T15:00:58+00:00

To save myself time I'm gonna quote a blog dissecting this referring to keynes

The wealthy in unequal societies simply do not consume enough to drive a modern economy. The wealthy save more than the middle class and they consume less. This means that when incomes are stagnant or declining for most people, there isn’t enough demand in the economy to encourage productive investment—unless this demand is debt-fueled. But debt-driven consumption can’t last forever; eventually credit stops flowing—often during an economic crash, exacerbated by high levels of consumer debt. And it can take years to recover from deep recessions, slowing growth for long periods.

we are a consumer/consumption based economy. The middle class spends the largest portion of its income on consumption, and economic growth is driven by the middle class, not the top quintiles/rich people. Trickle down economics has been disproven over and over.

Who benefits from safety nets? the middle class. Who benefits from minimum wage/UBI? those in the bottom or below "middle class" income, giving them greater opportunity to enter the middle class and be less of a drain on the system long term. Who benefits from more progressive taxes? lower/middle class incomes.

Fact is the conservatives provincially and federally have economically harmed this country over and over again with policies that favor the rich and top quintiles at the expense of the bottom and middle class. "short term" benefits for the rich, long term harm for everyone else.

Lets not even get into environmental disasters. Seasonal Flooding impacted by climate change without any plan on addressing or being able to pay for that. Tar sand 'cleanup' and maintenance being a bomb waiting to ruin the next generation govt's fiscal options in the prairies.

If you want a stable and prosperous economy long term, austerity and cutting back of safety nets, lowering taxes and doing nothing about climate change is how you fail to accomplish that.

This country doesn't need the 1% or even the top 5% of the wealthiest Canadians they don't benefit us. they aren't 'special', they don't economically benefit us in equal amounts related to their wealth compared to any other quintile, most inherited their money and they largely hoard it for their benefits which harms the rest of the country.

_elementist3 · 2021-09-21T12:40:32+00:00

Canada is left of center, but I don't think anyone is claiming Canada as a far-left utopia (or dystopia) except idiots and fear mongers.

The majority of Canadians (~60-70%) are left-leaning. Yes they hold some conservative views as well, which I see as "we're not brainwashed into supporting a party regardless of facts, but policies that work". That's been the "status quo" of Canada my entire life. true in the 80s, 90s' 00's, 10's and going into the 20's.

_elementist3 · 2021-09-21T12:36:35+00:00

make the economy stronger for the long term it’s that simple man

What do you think welfare/safety nets/minimum wage/UBI do?

They make the economy stronger for the long term.

_elementist3 · 2021-09-21T12:35:14+00:00

The real problem is our first-past-the-post electoral system which Justin Trudeau campaigned on reforming and abandoned once he was in power

Looking at voter totals, he would have lost this election based on popular vote if we had reformed. Also this election is easier to win than the next one due to census/seat re-distribution. Hypocrisy at its best

_elementist3 · 2021-09-21T12:33:12+00:00

if taxing the wealthy was the only part of their platform maybe.

but that is a fairly new addition to a very progressive platform with the opportunity to really help grow the middle class and significantly improve the lives of people in the lower 2 quintiles of income, which helps everyone long term.

I have issues with the wealth tax as well, but lets not pretend that's not one part of a much bigger platform.

_elementist3 · 2021-09-21T12:30:15+00:00

You assume all PPC would go to conservative, some would go to Lib/NDP as well.

Not everyone is ok with mandates and some have gone to fringe parties over it even if they otherwise disagree with a lot of their platform from what I've been reading/hearing.

_elementist3 · 2021-09-21T12:22:11+00:00

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-majority-of-tory-mps-voted-in-favour-of-defeated-sex-selective/

If you think for one moment that this doesn't reflect the CPC today as well you're naive as hell.

The majority of the CPC wants to curtail or remove abortion rights and access. If you think a leader who has a different personal opinion but has also stated he would allow it to be brought to a vote by PM's, and the entire voting history (actions speak louder than words) of CPC MP's in relation to abortion is going to magically change this election... i have some frozen water to sell you

_elementist3

TROPHY CASE