Liberals lied on the carbon tax, according to Statistics Canada data

[Butler1000]

Winning at the expense of a decade of destruction and complete reversals of policies that caused that destruction is disingenuous and hypocritical.

You can't call someone a climate change denier for criticizing your carbon tax scheme and then drop the tax on the eve of an election like it never happened. You can't call someone a xenophobe for wanting immigration control, and then invoke immigration control policies on the eve of an election like there was never a problem.
Same goes for pipelines...the campaign propaganda is slowly changing now...we'll see how they spin it.

Carney is doing exactly what Trump wanted him to do. Stay silent & listen. Don't attract attention. Keep the Canadian government's activities a sleepy little secret while doing the US's bidding.

There's a reason why Trump liked Carney and preferred him.

Carney's supporters were played.

I think you are unfortunately down a rabbithole. Priorities change. And policy changes with leadership.

Look at Trump. Within 10 years he and Stephen Smith completely changed enough minds on immigration to create new policy. Are you yelling about the GOP flip flopping? They changed on import/export policy, same?

The world has become, due to various factors, become less open. And various govts have responded to public sentiment and changed course. It does in fact, show, that democracy is in action and public concensus is working when parties align on policy. Trudeau was done not only because his act got tired, but his policy was out of step with Canadians. Parties are not governed solely by ideology.

The most fiscally conservative govt of the last 4 decades was the Chretien Liberals. To the point of cutting provincial transfers and enacting austerity measures. The next one was the opposite.

The Mulroney Conservatives introduced Free Trade, and the GST. The Harper Conservatives lowered the GST. And the present Conservatives want less free trade.

They all want to be elected, in a democracy that does actually mean paying attention to the voters.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

I charge you with stupidity considering you didn't even know there were two meanings for the word "initiate".

You seem discombobulated.
I don't think there was ever an argument about the word "initiate".
May be it is your argument with someone else and you are now confused due to the multiple failed mental gymnastics.

 

[Skoob]

I think you are unfortunately down a rabbithole. Priorities change. And policy changes with leadership.

Look at Trump. Within 10 years he and Stephen Smith completely changed enough minds on immigration to create new policy. Are you yelling about the GOP flip flopping? They changed on import/export policy, same?

The world has become, due to various factors, become less open. And various govts have responded to public sentiment and changed course. It does in fact, show, that democracy is in action and public concensus is working when parties align on policy. Trudeau was done not only because his act got tired, but his policy was out of step with Canadians. Parties are not governed solely by ideology.

The most fiscally conservative govt of the last 4 decades was the Chretien Liberals. To the point of cutting provincial transfers and enacting austerity measures. The next one was the opposite.

The Mulroney Conservatives introduced Free Trade, and the GST. The Harper Conservatives lowered the GST. And the present Conservatives want less free trade.

They all want to be elected, in a democracy that does actually mean paying attention to the voters.

Priorities do change. The question is what spurs the change?

Ideology on the other hand shouldn't change over night.

The Liberals changed (or perhaps suspended) their ideology overnight for the sole purpose of winning an election.

 

[Skoob]

You seem discombobulated.
I don't think there was ever an argument about the word "initiate".
May be it is your argument with someone else and you are now confused due to the multiple failed mental gymnastics.

You didn't know there were two meanings for the word "initiate". I had to enlighten you and you didn't even say thanks.

You would benefit from a government-funded ESL course so you don't keep failing at arguments.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

You didn't know there were two meanings for the word "initiate". I had to enlighten you and you didn't even say thanks.

You would benefit from a government-funded ESL course so you don't keep failing at arguments.

You are either confused or are imagining things.
I was never ever in any argument about the word "initiate".
I don't even know what you are referring to here.

 

[Skoob]

You are either confused or are imagining things.
I was never ever in any argument about the word "initiate".
I don't even know what you are referring to here.

Go back and look at your posts and refresh your memory. You are spending so much time editing others' posts that you are forgetting your own.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Go back and look at your posts and refresh your memory. You are spending so much time editing others' posts that you are forgetting your own.

I am not going to spend time searching for your mental gymnastics.
If you cannot describe where you thought there was any disagreement about the word initiate then I will chalk this up to yet another thing you are unable to articulate.
The other being the impact of the carbon tax.

 

[Butler1000]

Priorities do change. The question is what spurs the change?

Ideology on the other hand shouldn't change over night.

The Liberals changed (or perhaps suspended) their ideology overnight for the sole purpose of winning an election.

Sure but my opinion is if they carry through on the policy then it doesn't matter. I do have concerns about Carney, but as a private equity guy. But absolutely not as someone who will cowtow to Trump. He is in a minority position and any backslide will trigger an election.

He is, as I stated, a process guy. He understands how trade deals actually get done. The shortest a trade deal the USA ever negotiated was 18 months. There is so much detail, to every single class of products and services, which always includes protectionist clauses, to be hashed out. We already have USMCA. That will be the basis.

As for local policy? Consumer Carbon tax gone. A mild tax cut(I preferred the Conservative one). And looking into opening new markets for oil. That's initially what is coming this session. Once we know what the new tariff policy is really going to he, the next steps can be taken.

You are, imo, only really complaining because you wanted revenge. You wanted to see the Liberal Party destroyed in an election. That's fine. But guess what, lots of Canadians didn't. The polling clearly showed that PP was the deciding factor. His approval rating to be PM was almost 10 points lower than Carney. And lower then the Conservatives as a whole were polling. And that was reflected in his personal riding loss.

The Conservatives failed in the end, because in the trying times coming, Canadians chose, "the little Grey man". As they tend to. It was in a way, a conservative choice to pick the calm, not overly charismatic, banker/process guy, but with a minority to check them.

In the end I think we will see, as usual, a centrist govt.

 

[Skoob]

I am not going to spend time searching for your mental gymnastics.
If you cannot describe where you thought there was any disagreement about the word initiate then I will chalk this up to yet another thing you are unable to articulate.
The other being the impact of the carbon tax.

Right on queue...convenient amnesia.
Proves you don't really read, you just make assumptions then deny what you have said. In addition, you admit to editing others' posts so you probably went back and changed your response. That's what happens when you throw your integrity out the window: no one trust you.

And I've said it before...you don't really want proof. You want to ask for proof as a distraction. You ignore the proof when provided and then change the subject.

You have reduced your integrity to zero.

 

[Skoob]

Sure but my opinion is if they carry through on the policy then it doesn't matter. I do have concerns about Carney, but as a private equity guy. But absolutely not as someone who will cowtow to Trump. He is in a minority position and any backslide will trigger an election.

He is, as I stated, a process guy. He understands how trade deals actually get done. The shortest a trade deal the USA ever negotiated was 18 months. There is so much detail, to every single class of products and services, which always includes protectionist clauses, to be hashed out. We already have USMCA. That will be the basis.

As for local policy? Consumer Carbon tax gone. A mild tax cut(I preferred the Conservative one). And looking into opening new markets for oil. That's initially what is coming this session. Once we know what the new tariff policy is really going to he, the next steps can be taken.

You are, imo, only really complaining because you wanted revenge. You wanted to see the Liberal Party destroyed in an election. That's fine. But guess what, lots of Canadians didn't. The polling clearly showed that PP was the deciding factor. His approval rating to be PM was almost 10 points lower than Carney. And lower then the Conservatives as a whole were polling. And that was reflected in his personal riding loss.

The Conservatives failed in the end, because in the trying times coming, Canadians chose, "the little Grey man". As they tend to. It was in a way, a conservative choice to pick the calm, not overly charismatic, banker/process guy, but with a minority to check them.

In the end I think we will see, as usual, a centrist govt.

Backslide? Like removing the retaliatory tariffs?
I don't want revenge. I want a government who I believe will make life better. The Liberals had a decade to prove they could and they didn't. It's the same government with a new leader. That's not real change.
Liberal supporters chose to give into fear mongering only to overlook the fact that Trump ended up with who he wanted. Ironic.

 

[Butler1000]

Backslide? Like removing the retaliatory tariffs?
I don't want revenge. I want a government who I believe will make life better. The Liberals had a decade to prove they could and they didn't. It's the same government with a new leader. That's not real change.
Liberal supporters chose to give into fear mongering only to overlook the fact that Trump ended up with who he wanted. Ironic.

I think PP's demeanor was a deciding factor. And yes, a new leader does mean things. Canadian politics has always had a strong executive type govt. That is the Westminster system. And Trump, trust me, doesn't know who the fuck either one really is. Cripes he hasn't even staffed his own govt yet. He says things all the time and then forgets what he said and either praises or denigrate on a whim.

Quite simply Trump didn't care WHO WON. He only cared that the perception was HE AFFECTED who won. That's is his narcissism. He wants attention, and perceived as well as real power. If PP had won, he would have said it was his conservative/populist movement that was the real reason. And claimed credit.

And I agree, as I said, with removing the tariffs. The grassroots boycott is sending a far greater message, it will only hurt low income consumers, and they serve no purpose. And as long as negotiations continue will have a net zero affect on our economy.

They are a tax. We don't need more of those, do we?

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Right on queue...convenient amnesia.
Proves you don't really read, you just make assumptions then deny what you have said. In addition, you admit to editing others' posts so you probably went back and changed your response. That's what happens when you throw your integrity out the window: no one trust you.

And I've said it before...you don't really want proof. You want to ask for proof as a distraction. You ignore the proof when provided and then change the subject.

You have reduced your integrity to zero.

So a non response when asked for specifics.
You just make stuff up as you go along.

 

[JohnLarue]

The Liberals changed (or perhaps suspended) their ideology overnight for the sole purpose of winning an election.

Liberal ideology changes to win an election
in 2015 ( That was not the Liberal party of Jean Chretian and Paul Martin)

and again in 2025
it had better have changed, although i suspect that was was just to dupe voters

 

[JohnLarue]

He is, as I stated, a process guy. He understands how trade deals actually get done. The shortest a trade deal the USA ever negotiated was 18 months. There is so much detail, to every single class of products and services, which always includes protectionist clauses, to be hashed out. We already have USMCA. That will be the basis.

you are focused on process
if Tr ump was following process there would be no incremental tariffs on Canada
he applied them with a stroke of a pen and he can rescind them with a stroke of a pen

if we do not get tariff relief for 18 months, we will lose 500,000 jobs

 

[Butler1000]

you are focused on process
if Tr ump was following process there would be no incremental tariffs on Canada
he applied them with a stroke of a pen and he can rescind them with a stroke of a pen

if we do not get tariff relief for 18 months, we will lose 500,000 jobs

And you prove my point. If Trump can at any time break a deal then we are better off putting a process in place for longer term WHEN HE IS GONE.

 

[JohnLarue]

And you prove my point. If Trump can at any time break a deal then we are better off putting a process in place for longer term WHEN HE IS GONE.

what are you talking about ?
i most certainly did not prove your point
your point ignores the devastating and permanent job losses Canada will experience if we try to wait Trump out

He is not going to be GONE for 3 1/2 + years

 

[Butler1000]

what are you talking about ?
i most certainly did not prove your point
your point ignores the devastating and permanent job losses Canada will experience if we try to wait Trump out

He is not going to be GONE for 3 1/2 + years

Great, we cut a deal, he breaks it. What then?

Guess what. Right now Trump has so much on his plate and is trying to get deals before the 90 days are up. Or he has to extend them tariffs. Good bet at the G7 he will announce he and his best new buddy Carney are getting a deal together if one is going to happen. Or he fucks around at it and finds himself isolated.

The USMCA is going to be the basis. It's going to get tweaked. Supply management isn't going anywhere. A few limits may be raised for show.

We are not going to experience 500,000 job losses due to tariffs.

Here is an interesting story. Stelco is cutting all US exports and is expecting an increase in business. While a USA competitor is laying off 2000 workers due to tariffs.

 

[JohnLarue]

Great, we cut a deal, he breaks it. What then?

so you will watch 500,000 jobs evaporate because you do not trust Trump ?
that is so naive and just completely ignores the reality of the situation

The USMCA is going to be the basis. It's going to get tweaked. Supply management isn't going anywhere. A few limits may be raised for show.

we will have to give on supply management and/ or the auto sector likely both to some extent
the trick is do a deal while we get our trade irritants (softwood lumber) fixed

We are not going to experience 500,000 job losses due to tariffs.

you are dead wrong

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/fao-report-ontario-impact-us-trade-war-1.7522571

U.S. tariffs and Canada's response could result in 68,100 fewer jobs in Ontario this year, a new report estimates.

This figure may increase to 119,200 jobs in 2026 and 137,900 jobs in 2029, according to the report by the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario (FAO), released Wednesday.

that is just Ontario

trump wants to shift all auto production from Canada to the US
if we refuse to do a deal, then we will have an even bigger problem. A vindictive trump

we need to do a deal which protects most of our auto sector & we will need to match his corporate tax rates cuts


you are beyond self delusional to think Canada can just wait Trump out and trade will revert back to the status quo

that is just not going to happen

 

[Butler1000]

so you will watch 500,000 jobs evaporate because you do not trust Trump ?
that is so naive and just completely ignores the reality of the situation





we will have to give on supply management and/ or the auto sector likely both to some extent
the trick is do a deal while we get our trade irritants (softwood lumber) fixed


you are dead wrong

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/fao-report-ontario-impact-us-trade-war-1.7522571

that is just Ontario

trump wants to shift all auto production from Canada to the US
if we refuse to do a deal, then we will have an even bigger problem. A vindictive trump

we need to do a deal which protects most of our auto sector & we will need to match his corporate tax rates cuts


you are beyond self delusional to think Canada can just wait Trump out and trade will revert back to the status quo

that is just not going to happen

So only 68 000 this year? That's what, 12% of what you were claiming? And the future assumption are worst case scenarios.

I highly doubt it will go that far.

 

[JohnLarue]

So only 68 000 this year? That's what, 12% of what you were claiming? And the future assumption are worst case scenarios.

I highly doubt it will go that far.

what is wrong with you?
68,100 + 119,200 + 137,900 =325,200 job losses and that is just Ontario
add in the impacts on the rest of the country and job losses will be well north of 500,000
and these will be permeant job losses

we need to get a deal done and soon
trying to wait trump out is just plain foolish


you are pretty flippant about 68,000 job loses

losing 325,000 jobs in Ontario alone would be a catastrophe, , one the debt ladened provincial govt can not afford
not if you want universal health care to continue