you have a tread called The costs of trans visibility. that great but why pretend own it lol.

but like my original point was after 10 years a person in the center will always sway towards the other party. part of the "every pm losses popularity after a decade" convo. Actual center people are leaning to the right thats why all polls show a conservative victory

oh agreeing with the most radical leftist takes on trans issues is centrism you know?

lmao. So a center party voter that still supports the center party after 10 years must be “far left” if they don’t leave the center and go to the right (who I'm sure you won’t say are “far right”)?

This has to be the most convoluted attempt to label someone I’ve seen in a while.

This is tim pool calling himself center funny. You have a 104 page trans right thread and you seem to be the main guy arguing right leaning people here in another 114 page long thread.

The center are the people who go between the liberal and conservative party's depending on recent events. Not people who spend a lot of their day arguing for a left wing party that has lost the center via being in power too long while ignoring promises like fixing the housing crisis. Any center person would see the current cost of living and give a different party a shot.

Interesting guest on Bill Maher last night Author of False Alarm

Calls out the extreme lefties like Uke

https://lomborg.com/false-alarm

Ok this inept "if you vote for the party in the center you are far left you need to vote for the party on the right" BS is tiresome. But the issues you bring up perhaps help illustrate what's going on. In the global inflation crisis, Canada has done very well comparatively, are back to under 2% inflation faster than most g7 countries, with rates that didn't get as high and were cut three times before the americans moved and with already among the best debt to gdp in the g7 it isn't like poilievre has much wiggle room to do anything different (and makes no serious proposals other than vague cutting the government). On housing well both parties are pretty similar here. Trudeau has a whole suite of policies tackling housing. Poilievre promises much the same for example on bully municipalities to change zoning, but the liberals are bit more carrot based (here's money if you do what we want!) vs poilievre a bit more stick based (we're taking money away if you don't do what we want!). The reality is there is not a tonne of things the feds CAN do on these files and not a lot of difference between the parties despite the rhetoric. So no, I think a voter supporting one of these suites of policies and not the other doesn't magically change to the "Far left" just because you like labelling people.

He agrees with me.

Do you now agree we should indeed have a carbon tax as your reference argues for?

realistic and effective Which ours is not

What policy tweak to the (fairly low, fairly modest, relative to other carbon taxes) do you suggest?

Your party proposes ripping it up and replacing it with nothing, in contradiction of the person you just cited. Does that…..worry you?

You know my stance . Carbon Tax is applied and no automatic rebates and a portion of the money gets invested in rebates for installing solar panels, heat pumps etc etc. and another % goes to investing in green technologies such as carbon capture . I also believe in more of these mini nuclear reactors .

The current system is nothing more than a wealth transfer tax

lmao, so you WANT the carbon tax you just don’t want the 90% rebates?!?

This after months of feckless whining over and over about how the carbon tax costs people too much you pretend you want the tax but make it 10x more expensive due to no rebates?!?!?!?

Nobody believes you, but if it was true you should get the far left label not me.

No I don’t want a carbon tax at all but if there was to be one this would be the best route .

I stand by my point that the current carbon tax is nothing more than a wealth distribution tax

That is a very strange stance .

You are a conservative , u want minimal government intervention, u believe in people should be responsible by themselves and not being dictate by government what to do , u believe people knows better how to spend their money then the government does ….right ?

That is the whole point of the 90% cash back rebate !?!?!!
The government don’t spend their cash for them , they return the cash to the people and it’s their responsibility to spend it accordingly so they can replace their utility for energy consumption of their own choosing AND by doing this it prevent the government to hire people to manage an other expensive government program !

And you are against that to favour government intervention , that you believe is always sub-optimal compare to just giving the money to the people directly being able to spend/invest their money more « efficiently ????

Just wow!

Seem you are just against the Canadian carbon tax just because it’s from Trudeau cause it seem to be build in a very « conservative » way …

Well that fiction lasted long. You quoted a guy who believes we should have a carbon tax. You pretended for a post like you thought that was a good idea (and laughably only the rebate was the problem) and SHOCKER have reverted back. Obviously doing carbon tax without a rebate is a vastly more far left policy than doing one without.

You are right that there is a “redistribution” effect form those who use lots of carbon (rich people) to those who don’t (poor people) and the biggest benefit of the rebate is poor people. Maybe that’s why you don’t like it.

it originally was the conservative response! Revenue neutral for the government vs all the super big expensive items, rebates back most money so limited costs on consumers, market based etc.

But partisanship means lozen has to oppose whatever his leader opposes.

95% of the most disinformed Canadians are planning to vote for the CPC or PPC. https://cultmtl.com/2023/10/study-fi...-conservative/

I think we might have done this study already ITT, but it is a healthy reminder.
Smarten up guys.

I looked at this study and its a joke.


4 questions were asked:

Canada’s economic growth lags well behind the G7 average;
Vaccine-related deaths are being concealed from the public;
The right to bear arms is guaranteed in Canada’s constitution; and
Climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions”


Then it was commissioned by a pollster that publicly vowed to prevent Pierre Poilievre from being prime minister.




Why not replace those statements with the following:


Raising taxes on capital gains will directly contribute towards higher levels of capital investment.
The rich disproportionately pay more taxes than the poor.
There are no mass graves around churches.
We have a budget surplus under Trudeau 2024.
Canada's population growth is under 1% for last few years under Trudeau.


I would like to see where liberals and NDP rank on the disinformation scale regarding my proposed 5 questions, I would assume very high levels of disinformation.

Canada doesn't need a transformative leader, we just need a leader to cut taxes and be pro business. Essentially leave the productive people alone and let them work. The rest takes care of itself.