To be fair, I did chuckle at their slogan of "The Other Options Suck." Seems like they barely take themselves seriously, but no doubt people that vote for them connect with that narrow, whiny mindset.

The PPC are doing good work in making the PC party much more palatable for a greater percentage of Canadians. In an attempt to pander to a small, very vocal minority of voters, or to win a PC party nomination, I'm sure that some candidates from the PC party would have gone on the record taking stances that the majority of Canadians find unpopular.

If coming into this election, the PC party was known as the party that opposed lock downs, their chances would be diminished and you could be sure that Trudeau would be hammering on it every time the quality of his own candidates was brought up - he's excellent at playing whatabout politics.

And of all things on Global National last night

https://globalnews.ca/news/8162207/c...-2030-liberal/

Yet another investigation

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...?ocid=msedgntp


Only person looking worse this election is Jason Kenney. Alberta's covid numbers are scary. I am shocked BC has not closed its border to Alberta

I think this article does a good job of highlighting some of the complexities here. But it doesn't help your case that you should vote conservative.

The naive and easy answer is we can snap our fingers and eliminate things like coal and oil more or less immediately. Part of me likes that radical approach, although none of the major parties go that way because there are a lot of genuine economic issues that come from it. These are industries we are killing, with people with real jobs, and you have things like a province with a small amount of power sources and one coal plant whose lifespan goes beyond 2030 do you pay that economic price to replace it earlier or not? There isn't necessarily clear answers to these tensions, because all of this stuff with climate change is about a tension between doing what is right for the planet in the long term and our short term economic gain.

And this ties directly into your fundamental contradiction of being someone who supports action against climate change but votes for the party least likely to act, the conservatives. If you think the 2030 deadlines for coal are TOO FAR in the future, you are instead voting for a party without these deadlines at all! Shouldn't you be voting NDP, and hoping that if they gain more power and influence perhaps in a coalition government, then they put more pressure on Trudeau to act faster? Do you think there is any chance in hell the conservatives are banning thermal coal faster than the liberals will? You voting makes zero sense with what you claim as a priority.

Lol. Hook. Line. Sinker.

That Trudeau has had an in-name-only relationship with his fathers foundation where he has'nt been involved in any way since joining politic was incrediably well known. I remember following the 2015 leadership election (btw, I didn't vote for Trudeau in that leadership election) and it being raised back then. This is OOOOOOOOOOLD news. Instead, it is the conservatives trying to manufacturer a veneer of ~*ethics probe*~ mid election on something every single person in Ottawa has known about for six years. It is pure partisan hackery and the job of it is to hook in naive voters to give them that extra little bit of anti-trudeau hate fodder. And of course you bought into it.

I am voting Conservative as I do not want Justin in power or the possibility of him and the NDP working as a team.

I am clear until candidates look seriously at climate change it will not be my main issue.
Here is an example Biden came into power and scrapped the Keystone pipeline even though construction had begun

If a candidate was serious about climate change they would like the three states of Oregon, Washington and California immediately suspend all coal through BC ports. No duties or carbon tax is paid on these resources.
I am fine with CDN coal still being shipped and the 2030 goal


[QUOTE] Lol. Hook. Line. Sinker.

That Trudeau has had an in-name-only relationship with his fathers foundation where he has'nt been involved in any way since joining politic was incrediably well known. I remember following the 2015 leadership election (btw, I didn't vote for Trudeau in that leadership election) and it being raised back then. This is OOOOOOOOOOLD news. Instead, it is the conservatives trying to manufacturer a veneer of ~*ethics probe*~ mid election on something every single person in Ottawa has known about for six years. It is pure partisan hackery and the job of it is to hook in naive voters to give them that extra little bit of anti-trudeau hate fodder. And of course you bought into it. [/QUOTE

That is what candidates do just like JT trying to frame O'Toole on abortion or doctoring a video and putting it on twitter.

Ok. But you don't get to pretend any more. You don't get to pretend to give a **** about climate change. You don't get to give these faux lectures about who is or is not "serious" on climate change. Not when you are deliberately voting for what is objectively the worst party on every one of the measures you yourself have identified as claiming to want on climate change. You don't get to complain about a lack of action or immediacy when your party spent a decade in power and did nothing, when they promise barely anything and are likely to do less than that.

Ultimately, people like Shifty aren't the problem. He's never going to lift a finger to solve that problem. People like you are the problem. People who tacitly agree that climate change is problematic, and that we should in theory hypothetically maybe kinda sorta do something about it. But then they don't do it. They vote for the opposite. That's how we got the decade of inaction under the conservatives in the first place!

I will say one addendum now, mostly as protection from the future. I am happy about one thing. Much in the way that Obamacare survived the Trump administration, I actually think the carbon tax will survive a conservative minority government if that is what we elect. Yes their plan is worse. They want a 30% reduction not a 40%. They cap the carbon tax at $50 not $170. But ultimately the conservatives DID buy into a carbon tax scheme.

What is crucial is that the conservative scheme is actually really hard to implement, as you have to make this big government bureaucracy that tracks every transaction and creates the reward point scheme. That's not easy to do. It is probably worse than just the much simpler carbon tax of Trudeau. So I somewhat suspect that under a conservative government the carbon tax plan will be worse, but it won't be thrown out. It's too good of an idea. And ultimately, that's a win. If that is the only signature policy plank that survives the liberals, they still will have done and incrediably important task.

Yet you just cant comprehend the fact that other than the Green Party the climate change policies are politically motivated. Our emissions went up?

It would be so easy to stop all that US coal from going through BC ports yet nope.
I am sick of all these by 2050 we will do this and by 2030 we will do this. What are you going to do in the next 4 years?

Bottom Line is I think Climate Change will be the worlds end but the biggest contributor to that is consumption and to many people on the planet

Its easy for you to not care about the 10's of thousand oil workers that have families when you work in a University I do believe and probably have tenure. I am just not prepared to sacrifice Alberta jobs and than import Saudi oil .

Yesterday Justin's threat if I do not get a majority we will have another election in 18 months.

So why are you voting for the party least likely to make any changes to this?

Do you not hear your double-speak? Every time you give a faux lecture about how bad climate change is and that things should be done to tackle it, you immediately undo getting any shred of credit when you vote for the party who will do the least.


To the implication I don't care about certain types of people because of my job well just **** you. What a disgusting ****ing thing to say.

Its also so hypocritical. You are mad at a 2030 timeline to ban thermal coal exports as too late but I don't go around proclaiming you clearly don't care about those BC jobs and the investments made at BC ports that was possible because your team stripped away the environmental regulations that made this possible and your team doesn't even proclaim to want to ban it ever! I want to taper and shut that down over a few years, just like with oil, (and would be happy to set 2025 not 2030 as the deadline). And absolutely I'm sensitive that the transition to a green economy will disrupt lots of jobs and am supportive of sector supports with things like retraining etc.

Please refer to my sinking boat analogy Thanks

lozen's worldview: the boat is sinking, and also will vote for the party with the worst plan and worst record to doing a single thing about that.

uke you are arguing he needs to follow the party with the better rhetoric because their positions SOUND better when he is saying in practically neither does anything meaningful.

That is not inconsistent.

Which is fine, except there are objective, substantial policy differences that have actually been implemented already or are very likely to be in the future. It's fine to have the belief the parties are not doing enough - I share that belief - but it is not fine to vote for the party who has done the worst and plans to do the least. Not if you simultaneously want to claim you care about this issue.

On another issue, it is pretty hilarious how much of the liberal platform O'Toole has just taken and put into his own platform. It is sort of weird how this election has perhaps less substantial policy difference between the parties than I can recall in recent memory.

But now O'Toole is stealing Liberal policies that aren't even in his own platform mid debate: https://globalnews.ca/news/8164859/c...rm-contradict/

Lol.

Maybe I trust the character of the man leading the Conservative party more than any other leader.

You can understand how I might not trust the guy that has had 6 years who will say anything to get elected and promise anything. I will give you the fact that the NDP is way better for climate than the conservatives.

Here is another crappy policy. The best thing he could have done was ban handguns and increase prison sentences for crimes committed with a handgun. Banning Assault rifles will have little to no effect other than PR for the liberals

Which party do you think is more likely to compliment their campaign platform about global warming: the Conservatives, the Liberals, or the NDP?

NDP than the Conservatives than the Liberals


Latest poll has Justin 7 points behind Conservatives. These are the reasons his numbers ae sinking .
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/kat...eral-candidate

How odd. The correct answer, by the way, is Liberals> Conservatives >>> NDP.

For the first inequality, we should simply observe how the liberals actually implemented an extremely ambitious climate change plan from the first mandates while the conservatives spent a decade doing nothing while in power, then at the conservative contention O'Toole pleaded with the faithful to adopt a statement about climate change which they refused to do and then he has come up with this back of his napkin plan despite that. You have proven history of action vs a proven history of opposition to climate change. So why on earth would the liberals be less likely than the conservatives?

For the second, you clearly have no idea how the NDP plan works, do you? Serious challenge for you: Without googling, can you summarize the key initiative in the NDP plan that they will use to combat climate change? One sentence is enough.

You are right one sentence tells it all "He bought a pipeline"

the answer is subjective as well. So your telling me the party with the best climate strategy increased emissions and performed worse than Donald Trump

I didn't think you would be able to summarize the NDP plan. However, I have to admit, I didn't anticipate that you wouldn't even bother trying.

Both of your talking points are extremely disingenuous. You are voting for a party that a) wants that pipeline built too and b) would have undoubtably had higher emissions if their wasn't a carbon tax and they had retained power over the last few years. Personally, I think they should not build transmountain and should significantly raise the carbon tax so drive down those transitory higher emissions. But voting conservative isn't stopping the transmountine pipeline and a less effective smaller target silly structured petropoint carbon plan is going to be worse long term. I genuinely don't get why you keep saying things like this as if they are things that hurt my position instead of just highlighting the utter contradiction in yours.

not taking sides in the uke, lozen debate but wanting to add my view as I think we are seeing here a 'lesser of two evils' or 'better of two options' argument that I think is one of the most popular and accepted and yet the most long term destructive.


I reject the Lesser of Two Evils arguments generally as being the way one should vote, as I believe that Politicians want you to accept those are your only options so they can deliberately then just look how bad they think their voting base perceives the 'OTHER' to be and just promise them they will be an INCH better and thus the lesser of two evils.

Worse I think it leads them to lie incessantly in a campaign promising much better but when in power knowing that they don't have to deliver as long as they remain the lesser of two evils.

It is corrosive and a slippery slope for both parties who then just keep moving towards deplorable hoping to win only on the perception of being the 'lesser evil', instead of anything good.

The culmination of Trump V Hilary, the two candidates with the lowest positives imaginable is an example of that.

Instead, understand that Politicians value POWER above all else you must make sure they understand they MUST deliver what is promised (make good faith effort) or they will be voted out, even if the other side is potentially more evil.


That puts the Politicians into a gambit. Do they not deliver and risk being voted in the hope the 'lesser of two evils' works yet again or do they actually deliver.

When an electorate refuses to vote them out because 'lesser of two evils' you empower the cycle of endless Hilary V Trump where both sides only cares about that. Win based on fear of the 'OTHER' and not having to focus on actually delivering.


I hate seeing people get lecturing (not saying uke is here) about people's responsibility to vote for the lesser of two evils or they are responsible for the evil as the evil has it best chance of evolving as the only choices if that is the only way voters respond.

For the record, I am not generally an advocate for always voting for the lesser of two evils, particularly in Canada where there is a lot of different levers for power.

A key example was voting Green in Ontario where the green vote went from about 3% to 8%, and it was only after that that the Liberals implemented their big feed-in-tarrif platform and in the subsequent election the reclaimed a lot of that vote they had lost to the Greens. I was glad to be part of both votes (originally Green, then Liberal) because I think it really helped solidify the messaging about how parties need to have reasonable climate change plans that they implement. Similarly, I've voted in both NDP and Liberal leadership elections trying to push more towards green policy platforms.

But there are also limits to this. A strategy of voting for a party with a worse climate change plan because the party with the better climate change plan isn't as good as it possibly could be seems like mostly just shooting yourself in the foot.