No I wouldnt give him a blank check but he has my vote locked in. It will be the first time in 4 or 5 federal elections were I will vote Conservative

Canada is not in a great position. We could be if we embraced our resources, farming and manufacturing but sadly we only embrace one

How isnt that giving him a blank check then ?


Thats is the point , no one is.
So why JT should be blame more then every other leaders in the world ?
Actually Canada is in the top percentiles of not being crushed economically.

Yeah I guess your right in some sense that is a blank check but I would equate it to as this

Trudeau was like an irresponsible child given a credit card with no limit and Pierre will be a responsible adult handed the debt of that credit card

Let me ask you this what do you consider Justin Trudeaus accomplishment as PM

I would say legalizing pot, Syrian refugees and his latest dental plan proposal after that its broken promises or policies that have done nothing other than political points

My suggestion is don't vote for him next time. Your constant complaining will likely sway zero other people, give or take zero, though no doubt a lot of people do the eyeroll thing (here and in real life) when you start on one of your frequent Trudeau rants, so there is that.

Your constant whinetakes about him though only represent your obsessive need to whine about him, and because you obsessively need to whine about him that pretty much removes any potential valid point you may have about him, because it will be mixed in with all your obsessive irrelevant whines, and nobody else wants to wade through that to find your rare valid concern. I say this knowing it will have no impact.

All the best.

Good Morning Yes everyone already knows I will not vote for him . AS for my post on the federal governments policies on not allowing dogs from a 100 countries it is an issue I am passionate about as are other issues for others. I belong to a foster group and have fostered 13 dogs from outside of Canada . The federal governments argument were protecting Canada from diseased dogs is false as I know all the requirements and quarantine of dogs that is required.

Note Montrealcorp asked me a few questions and I answered him politely just as I am doing here to you.

Good, that is your power as a voter, and I have no doubt that everyone ywho encounters you is over saturated with the knowledge of your feelings of Trudeau.

Well, if someone asks you what time it is your reply would be "It is time to get rid of Trudeau, because..."

He also asked you those "questions" in the way you likely get a lot of feedback in that he had essentially a dismissive tone to it. He is not as blunt as I am in pointing out how you have zero impact due to your constant whining, so you may not pick up on it, but that is how a lot of people will tell you "yeah, ok, whatever dude." I again say this knowing it will have no impact, but if you ever actually took the time to use a strategy to be selective with your issues and how often you complain you would find that when you do it will have a bit more impact than you do with your current approach. I suggest this knowing you will not be able to use this approach.

lets make something clear, i am not arguing JT is a great politician and did a great job .
look at my replies and what i am saying towards your critics.
u keep saying JT is one of the worst PM ever and did an horrible job that will take generations to fix.

All i see is JT did what almost everyone in the entire world this during covid crisis and we end up at better places to most countries.

Am i saying trudeau did a great job afterwords ?
no he was average and we end up in an ok place.
Beside this, he didnt do much and i think doing nothing is better then doing bad stuff.
So at least JT did not make huge mistakes as u seem to implied to me ,shrug.

But i see absolutely nothing better in polievre or any other federal politician in the horizon beside people already in the liberal camps like freeland and possibly carney.
And to me those can help JT and Canada far more then polievre and let me ask u this .
Beside polievre who else u got in that party ?

simply put i just dont see anything better then what liberals offers.
U disagree its ok but saying JT did irreparable damages is to me nonsense.

Of course many of his policies can be reversed. The only lasting one is the deficit which He has accumulated the most of all Prime Ministers. In fact he has racked up more deficit than all the PM's before him just like his father.

All the covid relief was not justified . I know so many people that took many of the programs out there and did not need them but had the attitude its free money ill take it

I have no idea who are the stars in the Conservative party and Pierre was not my first choice but he was a clear winner and polling ahead of JT right now

come on...

the most indebted PM changes all the time.

It was JT father.
then it was mulroney (by a huge margin !)
then it was Harper
Now it is JT (facing the biggest crisis worldwide since WW2..)

Yes Canada are indebted but we are in the best place on the G7 still debt wise.

https://www.icaew.com/insights/viewp...-of-g7-nations.

Like in 2008 with harper debt raises it did hurt.
like JT in 2020 as well but lets be clear, we are in a place that isnt as bad as u paint.

We created debt in crisis and again i dont like JT at all and i didnt like he didnt reduce debts faster u know...
But lets keep reality in check as well and not go over the cliff and imagining a canadian hell created by JT either.

hopefully JT will not revert to his fiscal policies pre covid and will NOT think about reducing taxes like in Quebec they are intended to do because reducing taxes do not solve inflation at all.

look at britain for the past week and imo...
typical right wing economics failure in the coming with polievre if he aim at the same goal which in his populistic narrative , i am afraid he will do.

The Budget Officer just weighed in doubling the GST credit is a 2.1 Billion cost. It seems like they now throw billions of $$$ around so easily It has to stop at some time

Maybe the US did better at reducing % because they started at much at higher level ?
Do we really have that much coal exploitation and uses for example compare to US ?

This as usual seem to be a manipulative stats point from polievre …

So the key to winning that stat is having a few years where you belch out an insane amount of garbage and then have a year or two where you implement changes, and because you were spewing so much extra beforehand you are able to reduce that number by a lot more than if you were relatively efficient the whole time! Gee, I forget if the Trump administration was pro environment or was the type that would do something like the above (the spewing part, not the correcting part). Go Coal Go!!

Anyway, this is why I always enjoy when derps provide some of their alt right news feed they passively consume - there are always so many gaping holes in how the message is presented, but in the end the derps do not care whether the message is totally misleading or not, which makes them the perfect target to monetize (and safe to say the industry of monetizing passive derps has been booming). Post some more stuff like this, as it always entertains.

All the best.

Fwiw, if the free market was such a great answer , how come we are no near at respectable level of gaz emissions after 2-3 decades ?
Because the free market needs taxes to force them to do so because they are there to make money first , not be social workers or environmentalists.

While I agree that there's likely more to the story, this doesn't explain it:

The article is talking about a reduction from 2005 levels, so Trump's environmental silliness would actually make it more difficult to reach (and exceed) the 17% target.

It might be that there is misleading info, more to the story, or it just might be that the carbon tax isn't the most effective measure.

That starting point would be right in the middle of both terms of Bush, after he served several years, so again I might suggest those were not the days where green energy got its biggest boost.

Point remains that the context of the data is usually left out when it is presented in bite sized agenda bits for the appropriate passive derps that are happy to be monetized after they are fed the material via their browsing history data. Great industry.

From the article :
« For example, while Canadian provinces were banning fracking, the Americans used it to free up huge natural gas reserves, making it economically advantageous to replace coal-fired electricity with natural gas. Because natural gas burns at half the carbon-intensity of coal, U.S. emissions fell dramatically ».

Seem easy to get big success of diminishing emission when u were using coal …..

So bobo made me lol into it .
First question comes to mind is why start at 2005 when coal usage in the US is far longer ?

Easy answer -> 2005-6 was at the peak of coal consumption by the US , biggest in the world in front of China !

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...se-of-coal.php

« On an energy content basis, U.S. coal consumption peaked in 2005, but the total annual tonnage of U.S. coal consumption peaked in 2007. Coal consumption declined in most years since then, mainly because of a decline in the use of coal for electricity generation. »

So taking the peak of 2005 do make some great statistics….for political reasons.

if Canada would of been a huge consumption of coal as well in 2005 and got rid of it , the numbers would of been great too shrug .

Ps: coal is the biggest creator of gaz emission .
So when U start at the top in 2005 , not very hard to have great numbers when u cut it …..

Pretty sad medias and and « serious » politicians are ready to distort the meaning of stats just to win some election points on a biais truth in such an important subject …..

Maybe it’s a just sign that politician like kenney and polievre don’t really have anything serious to propose instead of using cheap tricks to confuse electors …

Why not aim on real progress ?
I guess they have none …..
And then they call fake news …

Yeah, lots of context missing for sure, and I was also struck by the coal burning.

I assure you that Shifty and the other derps who will proudly share this misinformation (after being monetized) do not care in the slightest about the context.

What a ridiculous article. In the cited 2005-2020 Canada had either no carbon tax or it just barely was getting going at its smallest amounts. Canada had a lost decade in climate action in the Harper years. The US had a massive replacement of coal with natural gas which dominates their advantage. That's, uh, great and all, but it isn't enough, not by a lot, and none of that repudiates the idea that we desperately need countries to adopt strict prices on carbon one way or another.


Of COURSE Shifty laps this **** up. How embarrassing.

Oh, the people who use this misinformation for political gain care very much about the context; they care that it's not included.

There ya go. Just needed someone with more knowledge or who spent a little more time than I did thinking about it. Thanks, uke.

Hilarious that you actually believe only one side is guilty of this.

Emissions decreased during the Harper era. How have they been doing since Trudeau took over in 2016?

You don't think the "massive replacement" of coal by natural gas happened/is happening in Canada? It's the most common energy source for homes in Canada.

The only thing I believed was that misinformation like that, produced for passive derps to consume, would be eagerly consumed by said derps, and even if the details of how it is wrong is presented - the passive derps who eagerly consume and share the misinformation would not care in the slightest, nor reconsider their opinions. Given your follow up posts it is clear I was correct, though this was as hard to predict as the sun going down each day.

All the best.