Doing a WHATABOUTISM that emptily accuses others of also doing WHATABOUTISMS is peak WHATABOUTISM, lozen.

When choosing which political party to support, it is generally a good thing to choose one that aligns with the values you espouse. I point out that you have a tension between the values you claim to hold (in particular in climate and environmentalism) while supporting the party that is objectively worst at these. That isn't a whataboutism. That is just pointing out the tensions in your political worldview.

Yes and when you support a party that has made little to no progress in Climate change while destroying or hindering the economy of the province I live in I will support the party that serves my provinces best interests and the country as a whole. I will always choose CDN Energy Independence over wild dreams of a trust fund baby

Well on a different note today begins the inquiry into the use of the emergencies act.

I never knew that this was automatic once a PM uses it. Even the PM is required to testify

One interesting aspect is the PM told us the police asked him to do this when in fact they will testify they did not

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...81e9d4e43202eb

Uke owning lozen time after time after time after time is why I come back to this thread.

Remember when lozen said he wasn't a huge Trump stan? Peak lozen.

lozen is generally terrible in understanding when and when not a 'whataboutism' is appropriate.

But using a whataboutism to address a whataboutism can absolutely be appropriate. This is similar to how I say people misinterpret the word 'discrimination' as always a wrong and simply feel they need to say 'see... discrimination' as if its very presence means they have identified a wrong. That is incorrect. Discrimination, like a whataboutism can be correct and accurate and if a 'wrong' is claimed then you need to make a case and not just cite the word (WHATABOUTiSM) as if that proves a wrong.

In this instance, your claim seems to be lozen's attacks, if he also included Ontario, would be less partisan or better founded which might be true. but that does not mean he is inaccurate, if he chooses a more partisan line to only highlight Trudeau's and Quebec flaws.

this is very similar to people calling me out here for highlighting mostly Left/Liberal failings and asking why I do not call out Right ones more. Conversely i got the opposite in BFI.

When faced with partisan discussion opponents (as you are uke, and even Montreal is generally) who tend to overly highlight the problems of one party and one Province, then using whataboutism can absolutely be appropriate to not allow them to control the narrative and discussion as if they have identified the 'only' bad, over and over.

I would not allow the BFi to only focus on Obama and Dems for covid issues failings no matter if what they said had merit for that instance. I was not going to allow them to control the narrative and blame. I was always going to contrast it with Trump's far more significant failings as they screamed (and they did) it was a whataboutism.

People are not obligated to fall into partisan discussion traps by the way the discussion is framed.

For lozen.

As he seems to think that because some whataboutisms are used and appropriate then all are appropriate or conversely if you tell him his whataboutism is inappropriate he then will fire back as if any other whataboutism is wrong, which is not the case.

A 'comparison' or whataboutism is appropriate when it brings something of value to the topic being discussed ('Obama was the worst POTUS ever... 'whatabout Trump', IS appropriate in reply). They are inappropriate when they only seek to change or divert the topic from the question asked ('Trump did a very bad thing today in his call...' 'Whatabout Obama's abuses'). The latter does nothing to address whether Trump did a bad thing in that instance and only seeks to change the topic.

I am not sure how Uke owned me again ? I have said I would never vote for Trump and he should be in jail for Jan 6 th and impeached for it

I never look at owning Uke we have political differences

Let me ask you this . When I bring up Justin Trudeau is a climate phony and list the reasons why and factual, but Uke's responses is always . Harper was bad and your voting for the Conservatives are those not whataboutism's and not actually addressing the issue

Didnt u ever said U would rather had trump instead of jt ? ?

Correct as he would not be hindering Alberta and Saskatchewan's ability to develop our natural resources and farming. So I would be taking the lesser of two horrible choices and both Corrupt

Also I really do not care if the GOP candidate is Trump or anyone else from the GOP I hope they win in 2024 and put Keystone back on track.

and buying the pipeline was hindering the natural resources of alberta huh ?
Didnt alberta this year have a surplus ?
Alberta still has the highest income per capita ?
i see , JT hinder alberta economic …..

So what is the solution to this ?
please tell us .

And u think trump and JT are equal just based on this ? jfc...

Depends is best I can say. And partisan politics, or the attempt to frame something solely within a partisan lens, which is often the attempt is one of the areas where I feel, breaking out the 'whaboutisms' is most apt.


As was the case in the BFI, they would always try to hyper focus on Obama and Dem governors and Dem Mayors in inner cities as being the ones to blame for all things covid. There is legit things we can all discuss about mistakes made by all of those, but to try and frame such that you exclude any criticism of Trump and the GOP as a 'whataboutism', is just wrong.

Whether they like it or not bringing up Trump and GOP wrongs is addressing the topic, no matter how deliberately they try to narrow it, to only focus on one side so as to protect the other side from analysis and blame via the cry of 'no whatabouts'.


If uke is trying to be hyper critical of AB and Conservatives specifically, and to frame things only thru that partisan lens, and then to try and keep it solely on that topic, then if you have points that go to the top line issue, then, ya, make them, and ignore the whatabout cries, that attempt to keep it partisan.

I think they both made many promises that they never delivered on. Both have major ethics violations some criminal . The difference is one is an incredible actor and the other is not


Of course on policies they differ dramatically and when I first voted for Justin he came out of the gate quickly and delivered what I expected Legalizing pot, Syrian refugees, cancelling the F35's but boy did that change quickly with the power

So jt is all bad because in the end it’s about no pipeline and infrastructure for LNG ?


https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9133us3m.htm

Look at this chart lozen ….

And this one

https://www.worldometers.info/gas/ga...es-by-country/


You see how volatile the price can be -> meaning it can come crashing as well ?
U see how far canada is and can be toss aside easy by much bigger players ?

And u want to invest many billions and many years to construct something like this not even sure the prices could stay that high to make it profitable ?

Im not saying we shouldn’t but
not 2 years ago no one would ever want to invest so much money in that with Russia as competitor and prices so low ..

Let’s say u borrow 10 billions to make it happen and takes 3-5 years to build and in the mean time Russia Ukraine was is over and the shortage of energy is gone .
Now your facked with too much supply and no profits .

Do u know how the shale oil in US got busted in 2015 ?
Why u think alberta suffer at that time ?

People like u always find easy solution when prices get Hugh and blame people not doing anything but if it was that profitable and easy to do and sustainable like u think it is , why no one didn’t actually do anything about it before ?


And beside your great lng idea what else ?

I have been consistent through low and high oil or energy prices as well I have pointed out Alberta's failures 10-15 years ago not investing in refining capacity.

I have also stated JT should never have bought a pipeline but provinces like BC and Quebec do not get to just say no to pipelines it is a federal decision.

The problem I have is Justin's policies make investment just not viable. Take the Tech Resources application they met all the standards and environmental reviews but Justin than would not make a decision to approve it. He just kept delaying and delaying till they just gave up. The same could be said for the USA when you make it not viable for resource investment you end up begging for Saudi and Venezuelan Oil

Canada is a resource driven economy and that doesn't mean we shouldn't look to expand in other areas

Fwiw alberta struggle not because of lack of refineries (which is a today problem) but because simply oil price went crashing down for years in 2013-14 .

That do not entice corporations to invest .

Ps: from you :
« A prosperous Alberta is good for Canada as a whole. With what is going on with Russia and Europe imagine if we had more pipelines to ports were we could ship our LNG »

Not at any price !
With a too strong dollar it might do great for alberta but it kill the rest of Canada economically .
And that is what happen when an economy is too heaven of energy ressource like oil .
And it’s very volatile .
Albertans do not seem to think in term of economic as a whole but just for alberta wrongly concluding a strong alberta will always be good for Canada which obviously we saw many instance it was not for Quebec and Ontario manufacturing which is huge .

https://www.investopedia.com/article...-its-money.asp

To me the chart in the midddle
Is pretty telling when u look at what gdp it produce with the number of employees it uses .

I love oil , I got stocks but u can’t think to put huge emphasis simply on this thinking it’s just great for Canada .

We have a pretty good and diversify economy regardless what u may think when u only focus on alberta .

Oh there is some truth that when oil is high manufacturing suffers a bit.

Ugh, Uke_Master being a "professor" makes me lose sleep at night.

How can we not do better...

A bit ? 300k jobs is a bit ?

https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/mowat...acturing-jobs/
« The rapid rise of the Canadian dollar compared to the American dollar over the past decade has caused a significant decline in manufacturing exports and thus employment in Ontario. Our most important customers are in the United States. As the Loonie rose higher, so did the cost of our goods. According to the Bank of Canada, the appreciation of the Canadian dollar explains “most of [the] deterioration in competitiveness” of Canadian firms. Many manufacturing firms have shut their doors and even more individuals lost their jobs as a result ».

And that is only Ontario .

I wonder how much alberta would cry out if they lost that many job by a lower gaz price ….

Remember when alberta was crying about the equalization program ?

Ho yeah I know , post 2015 …..
Canadian hates us because we have less federal transfer -> even tho they still far ahead of income per capita .

Let me repaet nyself

I understand and get why no one feels sorry for Alberta for a multitude of reasons I have yet to deny that.

But then u blame JT for alberta problems…..
Seem you always need to be remembered ?

And now that alberta running goood with surplus due to high oil prices , u still blame jt for tough economics lol ?

who are you and why are you following me around?

I'm a stalker call the cops.

And Imagine were we could be if Trudeau isnt out to destroy our oil industry and farming. Our oil sells at a 20% discount as we have limited markets