Foxer

joined 4 days ago
[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 day ago (6 children)

But it has nothing to do with that. Policy is one thing but what we're talking about here is corruption. Conservative and NDP voters are less tolerant of their party being corrupt then liberals are. Liberals will accept a high level of corruption in their party

Case in point. Everybody lost their mind and screamed about how unfair it was including the liberals when Bev Oda bought a $14 glass of orange juice. But the liberals are insisting that it's perfectly fine at Carney spent a million dollars on airline food last year because he works hard and deserves to eat well. Just on airline food for himself he spent more money than a family of four would spend on groceries in 50 years while telling Canadians they're going to have to sacrifice.

And that's just fine with the liberals. But an expensive orange juice when it's not a liberal? She had to resign.

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 day ago (8 children)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. So you're saying you think that the liberals know how to apply to their people better? I mean that doesn't really make sense to me. I think most people understand what corruption is and can identify it when they see it, I just don't think that the liberal supporters actually care and that gives the liberal party a lot more freedom to do things that would get the other two parties in trouble

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago (15 children)

Well there are numerous examples of right wing parties or the NDP completely devastating or wiping out their parties in the face of corruption.

Consider the PC government federally after Brian Mulroney left and Kim Campbell disappointed by saying everything was fine and there's no need to change. They went from being in power to being able to hold caucus meetings at a medium-sized booth at Denny's. And then the party was eventually wiped out completely and replaced.

Consider the NDP in British Columbia when they had their scandal of the tail end of the 20th century and we're reduced to two seats as I recall. Likewise the conservative party which was known as the social credit for absolutely bizarre reasons was wiped out after the Vanderzalm Scandals.

There is a willingness for Canadian voters on the right and the farther left to absolutely devastate if not completely destroy their political party if it is perceived that they have done something unethical. The conservatives most of all but the NDP as well

But there is no willingness on the part of the liberal sister they may knock their party out of power but they will never punish them even for severe corruption the way the conservatives and even the NDP will

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -4 points 1 day ago (6 children)

He's announced PP's policies but he never delivered on them. He's pretty good at announcing things people want to hear but he doesn't actually do any of it

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago

To be honest, historically and depending on the installation solar power is more useful in the summer or warmer months and dams are less useful because you're hoping the reservoir fills up and provides power all winter. The reverse is true in the winter we're damn sure produce more reliable energy but solar power is slightly less available

So to me this sounds like a fairly elegant solution where the dam will now produce large amounts of power throughout the spring and summer months as well as the fall and winter months allowing for more water to be saved up for the winter and more power generation. I'm sure the solar also helps augment the winter as well

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

Well in that case you should have no problem telling us what's wrong with the article specifically and where it went wrong.

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

And honestly I respect that. Conservatives have destroyed their parties provincially in federally when they perceived that the party had become corrupt or morally bankrupt. And the NDP has done the same and your statement is an expression of that. The willingness to destroy the political party because of bad behavior is an absolute requirement for good democracy

But the liberal supporters do not have that track record. Even when they punish their party it's mild and temporary and most often they don't. And that creates a problem. How long will others watch that before they decide they should behave the same way then the political parties know they can get away with anything

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -2 points 2 days ago (17 children)

Well obviously a fair number of NDP voters kind of felt the same. And this is kind of a point that I was bringing up, historically both provincially and federally we have seen conservative supporters utterly destroy their party when their signs of corruption or egregious Behavior. And likewise you can say the same thing about the NDP including the recent destruction of the party.

For some reason you can't say that about liberals. No matter how bad the liberals get they still tend to survive and their voters are reluctant to punish them the same way

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago

I have never said anything remotely close to "The wages are the only component" If you have to be dishonest about what I've said in order to make your point then you probably don't have a very good point. What I have said is that the wages are 100% included in the calculation. So if $50 is paid in wages then GDP goes up by $50 and that is absolutely true

And you fundamentally misunderstand the point I'm making. I never said anything about wages being the only cost. What I said originally was that the entirety of their wages are included in the value of the GDP and nothing about the fact that other costs are also included changes that fact. Which demonstrates that your original claim is false considering all wages are included with regards to those calculations in those sectors

I'm feeling like perhaps this is a little bit beyond your grasp. The original claim is that gDP minus income means something and my counterpoint which you are not getting is that gDP actually includes income for a significant portion of the sector therefore your statement is wrong. It doesn't have to be the only input for that to be true

You can say anything is a distribution of profit. Wages are in distribution of profit, the company makes money and uses a portion of it to pay its employees. The company pays the shareholders in exchange for the money that the shareholders have paid to own a portion of the company. An employee transfers money from the company account to his personal account. This is absolutely a cost of doing business. Just like repaying a loan is a cost of doing business

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago

Well it's worth noting that poilievre got almost the same popular vote as carney did. And there's no doubt the Carney had his own trudeomanium moments there in the campaign where people flock to him because they believed in him not because they didn't believe in Poilievre. In fact based on the polling poilievre was gaining ground through most of the election.

None of the polling I saw indicated that defense was a major issue. And it wasn't really brought up a lot during the election, that was more post-election. So while anything is possible I'm not seeing a lot of evidence for that being a major driving force

I don't know that the new NDP is going to be pushing terribly hard for military spending.

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Misunderstanding there I think, I was referring to Hoekstra, the reply is meant to be a reply directly to him about wanting American booze back on Canadian shelves not you. Sorry for the confusion, my bad

view more: ‹ prev next ›