Michael Hardner

I would argue that it very much does, however said foundations were laid in Mesopotamia with the simultaneous development of writing, accounting, a legal system, and the establishment of the elite class. Modifications happened over time, and maybe if people are calling for fundamental changes then we could take the opportunity to ask some key questions: -What is working? -What isn't? -What elements of our system should we keep and what should we discard? -Who should lead the discussion, who should participate, where should it happen, how should we discuss and move to action? I'll bet a lot of people *think* that something is wrong, but to me it's because the lens we look through to see our "societies" is different than it was, and you can see flaws and cracks - superficial or not - more easily. WAKE (wild-assed key examples): @eyeball had this idea once to monitor politicians more closely. I thought his idea of mounting a camera on the skull of each MP was a little much, but maybe just publishing their bank transactions could do the trick...

1. Ok - there's a lot I agree with in this paragraph, and maybe it constitutes our resting point: socially and culturally, there's a leftist veneer to the Liberals' politics; the NDP has successfully lobbied for two big social benefits, and the Liberals work for wealthy stakeholders. 2. You should. How could Canada's most successful PM, by many measures, the late Mulroney not be seen as elite ? How could Harper, Poilievre... people who spent virtually their whole careers in the politics not be seen as elite ? 3. Carefully laid out opinions are different than carefully laid out facts. How can I possibly challenge your opinion that Liberals are yuppies ? I can't. ---- Like I say, with the modified terms and my understanding of your feelings - and this is mostly about feelings - here, we are likely at a resting point if not agreement on many points. What does it mean to the big picture ? Practically nothing. But if we don't do our parts as nobodies, as members of "the" public, to understand issues in real terms (rather than parroting the slogans and snipes of political masters and their public channels) then we sure as hell can't accuse the politicians of being lazy or hypocritical. We have a job to do too, and this is it.

I can the criticism of them not planning to increase the electricity infrastructure, but it's not like they can't do it...

1. Yes, that seems more realistic than the "Canada gets a pause for being "small"" one.

Imagine the world announcing a global climate treaty that allows Canada to wait and see how it's going...

1. Yes and we will pay for that also.

I don't know if you are referring to me or Grahan but I don't think it applies to either. I will say that personality and appearance are far too important in selecting a leader. We get our leaders because everybody thinks that is a legitimate criterion.

So we go from "Trudeau doesn't acknowledge a Christian holiday" to "The networks don't rebroadcast it"... but I thought the networks exist to make Trudeau look good ? So confusing...

1. Yes, and we will pay for that also. 2. Why do we need to ? Because every country has to reduce according to their output. Our share is small because we are small. 3. Why is it a poor comment ? You were the one decrying the impact to your lifestyle - so how much is it ? What is the impact on you ? 4. I don't know - look it up. I'm not defending the current program as it is, beyond what I have said. 5. Every country who signed onto the Paris Accord is doing *something* as far as I know. And once again: What do you want to be done? Anything being done is going to cost something. People are talking past my points with hyperbole that could be applied to any solution.

While I can get behind the general description of left-wing politics it remains to be seen how 'wokism' moves to a classless society. It's more of a liberal take on how to treat people... nobody is proposing affirmative action programs for trans people or black people for that matter, anymore. Most of the squawking about wokism is how it asks people to normalize treatment of certain groups and to frame our thinking of social relations. "Equality of outcome" refers to material well-being, not social acceptance. Marxism doesn't have anything to say about DEI hiring, because that was a thing that couldn't have been conceived of at that time. It's more of a liberal social program to spread public spending around between ethnic groups more 2. The data in both of those examples is "anonymized" meaning that individuals are not monitored, only the overall trends and aggregate qualities of the data. Compare that to Harper's Terrorism Bill (once again which I SUPPORT) that allows arrest of individuals if the government *thinks* they are going to commit a crime, and allows more surveillance and actions to share data with the police, non-anonymized. https://canadians.org/analysis/whats-harpers-proposed-bill-c-51-security-canada-legislation/ 3. "Many" ? Cite please. 4. Why are you speculating about my personal character ? How is that relevant to our discussion of policy ? You are trying to disqualify me from the conversation based on my characteristics. And of course I have cared when I was treated unfairly. Your line of inquiry here is ridiculous. It's like the woke people calling you racist for questioning things. Make the discussion about the points, not about my personal life. 5. Yes, because I'm not 10 years old. Do you understand that sometimes we have to live in the real world, and risk having rights compromised in order to provide for greater security ? Do you understand that the government can make a decision to arrest you based on travel plans, or some conclusion they would draw as to your intentions ? Do you understand that that means they could have power to thwart security threats with said powers ? 6. At least I am making my mind up on the issues and not following some paranoid and brainless slogan equating the Liberal Party with Marxists. And when I defend things, I tend to do so on conservative principles or, otherwise, pragmatic ones such as the Harper surveillance bill. 7. I like that you are at least redefining terms when challenged. Yes, authoritarian governments that restrict your right to travel and ultimately to leave are seen as more unethical than countries with freedom of movement. This is because it's thought to be ethical to allow the maximum personal freedom of an individual. Marxism and Communism aren't the same thing and you start to get into the weeds the more you try to put everything in the same box - let alone Liberal Party policy. 8. Are you, then, acknowledging that there isn't a drift to the left ? That we're not "going" Marxist and that we're actually moving to the right ? Because with that statement it sure seems like it. 9. Realpolitik. Who started Trade with Red China ? Trudeau or Nixon ? But I won't deny that the Trudeaus were as partial to authoritarians as Nixon or Reagan were. 10. I suspect you are falling into that familiar trap where people think that because I don't tolerate soft-brained criticisms and moronic statements like "Canada is going Marxist" ... that I actually LIKE Trudeau. Why are you asking me to defend him ? I won't. Some of your criticisms reveal your lack of understanding of your own dilemma though. If you think that Liberals and Conservatives aren't both elitists then you shouldn't vote. If you think wealthy people don't support Conservative tax cutting, trust loopholes, and such then you're brainwashed. For that matter, I will bet I have probably voted Liberal less often than you have based on your comments. ----- Think with your brain, not your heart. Trudeau, Poilievre and the rest are the personification of a large body of national political intent - for the purposes of our consideration of them. There's really no point in hating on any of them. They're not here to make big changes to anything

1. Once again - what do you want to be done ? If nobody is to pay anything to convert away from fossil fuels and reduce use, how is that going to work ? 2. How much do you get back in your tax credit ? 3. So we will pay in the end, exactly what I am saying also. 1. Nobody asked me about electricity. 2. The approach makes sense to me, not to say whether it will work or when. And I repeat: What do you want to be done? People are talking past my points with hyperbole that could be applied to any solution.

1. Discuss what? Any parliamentary bill goes through the usual discussion process. 2. I agree with the need for reasoned debate and I say that needs to be recognized by all sides. 3. I'm talking about parents' rights in education, access to gender care, freedom to attend school or events without harrassment.

Googling, I see multiple YouTube videos with Trudeau's Easter message, so this is likely more hysterical meowing. .

The intent isn't to punish, but to incentivize reduced gas use. What do you want to be done? People are talking past my points with hyperbole that could be applied to any solution.

1. Slowing of the acceleration of warming. 2. Not surprising, that. 3. Industry is working on solutions. Do you think nothing should be done? If not then?

1. Ok but climate "action" is not unlateral - see my othe response. 2. "Damning" is far too strong a word. 3. I have grave doubts about your math and your numbers in general. I haven't read extensively on the economic costs and benefits. Here's one that I will read soon, that seems to be widely known: https://personal.lse.ac.uk/sternn/128NHS.pdf

1. Unilateral - 1. a. : done or undertaken by one person or party Since other countries are implementing responses to climate change, including 27 countries with a Carbon Tax ... I just don't think it applies. 2. The cost of ADMINISTERING is, I'm pretty sure, paid for by the tax itself and might be almost negligible but... ok. And I'm not sure why we're zeroing in on that part of the tax. My argument, which you don't seem to be addressing at all, is that people are framing this as Canada acting on its own or acting more than it needs to. I don't see how that's true. And we can see that the Conservatives have (and likely will under Poilievre) submit responses. 1. Ok, yes I agree with this pivot into a new line of discussion on the topic... and the implied concurrence with my point. 2. No, but there have been impacts nonetheless. And it's odd to me for people to concurrently say that we're doing too much and not enough simultaneously. My take is that the framework will eventually yield better results when technology provides more effective responses. ----- My points, again: we're doing something. The global community is doing something. It's likely not enough, but it's something. At some point it should get better. Will it work ? Nobody knows.

1. Well we can say it seems unilateral. Lots of other countries are spending money in this of course. 2. There seem to be basically two approaches, a tax or credits trading. Both have been criticized. If other countries are dealing with it then it's not unilateral is it by definition? If they're spending money on the problem and not raising revenue by putting anything on industry, then they're either deficit spending or taking money away from other programs. Andrew Scheer had a trading system.

How is climate action in Canada unilateral?

This narrative never made sense to me. We've only ever been expected to address our contribution to the problem, and yes it will cost money.

1. These are unanticipated events. 2. I'm glad you said ANY of the parties. 3. Both sides restrict parental rights.

1. Did you mean "allude" ? If so I agree, but I always hope we'll do better here at RePolitics. 2. I think that you are alluding to Kim Campbell. The public sent her a clear message on her perspective there. 3. "Operations" in what way? I'm a tiny burst of hot air in a hot wind storm on here. 4. I'm not sure, but I think we should all act as though we do have an impact. Kind of like how not littering makes little difference for an individual in terms of effort and outcome, but on mass makes for a cleaner street. 5. I do think that if people make for a positive public space here, it will attract more positivity. Part of that involves ignoring posters, especially taxme. When I was a moderator I had information about his actual credentials, and so he was among the first that I banned. There's a certain element that abuses anonymity to post opinions they know are not reflective of reality.

Speaking of clear cutting, how about putting drag queens, trans politics, and sex education into one group of issues and demanding that they all be "rolled back" If you want to have no influence, make wide general statements that could never be translated into policy. On the other hand, I can concur that the politics of this has arrived at a point where some details shouldn't be just accepted as proposed. And then I can ask that people start to drill down and figure out why we're doing certain things, and ask for compromises all around. I think that's probably a good way to start a real conversation on these topics.

Well I agree that there's cause for concern over the proposed changes but... That's not in the bill for now.

You posted this in another thread and I responded. You're talking about the bill as it is, but quoting people who want to make it stronger. To make it stronger by reducing religious exemptions. Confusing.