segnosaur

People cast their votes for a variety of reasons. While some may have done so strategically, I don't think you can say that nobody was influenced by their move to the center. The fact that the Liberals are an "incumbent centrist party" does not mean that they will always have a lock on power. Scandals do add up, and many of Trudeau's promises will be difficult if not impossible to implement. Eventually voters will look for an alternative. And just where do you think their "base" is going to go? Even if they do move towards the political center, they will still probably be further to the left than the Liberals. Any hardcore unionist or left-leaning nutcase will still be more likely to support a center-left NDP than a Centeralist liberal. This is part of the reason the conservatives had the success they had. For all the complaints about the "radical" conservatives, many of their policies were far from the "right wing" extremes that many thought... (They didn't really do much with abortion, gay marriage, etc.) So, they absorbed at least a few centrist votes while at the same time keeping their voter base. All in all though, I do have trouble seeing them as a "centerist" party at all... While they did promote a balanced budget, they also had some pretty big spending plans... public daycare, infrastructure spending, paid for in part by corporate tax hikes.

nope, that is not true Urban deliveries can be done for far less than the current $.80 per item by the private sector. I think you're arguing semantics here... Its possible for private companies to do urban deliveries for less than Canada post. They are just forbidden to do so by law.

This point has been debunked before. Once again... Canada post as a whole may turn a profit, but home delivery operates at a loss. Canada post uses courier services to help turn a profit. However, no rational business will let a profitable part of the company subsidize unprofitable parts indefinitely without a reason. Furthermore, Canada post may not be quite as profitable as you might think... From: http://globalnews.ca/news/1023396/seven-things-to-know-about-canada-posts-plan-to-axe-mail-service/ Canada Post has been selling off century-old offices and real estate to avoid losses... In general, selling off assets to avoid a loss is not a profitable business model. While the internet was around before 2011, its usage has been increasing. First class mail delivery was becoming less and less financially viable for years. And between 2011 and today, 3 million more people are internet users. There has been a gradual erosion of Canada Post's usage base for years. There was no single "ah ha" moment when you can say the internet became relevant to Canada's post business... it was a gradual chance, but it happened. Once again... the only reason it can afford home delivery is because successful parts of its business are subsidizing the non-successful parts. And because it has sold off assets. Neither of these tasks is a viable long-term solution. Now that these facts have been explained to you multiple times, are you going to go back and start squaking like a brain-damaged parrot "Raack Canada post is profitable" or are you actually going to let it sink in? First class main delivery is not profitable.

You said yourself that they got more seats this time around than in at least one of Layton's elections. Perhaps some people feel that the Liberals have a good chance of self-destructing like they did last time after chretien, and by moving the party closer to the center they might seem like a viable alternative. On the other hand, tying themselves to extreme left would result in a party that would be condemned to be a 3rd party forever, and that should the liberals falter, the conservatives would be seen as the only alternative.

If a key part of your argument is "what benefits Canada", then wouldn't we (as a society) be better off to bring in people from places like Mexico or South America rather than Syria? While both groups might contribute to population growth, those from the western hemisphere will (on average) probably be more familiar with our language and customs, and thus we will get both the benefit of increased population, while at the same time having them contribute to the Canadian economy much more quickly.

Yes, "universal service" is important. The question is, who should pay for those services. Some might be of the opinion that if it is your decision to live in the middle of no-where for whatever reason (you like the solitude, you need to be there for work, etc.), then you should be willing to pay more for those particular services, and that its unfair for those within a city to pay extra for whatever lifestyle or economic choices someone else might make.

Just a note: Indeed no courier company can offer service for less than that of Canada Post. For the most part, this is only of interest to those in urban centers. Delivery between points within a city might be relatively inexpensive and a courier company could (in theory) offer the service at a competitive price. The problem is the cost of delivering mail outside of the urban center; Since Canada post has a uniform stamp price, it uses its lower-cost inside-city deliveries to subsidize outside-the-city deliveries.

Normally open source bidding is preferable. But, its not a process without issues. The process does cost money, and it does take time (of which we have very little). And often you end up with a situation where there are various invalid comparisons. And if your final selection is the same plane that you were going to buy anyways (which would probably be the case if it were a truly unbiased process) then you've just wasted millions of dollars and years of time to make what should have been the obvious decision. Why can't we criticize him?Liberal policy on the F35 has been known for months. Actual costs of the alternative have also been known for quite some time. Realizing that the supposed cost savings just won't be there is something that should be obvious.

Well, duh. Stevie Wonder could have seen that the Liberal plan would not have worked. Fighter planes are expensive. Several alternatives to the F35 are more expensive (e.g. Eurofighter Typhoon, Gripen and Rafale have been costing >$100 million, while the F35A costs have been dropping below $100 as it enters production.) The only alternative that might be considered cheaper is the F18E/F... but even though its "flyaway" cost is ~65million, when you add basic support the cost is ~81 million/plane. And the price will be even higher if they decide to go with the 'advanced Super Hornet'. The F35A should cost ~80-90 million/plane by the time Canada is ready to purchase. So, at most the cost difference would be enough to buy roughly one frigate. And that's assuming they buy 65 planes (rather than ordering more). And more importantly, that's just upfront costs, and doesn't include any additional costs of supporting an orphan plane like the F18 if/when it goes out of production. Much like many liberal policies, the ones regarding defence were either poorly thought out, or a cynical attempt to play politics with the Canadian military.

As per the story I posted. CP made this decision on its own. It wasn't an edict from JT. Perhaps they're anticipating some opposition from JT though. We'll see. Well, it was part of the Liberal platform to "stop Harper's plan to end door-to-door delivery in Canada". So even if halting the conversion to super mailboxes wasn't ordered by Trudeau, they would have reason to believe Trudeau would eventually do so. https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/canada-post/ I suspect this is like so many of the Liberal policies... poorly thought out, designed to curry favor with a certain portion of the electorate (or, in this case, public sector unions), and one that they will either go back on, or will end up hurting the country as a whole.

So let me get this straight.... You want to keep an expensive door-to-door service, but also eliminate junk mail, an aspect of Canada Post's business that probably brings in a significant source of revenue. Ultimately you want high costs and low income. And you don't see any problem with that?

Oh, I completely and totally agree. I was just responding to a previous poster's suggestion of "why not offer door to door delivery in winter".

This was discussed in a previous thread involving Canada post and home delivery. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24002-stephen-harper-taking-away-door-to-door-postal-service/ The same basic arguments apply here as they did before. While Canada Post as a whole is turning a profit, often those profits are due to its parcel delivery service; home delivery tends to operate at a loss. And any rational company would never expect one area of its business to subsidize failing areas of its business indefinitely. A couple of other notes: Even though they turned a profit in 2014, they had an operating loss the previous year. So looking at just one year and saying "everything is A-OK" is a bit... questionable. It should also be noted that in other years, Canada post has managed to turn a profit not through its general operations, but by selling off unneeded buildings, a business model that is not sustainable.

Probably because its impractical. So, you want home delivery for only half the year... what will happen to all those letter carriers in the summer months? Are you going to keep paying them full salaries or lay them off? (I doubt Canada post will have enough alternate work to keep them employed.) So every fall, you have to re-hire a group of letter carriers (with whatever overhead that entails, with things like background checks, payroll setup, etc..)

Always find it strange that people complaining about the F35 would chant "LockMart Propaganda", considering most of the anti-F35 information comes from either: Boeing (who is trying to hype the F18), various anti-military blogs, and other similar suspect sources. We can already get an idea of what the costs will be by looking at other non-Tier 1 purchasers and comparing how much they paid for their planes and how much the U.S. will pay. Any difference (if it exists) will still make the F35 cheaper than most competitors. There are multiple reasons why other countries might select planes other than the F35... Saudi Arabia may have made additional purchases of the Eurofighter because they were already flying some in their airforce (purchased before the F35 was available) and it is probably easier to minimize the number of different jets in their air force. There are other reasons countries may go with the Rafale or Eurofighter... a decline in the Euro with respect to the U.S. dollar, anti-American attitudes, or a need for the plane immediately (since the F35 is only currently ramping up production and will take a while before they are producing enough craft to fill all orders). Overall, I find it almost amusing how people will look at the occasional Rafale or Eurofighter purchase, jump up and down with glee and say "look how great these planes are". Right now, those planes are being flown (or have orders by) 7 or 8 countries. On the other hand, the countries that have either purchased the F35 or have otherwise selected it as a fighter include: U.S., UK, Italy, Netherlands, Australia, Norway, Turkey, and Israel. And that's for a plane that hasn't even entered into full production. That's more than the number of countries that are flying the Rafale or Eurofighter. Canada would certainly be eligible to bid on future contracts. But it gives us infinitely more influence if we are also purchasing new jets. It can be made a condition of any purchase. Oh god, that non-sense again. How many times does this have to be explained? - The plane that was tested was not the final version. It was missing certain critical pieces (like the software to properly control weapons). - It was not a 'dogfight'... it was a flight test used to adjust the controls of the F35. A dogfight suggests both planes were attempting to win. The terms of the test were not to play up the strengths of the F35. Its like tying Mike Tyson's hands behind his back, and then saying he was a bad boxer because he couldn't beat his opponent. - The F16 has been around for decades. The pilot likely had >1000 hours flight time in the F16. F35 is a new plane. Its pilot probably had ~100 hours of flight time in the F35. So, a highly experienced pilot beat a guy who was relatively new to his plane http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/

Remember, the Russians want to sell military hardware. That would actually give them an incentive to do exactly the opposite of what you mentioned... understate the capabilities of the F35 and overhype their own hardware. And we do actually have a good window into how the Russians and Chinese are doing. Russia is (sort of) a democracy, and since they were developing their stealth plane in tandem with the Indians we can tell from India how the work was going (hint: it sucked). China is not exactly a democracy, but even then we know about their problems developing their own stealth technology. I doubt that any military force that Canada can field would be a proper deterrent to the Russians in the event of an all-out war. The best we can do is patrol our territory, and watch out for stray airliners and the occasional incursion into our air space. You are assuming that those people we are engaging in Syria, Afghanistan, etc. have at least some rational for deciding who the "enemy" is. They're idiots. I suspect they would target Canada even if we decided to never venture outside our borders. Not sure what type of plane you would think is for 'defense only', since in this day and age, pretty much every fighter would be considered multi-role.

First of all, keep in mind that the Russian program to develop a stealth jet are way behind those of the U.S. (They're still at the prototype phase), and last I heard they were planning on cutting back to 12 planes. They're also developing the plane along with India, but apparently India was not happy with the progress. So, I doubt we'll be seeing any Russian stealth jets in the near future. http://theweek.com/articles/558397/russias-fancy-new-stealth-fighter-serious-trouble http://www.defenceaviation.com/2014/01/indian-air-force-not-happy-with-sukhoi-t-50pak-fafgfa.html Secondly, even if Russia did get a reliable stealth jet in the air, that doesn't necessarily make the F35 a bad choice. There are no other stealth jets available for western airforces (except the F22, which isn't available for sale), and a pilot in a stealthy F35 will still be better off than if they were in a non-stealthy F18, since they would at least still have a chance to catch the Russian plane unaware.

No, there wasn't "safety". There was stability. That is not the same thing, since under the Taliban, women could be arrested for going outside the house alone (especially a problem for women who were widows), This is in addition to mass slaughter of civilians in areas the Taliban was trying to control, and starvation because Afghanistan was denying food aid. Oh, and did I mention the trafficking in sex slaves? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Massacre_campaigns Like I said, I'm not saying Afghanistan is a wonderful place to live now. Its just better than it was. Yup. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/afghanistan-is-doing-better-than-you-think-104903 The Afghan capital, far and away its largest city, is safer than ever by most measures. Of course, not all is well. In addition to the Serena attack, a popular Lebanese restaurant was bombed this past winter and many expatriates killed; a Norwegian journalist was recently murdered in cold blood on a street by a fringe insurgent group. But for the local population, the danger posed by insurgents is not the major worry in their lives. And from: http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/afghanistan-abc-news-national-survey-poll-show-support/story?id=9511961 Afghans' expectations that their own lives will be better a year from now have jumped by 20 points, to 71 percent, a new high. Not going to bother with Libya, since (as I said before) the civil war had already started by the time the western bombing started. Same with Syria.

You referring to the media giving bad press to the F35? There are a couple of possibilities: - Media people are unfamiliar with military issues, and thus are easily swayed by negative reports - Media people want to sell subscriptions/get viewers, and a controversy (like "Oh no, the F35 is a scandal!") might get them those viewers - Media people are biased agaist the conservatives and/or military establishment. Well, the operative word was "had" over 100 F18s. Many were canibalized to keep the rest flying. There are several reasons I can see to buy only 65 F35s... - It would be politically unpopular to buy an even bigger (and more expensive) fleet. Its bad enough hearing about the "+$40 billion" planes; hearing about $60 billion planes would be even worse - Because the F35 will probably be produced for the next 2 or 3 decades, we don't need to buy replacement planes now. If, in 20 years we loose a few, we can buy new ones off the assembly line. (On the other hand, if we buy an alternative, we may have to buy more up front in case a few crash and they aren't making any more.)

Possibly. Or its safer because its slightly newer. (It didn't have its first flight until a couple of years after the F15.) Or its just one of those random unplanned things. Either way, the point is that halving a single engine isn't the "death sentence" that F35 critics seem to suggest. Its expensive because, well, its a jet plain, not a Yugo. All fighter jets are expensive. Others have pointed out that the potential competitors to the F35 have prices that are in the same range as the F35 (and in some cases significantly higher.) Of course, some of the new technology might increase the cost, but some of that technology (e.g. internal weapons bays) will benefit us regardless of what we use the planes for.

The average voter has multiple personalities. They want to save money, but they want social programs, and (occasionally) military involvement. Those are contradictory. Afghanistan (before the invasion) was a horrible place to live (especially if you were a female). There is a level of violence now, and the current government is far from what we'd recognize as a full democracy, but the average citizen is still better off now than they'd be if the Taliban were in power. (Not to mention the fact that the use of Afghanistan territory for Al Qaueda training camps had to be addressed.) Similarly, Libya is not a nice place now, but it wasn't under the previous government either. And the western countries didn't start the conflict... a war was already ongoing. If the western forces hadn't started bombing, you probably would have had a more protracted civil war, with more dead, and still with a bad government at the end. First of all, as I pointed out, the suggestion that its "terrible in a dogfight" largely comes from a misinterpretation of a test which pitted an F35 against an F16. However, the F35 didn't have the completed software, the pilot didn't have the proper helmet, and the whole point of the exercise was to test (and adjust) the aircraft's control settings. Secondly, you are right... the point is to defeat the enemy before getting into a dog fight. The idea of a sort of top-gun plane-vs-plane fight with guns-ablazing is pretty much fictional at this point. And do you really want to sacrifice the greater advantage that comes with a smaller radar cross section (allowing you hit a plane from much further way without detection, which probably affects 99% of air battles) for the supposedly better ability to dog fight (which would help in 1% of air battles)? Lastly, I find it amazing how people who complain about Canada getting involved in foreign military engagements also complain about the ability to dogfight, since we are even more unlikely to get involved in dogfights over our own territory than we are over (for example) syria.

Deploying ground troops (with the inevitable Canadian deaths that would come with it) would be politically unpopular, and a non-starter. Then I guess you'd be wrong about that. Unless those turkeys are actually Autobot Transformers. Two points: - The F35 is not necessarily more expensive than the alternatives - The arrow had other problems... it was designed for only a single role (interceptor) and was unsuitable for other purposes. The F35 is multirole.

More or less yeah. He specified that he wanted to "go with something cheaper". At best, he is speaking out of a position of ignorance (i.e. assuming the F35 won't be the cheapest option, even if it were included in an open competition). At worst, he has totally discounted it. The initial requirement for 2 engines stemmed from technology in the 60s/70s, when engines were much less reliable. As technology and reliability have improved, the need for a 2-engine plane has dropped. (And it should be pointed out that other countries with an arctic presence have been using single engine planes for years... F16s in Alaska and Grippens in Sweden.) As for the range, not sure where you got the "short range" from. According to Wikipedia, its combat radius is > 1000 km, roughly twice that of our current CF18s. Two points: - It may not be critical for home defense, but Canada has (at various times) engaged in foreign military missions (some with air strikes, some with ground troops), and each of our main political parties has supported at least one (if not more) of those missions. (The conservatives got us involved in Syria, the Liberals in Afghanistan, and while the NDP wasn't in charge, they voted in favor of the bombing mission in Libya.) Buying planes that are unsuited to such missions would be limiting the ability of future governments to set international policy. - Even if steath is ignored, there are other reasons why the F35 would be considered the best choice.... the longer projected production run (giving more opportunity to buy cheaper spare parts), better chance of industrial benefits Define "proven itself". Many of the tests have gone well. One small squadron has been deployed by the marines. (They have had problems with the deployment related to keeping the planes operational but some experience will help there.) A lot of F35 critics have pointed to a supposed "dog fight" that the F35 lost against an F16, but since the F35 wasn't even a completely functional model, it wasn't exactly a proper test. And in a Green Flag test, the F35 did fairly well. From: http://theaviationist.com/2015/07/01/f-35s-role-in-green-flag/ ...not a single F-35 was “shot down” during the drills, a significant achievement for the JSF at its first active participation in a major exercise, especially considering that A-10s and F-16s were defeated in the same conditions. Of course, if you suggest we should only go with airplanes that have "proven themselves" then we'd still be flying Sopwith Camels. Somewhere along the line you have to decide that your test flights have given enough confidence the plane will work well in actual combat.

Why are you looking at F18 costs from 2 years ago rather than current/future price (when inflation might have increased the price)? Why are you pointing out the F35 costs in 2016, when the actual costs of the F35 have been decreasing as production levels have increased, and we won't be buying the fleet for a few more years? Why are you only pointing out the exchange rate when dealing with the F35 and not the F18? Well, OK, we know why you're doing it... because any arguments you've put forward have been totally debunked, so you have to resort to deceptive tactics in an attempt to justify your position. I guess the better question is, why did you think nobody would notice?

What? How can that be? I thought the media was all composed of right-wing sycophants with an overwhelming conservative bias. Why would they say anything to make the conservatives look bad?