Leaders debate Aug 6

[Shady]

yes - that's exactly what your platitudes are... that's exactly what your denier talking points are - meaningless tripe!

You're the one that's pushing for symbolism.

[Charles Anthony]

Guys,

If you wish to continue participating in the forum discussions, stop the thread drift.

Ch. A.

[socialist]

say what? I thought you were against the "Neo-Cons"?

I was against the neo-liberal agenda that is destroying public education. Don't speak unless you know what you're talking about, waldo.

[Freddy]

I don't recall hearing this kind of chatter in the last 3 elections. I haven't heard people under 25 talking about how the debates went before. Today at work was weird. I can actually have intelligent conversations with young people about the debates. It's actually kind of odd how engaged they are this time around. Frankly, I personally think that more people are engaged for this election than any of the recent elections we've had. A large portion of that can no doubt be attributed to the steady rise of social media.

Well it's about time, it will have taken all these years of Harper government to finally kick some sense into these Canadian kids, and get them a job.

[Smallc]

UP

Harper was not lying. Emissions are lower than when the Conservatives took power. He can't take credit for that, but it's not a lie.

[waldo]

Well it's about time, it will have taken all these years of Harper government to finally kick some sense into these Canadian kids, and get them a job.

per StatsCan July update: "youth unemployment rate rose to 13.2 percent from 12.9 percent in the previous month"... what's Harper waiting for?

[Bryan]

Harper was not lying. Emissions are lower than when the Conservatives took power. He can't take credit for that, but it's not a lie.

It is bizarre how that game is played. If it's bad, it's your fault. If it's good, it's something that you had no part in.

That's another thing that the moderators could do in these debates -- stop someone when they make a claim that is not under control of the federal government.

[Evening Star]

apparently, many were taken with presumed sincerity in that closing statement - many outside of die-hard Harper supporters - go figure!

Were you? I'm far from a Harper supporter and I sure wasn't. Nor was anyone on the other sites I read, which are far more lefty than this one. What was he being sincere about? That "we are what we are and Canada is what it is"? That you need to feel it in your bones? That his Dad was PM? Other leaders at least tried to say something of substance. One can dislike Harper and still recognise the emptiness of one of his opponents' speeches.

[waldo]

Harper was not lying. Emissions are lower than when the Conservatives took power. He can't take credit for that, but it's not a lie.

that's the spin now? I'm quite sure I've never heard Harper frame his perpetual bleat on reduced emissions against a 2006 backdrop! You go back to 2006 levels and completely ignore all the failed commitments Harper has made since then? And yes, as you say, Harper certainly can't take any credit given the reductions reflect upon global economic downturn and provincial initiatives... unless you're willing to speak to something Harper Conservatives have actually done. I sure don't recall Harper acknowledging he rides the coattails of the provinces in regards to emission reduction initiatives... do you?

Edited August 9, 2015 by waldo

[waldo]

It is bizarre how that game is played. If it's bad, it's your fault. If it's good, it's something that you had no part in.

in this specific case... I await you providing details as to the steps taken by the federal Harper Conservative government to reduce Canadian emission levels.

[Evening Star]

3. The primary mitigation policy needs to be a global pigouvian tax with equal rate for everyone, no exceptions. Not only does this result in the largest emission reduction for a given cost to your economy, but it reduces the space of mitigation options to 1 parameter which varies over time, thus it greatly increases the chances of obtaining a global solution. Not to mention, determining the optimal level calculating the social cost of carbon dioxide emissions becomes arguably an empirical question.

(Thread drift but this point is interesting; if a mod moves this to another thread, I'll continue it there.) Although this seems like it could work, who would collect this tax? The UN? Or would it require an agreement by individual national governments around the world? Where would the revenue go?

[Evening Star]

Economy goes up and down and personally I don't blame the Cons for this recession as per factors out of control of any government (except the goodies they are raining to bribe voters and we will pay for them dearly with more cuts and deeper recession in future),

Yeah, I have issues with CPC economic policy but it didn't seem at all fair to blame them for presiding over two recessions or even eight deficits (which are pretty defensible if the economy is receding). I'm glad that May managed to get in a criticism of the FIPA with China.

[waldo]

Were you? I'm far from a Harper supporter and I sure wasn't. Nor was anyone on the other sites I read, which are far more lefty than this one. What was he being sincere about? That "we are what we are and Canada is what it is"? That you need to feel it in your bones? That his Dad was PM? Other leaders at least tried to say something of substance. One can dislike Harper and still recognise the emptiness of one of his opponents' speeches.

that's the rub - if you read analyst reviews of "people's opinions" of the debate, a significant take-away is that "people' generally interpreted Trudeau as coming across "more sincere, open, personal, etc.", than the other participants. It appears you have a different view than the described prevailing one.

[Evening Star]

that's the rub - if you read analyst reviews of "people's opinions" of the debate, a significant take-away is that "people' generally interpreted Trudeau as coming across "more sincere, open, personal, etc.", than the other participants. It appears you have a different view than the described prevailing one.

I'm allowed, right? Even so, I'm not sure that the view you describe is the prevailing one: this suggests mixed reviews, for example, with many agreeing with me, including Liberal supporters. (A strong Liberal supporter has said on this thread that JT's closing statement made him want to be ill.)

[Evening Star]

Also, you didn't answer my question: were you taken by JT's sincerity in that closing statement?

[waldo]

(Thread drift but this point is interesting; if a mod moves this to another thread, I'll continue it there.) Although this seems like it could work, who would collect this tax? The UN? Or would it require an agreement by individual national governments around the world? Where would the revenue go?

effectively, the Kyoto protocol followed this approach... as country (grouped) differences were only in terms of, typically, only one or two percentage point differences in reduction target commitments. As legally binding, as a part of the negotiated enforcement provisions, measures existed to allow countries to take measured actions if not compliant... if still not compliant after these measured actions were broached, further enforcement provisions existed. The thing is, as I recall, there were no countries in non-compliance; for example: the EU15 not only met it's target, it exceeded it.

of course, the caveat to this "non-compliance" is Canada... Canada was faced with a $14 billion penalty for failing to meet our target commitment (which could have been met in buying emissions reductions from other Kyoto protocol countries to meet the Canadian target... or Canada had the option to shift the failed commitment into the second phase of Kyoto). Instead, Harper chose to turn Canada away from Kyoto and pompously trumpeted, as an alternate, his "made in Canada" solution. Of course, this was simply the first of an ongoing stream of reduction commitments Harper made to the world community... the first of his failed reduction commitments.

[Evening Star]

effectively, the Kyoto protocol followed this approach... as country (grouped) differences were only in terms of, typically, only one or two percentage point differences in reduction target commitments. As legally binding, as a part of the negotiated enforcement provisions, measures existed to allow countries to take measured actions if not compliant... if still not compliant after these measured actions were broached, further enforcement provisions existed. The thing is, as I recall, there were no countries in non-compliance; for example: the EU15 not only met it's target, it exceeded it.

of course, the caveat to this "non-compliance" is Canada... Canada was faced with a $14 billion penalty for failing to meet our target commitment (which could have been met in buying emissions reductions from other Kyoto protocol countries to meet the Canadian target... or Canada had the option to shift the failed commitment into the second phase of Kyoto). Instead, Harper chose to turn Canada away from Kyoto and pompously trumpeted, as an alternate, his "made in Canada" solution. Of course, this was simply the first of an ongoing stream of reduction commitments Harper made to the world community... the first of his failed reduction commitments.

Right, I basically agree with this, but global reduction targets (implemented on a nation-by-nation basis) are different from a global CO2 emissions tax, which is what Euler was suggesting.

[waldo]

I'm allowed, right? Even so, I'm not sure that the view you describe is the prevailing one: this suggests mixed reviews, for example, with many agreeing with me, including Liberal supporters. (A strong Liberal supporter has said on this thread that JT's closing statement made him want to be ill.)

who said you weren't? I'm simply echoing the described prevailing interpretation of the whole debate... if you choose to single out the closing statement that is certainly your prerogative. You ask if I was personally taken with a perceived sincerity - clearly, anything put forward in that debate was a result of many hours of mock-debate and study... perhaps less from Harper as he's got his robotAct down pat by now! Any perceived sincerity, from any of the leaders, has to be measured in the context of preparation! Of course, some may not be so astute as the waldo... or you!

[waldo]

Right, I basically agree with this, but global reduction targets (implemented on a nation-by-nation basis) are different from a global CO2 emissions tax, which is what Euler was suggesting.

this is simply a continuation of "the Euler's" ongoing prattle to negate efforts to reduce emissions... as in mitigation efforts. That "Euler tax" put forward simply becomes a cost of doing (fossil-fuel) business.

[Shady]

that's the rub - if you read analyst reviews of "people's opinions" of the debate, a significant take-away is that "people' generally interpreted Trudeau as coming across "more sincere, open, personal, etc.", than the other participants. It appears you have a different view than the described prevailing one.

This is just delusional beyond belief. JT's closing remarks were like out of a political parody.

[Shady]

this is simply a continuation of "the Euler's" ongoing prattle to negate efforts to reduce emissions... as in mitigation efforts. That "Euler tax" put forward simply becomes a cost of doing (fossil-fuel) business.

We don't need any added costs to doing business. Take your scheme somewhere else.

[waldo]

This is just delusional beyond belief. JT's closing remarks were like out of a political parody.

your personal interpretation is noted! As I just said, "if you choose to single out the closing statement that is certainly your prerogative. ... clearly, anything put forward in that debate was a result of many hours of mock-debate and study... perhaps less from Harper as he's got his robotAct down pat by now! Any perceived sincerity, from any of the leaders, has to be measured in the context of preparation!"

[waldo]

We don't need any added costs to doing business. Take your scheme somewhere else.

try to keep up! Actually read the posts you presume to reply to.

[GostHacked]

Interesting to see Muclaire campaigning for 'change'. Saying Canadians are ready for change. Yes we are, but it seems our government is not ready for change. Key difference here.

[Bryan]

in this specific case... I await you providing details as to the steps taken by the federal Harper Conservative government to reduce Canadian emission levels.

You can wait all you want, I never made any such claim.