blueblood Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 hour ago, cybercoma said: O'Leary has a simplistic message that is misleading because his points will never be contextualize by him, nor the media. You can't give simple answers to complex ideas. That makes it easy to prey on people's confirmation bias and emotional biases. That's exactly what he's doing when he says things like, "Why do we get oil from Saudi Arabia where they beat women with a stick?" But that's how the left wins lots of elections themselves is by taking complex issues and communicating them in sound bites. I'm not knocking them for it as it's effective and gets results. O'Leary has finally been able to do that. i think you would agree in a proper way of projecting economics whether one is on the left or right takes much longer than the 20 second talking heads on the news channels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 6 minutes ago, PIK said: It was more like why are we spending 12 billion on saudi oil. It was more like why are we importing oil when we have so much we can't find a way to export it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 If he wins, trudeau will never be allowed to be in the commons to be questioned by him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) . Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 minute ago, Argus said: The problem O'Leary is going to have is that from everything I've read and heart so far he doesn't play well with others. The power of a leader is entirely in how many votes he commands. Alienate too much of caucus, even if you're the prime minister, and your power is gone. We haven't seen a full blown caucus revolt in a long time, MPs tending to be craven, self-serving people, but O'Leary might be the guy to inspire one. A strong part of politics is stroking egos - and not just your own. I've seen nothing to indicate O'Leary has ever been interested in doing that sort of thing. O'Leary has said he will play nice in the leadership race and hasn't slagged his competitors publicly which is a good thing. I don't think we in Canadian politics have seen an alpha like that in some time. O'Leary would be wise to take note of what happened to Chrétien and thatcher from overseas. Idealy I would like to see a party leader selected from sitting mps which balances power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 Just now, blueblood said: But that's how the left wins lots of elections themselves is by taking complex issues and communicating them in sound bites. I'm not knocking them for it as it's effective and gets results. O'Leary has finally been able to do that. i think you would agree in a proper way of projecting economics whether one is on the left or right takes much longer than the 20 second talking heads on the news channels. The Conservative Party, and I've been saying this for years, is and always has been astonishingly bad at getting their message out there, at communicating effectively in any medium. This has caused them to shy away from a lot of subjects their base wants them to support because they're helpless in communicating simple messages to their audience in a way that will be instantly understood. They've allowed the Left to propagate the message that anyone who spends lots of money is good, and anyone who wants to cut back is not just bad, but nasty, mean spirited and uncaring. I'm just not sure O'Leary is the effective answer to that since he kind of seems to be nasty, mean spirited and uncaring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) . Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) . Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 minute ago, Argus said: The Conservative Party, and I've been saying this for years, is and always has been astonishingly bad at getting their message out there, at communicating effectively in any medium. This has caused them to shy away from a lot of subjects their base wants them to support because they're helpless in communicating simple messages to their audience in a way that will be instantly understood. They've allowed the Left to propagate the message that anyone who spends lots of money is good, and anyone who wants to cut back is not just bad, but nasty, mean spirited and uncaring. I'm just not sure O'Leary is the effective answer to that since he kind of seems to be nasty, mean spirited and uncaring. At least Kevin O'Leary can say I've fronted some of my money to help ordinary people out, which he has. O'Leary is good at getting messages out in 20 second bites which will help. I think this election will be a referendum on trudeaus economy and a lot of people will start learning some things about the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, blueblood said: O'Leary has said he will play nice in the leadership race and hasn't slagged his competitors publicly which is a good thing. I don't think we in Canadian politics have seen an alpha like that in some time. How you behave when you are powerless and want something is not necessarily how you behave once you have that thing, and the power that goes with it. Harper knew how to effectively use power, but he also knew how to tie his caucus colleagues to him, knew how to keep most of them from gaining enough power to challenge him, while winning the loyalty of those who might have, and giving them real power (think Baird, Kenney, Flaherty) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 minute ago, blueblood said: At least Kevin O'Leary can say I've fronted some of my money to help ordinary people out, which he has. O'Leary is good at getting messages out in 20 second bites which will help. I think this election will be a referendum on trudeaus economy and a lot of people will start learning some things about the economy. I agree that the economy is shaping up to be the focus of the next election. If things deteriorate as they seem quite likely to, especially if that deterioration is helped along by a a hostile Trump administration, Canadians might turn to someone like O'Leary, who will be seen as having not only stronger economic credentials but the kind of personality who can either stand up to Trump or at least deal with him on more even terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 3 minutes ago, cybercoma said: This is a fantastic point that highlights the key difference between the political system here in Canada and that in the United States. Kevin O'Leary would be completely neutered as a PM if he alienates his caucus. The PM's power is predicated on consensus in parliament, which includes the governing party's backbench. If he doesn't play nice, the backbench could easily tie the noose that hangs him (assuming he even gets into power in the first place). That also depends on who the backbenchers are and if they can be the type of personality to drum up support. Harper should have been punted by his caucus in 2013-2014 but who was a strong enough personality to pull something like that off. Power is where power is perceived to be... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) . Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) . Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 21 hours ago, Argus said: When O'Leary talks about economics, it's hard for me not to agree with him. He made the point in one of the, what, six separate interviews I saw him in today, that we pay $12 billion to the Saudis, "to people who hit women with sticks" because we can't build a pipeline from where we have oil to where we need it. "That's stupid!" I can't agree more. He talked about negotiating with the Trump administration in another interview, on BNN, which made real sense. In yet another interview, on CNBC, he said that he decided for sure to run when the government put out a statement that it expected to run deficits for thirty seven years. I definitely agreed with him on that one. The problem is that when all is said and done O'Leary is, from all reports, a real dick nobody likes working with or for. And he comes off like a heartless banker, like the kind of rich guy who sits up in a high corner office making decisions with complete lack of concern for who those decisions might harm. Like if he could figure a way to make a fraction of a fraction of a percentage more profit by closing down a factory and throwing hundreds of people out of work not only would he not give a damn about the people about to lose their jobs but he'd be indignant that you'd think he ought to. O'Leary needs to show he has a soul. And when he talked about it taking 25 yrs to buy a boat. That is one problem I wish someone could fix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 13 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said: The next CPC or NDP leader cannot be defined with comparisons to Donald Trump, but Canadian media will still try to do so: http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/o-leary-canadian-trump-1.3941549 It's just what Canada does...like comparing Harper to Bush. The Canadian media can do whatever they want. American opinions have no influence on what they report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 8 hours ago, cybercoma said: at the end of the day, they're providing the cheapest oil in the world, so companies would be stupid not to import their oil. There's no getting away from it. Yes there is. Trump economics. 8 hours ago, cybercoma said: There is a way to get away from Saudi oil, however. Most conservatives probably don't want to hear it, but it's by advancing technologies in alternative energies that get us away from oil dependence. You want to stop buying Saudi oil, advocate for policies that get us away from using it. Eventually we could get to a point where we could fulfill our own needs without importing from regimes that ought to be condemned for their disgusting practices. Such investment would take a long time before it's producing enough viable energy to meet our needs. The price for these can be expensive as well, and since they produce toxic waste and environmental regulatory requirements come into effect, also adding to the cost. The net result is that cheap oil from Saudi is still too attractive to resist. The right way is to invest in our own country in terms of actual production. Make Canada great again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 14 hours ago, OftenWrong said: Yes there is. Trump economics. Canadian oil from the oil sands sells at exactly the same price as Saudi oil. Except where we have to discount it when we ship it into the central US, which is overloaded with oil and hasn't enough refineries to handle it all. Selling it to eastern Canada instead means we get full price, and eastern Canada doesn't have to ship billions to other countries to pay for it. 14 hours ago, OftenWrong said: Such investment would take a long time before it's producing enough viable energy to meet our needs. The price for these can be expensive as well, Just ask Ontario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 3 hours ago, Argus said: Canadian oil from the oil sands sells at exactly the same price as Saudi oil. That is what I thought actually. The oil market is tightly regulated. I have no idea what makes @cybercoma think that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 24 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: That is what I thought actually. The oil market is tightly regulated. I have no idea what makes @cybercoma think that. It costs more to produce so there is certainly less profit in it than the Saudis get. But the price, as far as eastern consumers go, is the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.