Are Nfld and Quebec Sustainable?

[cougar]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Honestly, if voters took politics seriously and held the leaders to account for what they have promised and what they have achieved and punished the hell out of them when they don't keep their word or behave corruptly or fail to achieve things that they have promised that they would etc then we would get much better leadership.

Held them to account?  How?

Do you see this as being possible or happening any time soon?

Sorry, I do not look at politics seriously.  To me it is a complete waste of time.

There are important causes worth fighting for, but that fight also goes nowhere,as the system is designed to drag you down.

You can end up in jail like the freedom convoy leaders or the pipeline protesters or the old growth defenders, but then again this is as much as one can expect to achieve.

[CdnFox]

49 minutes ago, cougar said:

Held them to account?  How?

Either by exercising their abilities as voters or as party members to remove parties or leaders that are corrupt or incompetent. That's how the system was designed. Ask Aaron O'Toole about what happens when you run as a true blue conservative and then behave as a liberal in the election.  You'll notice Poilievre did not make the same mistake

50 minutes ago, cougar said:

Do you see this as being possible or happening any time soon?

Oh it's entirely possible and it has happened many many times on the provincial and federal level. Mostly in the west I will admit. In the west voters have punished the crap out of both right-wing and left-wing parties eventually and of course we're responsible for the destruction of the PC party when it went sideways.

But for whatever reason federally liberal supporters have a very difficult time holding their party to account. 

52 minutes ago, cougar said:

Sorry, I do not look at politics seriously.  To me it is a complete waste of time.

Unfortunately in a democracy The idea is that in the end the voter is in the driver's seat. If the voter isn't driving then pretty quick you're going to crash the car. That's kind of where we are now.

When voters actually get involved it makes a massive difference. They can help select the candidate in their writing which has a very real impact. They can help get that candidate elected which has a massive impact. They can help get a party elected to form government which can have obviously a significant impact. They can communicate in the lobby with that government about issues that are important to them and they can absolutely affect change.

But it does take getting involved. The idea that the voters job is to simply vote once every four years is like saying the driver's duty is to park the car and forgetting about all of the driving that happens in between.

54 minutes ago, cougar said:

You can end up in jail like the freedom convoy leaders or the pipeline protesters or the old growth defenders, but then again this is as much as one can expect to achieve.

In 2002 gun owners were staring at the horror which was the long gun registry. The party didn't even really exist that was willing to stand up for them.

In 10 years we built a brand new political party from scratch, took it up against the natural governing liberal party which was supposedly unbeatable, held them to minorities, and eventually one a majority and got the gun registry scrapped. We got a lot of other things done too.

You don't need to get arrested, you don't need to go to jail, you just need to participate. You need to be active in your writing, you need to be active in helping select a ride in candidate and pressuring that candidate, you need to be active to make sure that that candidate wins. Even better if you can attend the policy conventions and have a serious talk with the party about what the priorities are going to be. And of course you punish the living crap out of anybody who is corrupt or substantially breaks their word. Every politician is going to go back on some one thing or another but if they change something substantial like the carbon tax then they need to understand you won't tolerate that.

[cougar]

On 2/23/2024 at 11:07 PM, August1991 said:

Iceland has some 300,000 people and it has survived for over 1000 years. Newfoundland has now some 700,000 people and has survived for about 600 years.

Island people.

Newfoundland has survived for exactly 74 years as a province

Iceland and most other European and Asian countries have existed for many , many more years, like thousands of years earlier.

Edited May 21, 2024 by cougar

[cougar]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You don't need to get arrested, you don't need to go to jail, you just need to participate. You need to be active in your writing, you need to be active in helping select a ride in candidate and pressuring that candidate, you need to be active to make sure that that candidate wins. Even better if you can attend the policy conventions and have a serious talk with the party about what the priorities are going to be. And of course you punish the living crap out of anybody who is corrupt or substantially breaks their word. Every politician is going to go back on some one thing or another but if they change something substantial like the carbon tax then they need to understand you won't tolerate that.

I see; all those that got arrested did not know what to do. 

Allow me do disagree.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, cougar said:

I see; all those that got arrested did not know what to do. 

 

Those arrested usually have different motives than simply addressing the issue. 

Remember how all those times when gays held a big protest and demanded same sex marriage? Remember how the gov't  caved and gave it to them?

Me either. 

Remember when they went to court and won that very right? Me too.   

Democracy was invented for the very purpose of allowing the people to change gov'ts and policy without having to have a revolution. 

Quote

 Allow me do disagree.

Oh good lord no. Have you met me?    

[August1991]

9 hours ago, cougar said:

Newfoundland has survived for exactly 74 years as a province

Iceland and most other European and Asian countries have existed for many , many more years, like thousands of years earlier.

cougar, you and I have a different understanding of the word "sustainable".

[cougar]

3 hours ago, August1991 said:

cougar, you and I have a different understanding of the word "sustainable".

I don't think the word is the problem.  Were you using it on the economy, population, accent, language?  This is what I did not get.

 

[cougar]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Remember when they went to court and won that very right? Me too.   

I appreciate the example, but this model is not applicable in most situations.  Gay marriages, or gun registries - these are nothing more than political stunts.  Nothing really depends on them and they do not change the way most people live. These are trifle and unimportant.

Try the same approach to reduce the number of immigrants, international students, temp workers and refugees that come to Canada each year and see if you will be able to work it out with your MP.

Or try to stop the oil and gas which is proven to cause climate change.

Or try to stop logging, which is also proven to cause climate change among many other negative impacts on the environment.

Are you telling me nobody ever thought of contacting their MP?  Or that they did not have the right attitude, or mental capacity, or something else? 

Many have tried all possible avenues available - regular people, as well as very affluent and respectable people - all met with failure.

And this is because the democracy you believe we have, does not exist.

Edited May 22, 2024 by cougar

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, cougar said:

I appreciate the example, but this model is not applicable in most situations.  Gay marriages - this is nothing more than a political stunt.  Nothing really depends on that and it does not change the way most people live. It is trifle and unimportant.

Like most things, to those are the facts it is massive. There was nothing trivial about it at all, it represented a huge financial commitment to the government and a massive victory. Think about it, suddenly canada pension plan benefits applied to gay couples. So did all of the federal pensions. And that's just to start

3 minutes ago, cougar said:

Try the same approach to reduce the number of immigrants, international students, temp workers and refugees that come to Canada each year and see if you will be able to work it out with your MP.

That's even easier. Even trudeau is beginning to back away from having as many people here. All the ever has already committed to reducing immigration to levels that are sustainable. That one has already basically happened, no protests necessary. The politicians realized that the public was turning against the level of immigration and they are responding

10 minutes ago, cougar said:

Or try to stop the oil and gas which is proven to cause climate change.

To those supporters did do that. And he has cut back on oil production and expansion dramatically . Another bad example of your part I'm afraid

All of your other examples are the same. All of that stuff has been achieved before and is rarely stopped with protests

12 minutes ago, cougar said:

Many have tried all possible avenues available - regular people, as well as very affluent and respectable people - all met with failure.

What a load of bullshit. Who? Name them.

People make radical changes by working with the government All the time. Very little ever changes with protest.

Your problem is you forget that this is a democracy. So you're not always going to get what you want because other people want something different. Very few people in BC actually want to stop logging all together, so talking to the BC government about stopping logging entirely is going to be met with resistance from people who don't want to stop an entirely. And that's democracy. But the fact is you absolutely can influence the government and make incredible changes and you will do that far more efficiently working with the government in your MPS and you will with some pathetic little crybaby protest. I have seen it firsthand, there is absolutely no doubt

[August1991]

43 minutes ago, cougar said:

I don't think the word is the problem.  Were you using it on the economy, population, accent, language? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stamps? 

They are not evidence of sustainable.

=====

The people in western Ukraine, Galicia, they have their language.

I'm with Pierre Trudeau.

[cougar]

9 hours ago, August1991 said:

Stamps? 

They are not evidence of sustainable.

=====

The people in western Ukraine, Galicia, they have their language.

I'm with Pierre Trudeau.

Stamps - evidence of what the governors of Newfoundland, then colony, considered to be sustainable industries 130 years ago.

I still have no idea what you are referring to with those languages.

[cougar]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

What a load of bullshit. Who? Name them.

You wrote a lot of laughable statements.

Who?  Not only ordinary people but also foundations and organizations - you must know about them.

Oil and gas - there are NEW pipelines being proposed and built.

Logging - it never ever stops. Can't agree that most people don't want it to stop.  Where is your data?

Immigration - where did you see it being brought down to the 250,000/year it was in year 2000, when it was still too many heads coming?

Can't take you seriously, unfortunately.

But just for kicks and giggles I can go to my MP, tell him what I want, present the evidence and see how it will go nowhere.  I can waste a bit of time, some day - better to do that than go to cast a vote.

Edited May 22, 2024 by cougar

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, cougar said:

You wrote a lot of laughable statements.

I gave examples.  Your inability to process simple facts does not make those facts laughable. 

Quote

Who?  Not only ordinary people but also foundations and organizations - you must know about them.

Name. Them. Which organizaiton has not been able to get anything changed by working with the gov't or the courts? I can name dozens and dozens who did. 

 

3 hours ago, cougar said:

But just for kicks and giggles I can go to my MP, tell him what I want, present the evidence and see how it will go nowhere.  I can waste a bit of time, some day - better to do that than go to cast a vote.

Because protest didn't work.  Tonnes of protest for trans mountain  it just got finished.  However  the northern gate way was shut down by the gov't after political pressure was put on the libs. 

So there you go.  working with the courts and the gov'ts worked.  Protest did not. 

 

Quote

Logging - it never ever stops. Can't agree that most people don't want it to stop.  Where is your data?

Public Polling Demonstrates Forestry Support Truck Logger BC : Winter 2023 (mydigitalpublication.com)

Now  where's yours? Oh  you don't have any? You just made your shit up? well there you go. 

Now if you want to talk about old growth,  there's been LOTS of lobby groups and public support for protecting some of the old growth forests. 

Poll: 9 in 10 British Columbians support protecting old-growth | Sierra Club BC

And guess what happened?

Province launches made-in-B.C. conservation tool, takes further action on old-growth forest | BC Gov News

 

Geee imagine that.  Working with the gov't and pressuring them politically works. 

now there are lots of companies who make money logging those forests so of course they push back. Rarely does anyone get everything they want. Democracy is basically a system that tries to make everyone equally unhappy   But you can make real change. Rarely does protesting ever achieve that

 

Quote

Immigration - where did you see it being brought down to the 250,000/year it was in year 2000, when it was still too many heads coming?

Poilievre has said that he will reduce it to levels that are sustainable. We can probably handle more than we did in 2015. But we can handle a lot less than we're doing right now. If you have a specific number you should make a claim as to why that number is the correct number. But nobody has brought that up anywhere that I've seen so asking where I've seen it is stupid. You talked about reducing immigration. I've said they're going to reduce immigration. Now you want to try and find some excuses to why that isn't good enough. Don't be a child.

 

Quote

 

Can't take you seriously, unfortunately.

But just for kicks and giggles I can go to my MP, tell him what I want, present the evidence and see how it will go nowhere.  I can waste a bit of time, some day - better to do that than go to cast a vote.

 

Or you could do it the right way. You could organize a group of people, go to your MP, Lobby the government, even show up at policy conventions for the party of your choice if you wish. And you will get results

 

Or you can do what you're doing now. Absolutely nothing, sitting in your mommy's basement cry babying like a loser about how you have no power.

It's not that you can't take me seriously. It's that if you did then you'd actually have to admit that if things aren't changing it's your fault. And then you might have to get off your butand do something. Can't have that.

The world is run by those who show up. If you don't want to show up and want to pretend that you have no power and that you're a helpless little child then fine, I will show up and run it for you. Don't whine about the results

Edited May 22, 2024 by CdnFox

[cougar]

59 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

Public Polling Demonstrates Forestry Support Truck Logger BC : Winter 2023 (mydigitalpublication.com)

Now  where's yours? Oh  you don't have any? You just made your shit up? well there you go. 

 

Your data is from the Truck Loggers Association????

Oh my God!  I continue to laugh.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, cougar said:

Your data is from the Truck Loggers Association????

Nope  it's a poll done by a legit poling ocmpany.  "leger" is not part of the truck loggers association. They're just commenting on the poll done by leger, a national polling organization. 

How did you come to the idea that the truckers came up with the numbers?

Didn't you read it?  Ohhh  of course not. I forgot how upsetting facts are to you   

Never miss a chance to look like a fool do you    Next time read where the data is actually from and  not just who reposted it before you comment on it  

 

Say hi to your mom when you go upstairs for dinner Jr.   

Edited May 22, 2024 by CdnFox

[cougar]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Never miss a chance to look like a fool do you  

 

This definitely describes yourself on all subjects you have been commenting on.

The "data" is on the Truck Loggers Association site and if you can read it, it should give you a very clear indication that 55% of those who responded had zero knowledge on the subject , or believed it does not affect them, so they responded with being "neutral".

Just as many people believe the forestry is managed poorly as those who believe it is managed well.  Given a substantial number of people in BC have some vested interest in forestry, it will be logical to accept that it was them who responded that forestry is well managed, despite their knowledge to the contrary.

Few people have a in depth take on forestry, what it does and how it affects the environment, other species, climate and us.  Then one can also ask a particular question in a poll to get a particular result.  They did not ask the question if logging is bad for the environment and climate and if it should be stopped.

Now You go upstairs to your Mommy and tell her that I know she slept with a half wit.

 

[CdnFox]

53 minutes ago, cougar said:

This definitely describes yourself on all subjects you have been commenting on.

 

Sounds like what a loser would say after he's been proven wrong. 

Quote

The "data" is on the Truck Loggers Association site and if you can read it, it should give you a very clear indication that 55% of those who responded had zero knowledge on the subject , or believed it does not affect them, so they responded with being "neutral".

And.? They don't want logging stopped. That proves my point 

Listen to yourself!  "Gee if you'd read the data you'd realize you were right and less than 50 percent want to stop all logging! DERP!" 

While i appreciate you taking the time to point out i was correct it kind of makes you look stupid. Well... more stupid. 

 

Quote

Just as many people believe the forestry is managed poorly as those who believe it is managed well.

Doesn't matter, the question was do they want it stopped. No. There you go. 

 

 

Quote

Given a substantial number of people in BC have some vested interest in forestry, it will be logical to accept that it was them who responded that forestry is well managed, despite their knowledge to the contrary.

So ... your argument is that there's a substantial number of people in bc who want logging to continue. Uhhhh  yeah. That's what i've been trying to tell you 

 

Quote

Now You go upstairs to your Mommy and tell her that I know she slept with a half wit.

She says she's never even met you   

LOL - you really didn't think that through did you,   

listen junior, you just spent the entire post proving that I was right. Literally arguing it. Because you're too dumb to Actually think before you speak.

That is why you fail politically. Not because the system is challenging or that it's unusable. You're just dumber than a stump. You are literally too stupid to realize that the words you are writing proves I was correct while demanding that I'm not correct. That is also why you are stuck at home and your mommy's basement.

Now get some sleep, you've got school in the morning and god knows you need as much learning as you can possibly get.

 

[SkyHigh]

On 5/5/2024 at 4:11 PM, CdnFox said:

Sounds like quebec is going to have another referrendum

Don't confuse the PQ blowing smoke up the hard liners asses, with the political will of the people to embark on that journey.

If you actually look into the two previous référendums. The first one in Lévêque knew they would lose and just just did to appease the more militant members and Bouchard admitted the second one was just a negotiating tactic and had no desire to succeed and that is verifiable by simply reading the question. 

Edited May 23, 2024 by SkyHigh

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Don't confuse the PQ blowing smoke up the hard liners asses, with the political will of the people to embark on that journey.

 

Well time will tell but at the moment the PQ is leading in the polls. So people seem to like the smoke anyway.

Quote

If you actually look into the two previous référendums. The first one in Lévêque knew they would lose and just just did to appease the more militant members and Bouchard admitted the second one was just a negotiating tactic and had no desire to succeed and that is verifiable by simply reading the question. 

I do not believe that is accurate. At the end of the day you have to take them seriously. And if the people of Quebec say they want to separate and they have a referendum and Vote to leave then that is going to have severe ramifications. I would hope they'd be prepared for the consequences but to be perfectly blunt at that point I would guess that a government could very well get in that would treat them less well than they would hope.

Frankly most western people I talk to would just rather see them go anyway they're sick of them.

[SkyHigh]

34 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well time will tell but at the moment the PQ is leading in the polls. So people seem to like the smoke anyway.

That's just because the softcore nationalists are dissuaded with Frankie and the QAC and they're (PQ) giving them a soft place to land. Believe it or not sometimes politicians exaggerate their plans in order to attract a certain part of the electorate.

34 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Frankly most western people I talk to would just rather see them go anyway they're sick of them.

There in lies the problem, people who don't speak the language and are ignorant to the particularities of Quebec politics, make up this fantasy world painting tout les Québécois with the same brush. 

35 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I do not believe that is accurate.

Facts don't care about your feelings 

[SkyHigh]

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

prepared for the consequences but to be perfectly blunt at that point I would guess that a government could very well get in that would treat them less well than they would hope.

Even Pariseau (an actual indépendantistes) wanted a pan-canadian legislature. 

It's more about provincial autonomy than actual succession 

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

That's just because the softcore nationalists are dissuaded with Frankie and the QAC and they're (PQ) giving them a soft place to land. Believe it or not sometimes politicians exaggerate their plans in order to attract a certain part of the electorate.

Anything's possible. However until proven otherwise you have to take them at their face value and if people vote for them you have to assume that those people are giving them a mandate. That's how politics works

Quote

There in lies the problem, people who don't speak the language and are ignorant to the particularities of Quebec politics, make up this fantasy world painting tout les Québécois with the same brush. 

Sorry, I didn't realize that the particular of Quebec was that they were lying scud bags. How silly of me.

There's no fantasy here. They say they want to separate. Unless they are 12-year-olds that you have to assume that they mean that. And they should be treated appropriately, they should no longer be given any preferential treatment and frankly I'd love to see a referendum for the rest of Canada about whether or not we should throw them out. Everybody is sick of their whining.

If they want to continue to be treated with respect they better behave respectfully. Or get the hell out and we'll see how that goes for them.

Quote

Facts don't care about your feelings 

No but the facts do care about the facts. And the fact is this gentleman who is elected and is representing the people of his party and his constituency are making specific statements about their intent. That is a fact. Pretending it's not a fact might hurt your feelings but as noted the facts don't care about that and honestly neither do I.

[SkyHigh]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Anything's possible. However until proven otherwise you have to take them at their face value and if people vote for them you have to assume that those people are giving them a mandate. That's how politics works

Sorry, I didn't realize that the particular of Quebec was that they were lying scud bags. How silly of me.

There's no fantasy here. They say they want to separate. Unless they are 12-year-olds that you have to assume that they mean that. And they should be treated appropriately, they should no longer be given any preferential treatment and frankly I'd love to see a referendum for the rest of Canada about whether or not we should throw them out. Everybody is sick of their whining.

If they want to continue to be treated with respect they better behave respectfully. Or get the hell out and we'll see how that goes for them.

No but the facts do care about the facts. And the fact is this gentleman who is elected and is representing the people of his party and his constituency are making specific statements about their intent. That is a fact. Pretending it's not a fact might hurt your feelings but as noted the facts don't care about that and honestly neither do I.

So all just your opinion. I spoke of the words used by the two politicians that lead the référendums. You reply with , lying scum bags (well actually you said scud?)

Right because to take everything a politician says at face value 

[SkyHigh]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry, I didn't realize that the particular of Quebec was that they were lying scud bags. How silly of me.

Lévêque used the term sovereignty association didn't even like the nam Parti Québécois. He thought it exclusive 

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

So all just your opinion. I spoke of the words used by the two politicians that lead the référendums. You reply with , lying scum bags (well actually you said scud?)

Right because to take everything a politician says at face value 

You would have to be a m0ron of epic proportions to claim that if a politician says I will do this thing and a bunch of people vote for him to do that thing that they have no interest in doing that thing. To call it a fantasy as childish. To pretend that somehow you know more about the intent of every single Quebec voter who is supporting that party is the ramblings of a lunatic.

Quebec will have to accept that if they talk about leaving, and all the referendum about leaving, and elect politicians to talk about leaving, then people will assume that they want to leave. I have no doubt that they want to leave in such a way that they still have benefits within Canada, I doubt Canada would be interested in that for long.