Sometimes folks vote for the lesser of two evils.
Thread killer
Trudeau
Posted by: Stuminator
Sometimes folks vote for the lesser of two evils.
There isn't a better way to ensure the same outcome.
Posted by: ReductiMat
Posted by: Stuminator
Sometimes folks vote for the lesser of two evils.
There isn't a better way to ensure the same outcome.
Yawn... You don't have a better way. You really don't. The Parliamentary system will create parties even if none exist. It is as natural as water flowing downhill because democracy always favours the groups with the largest numbers. If they were all suddenly independent today, they would start forming parties by lunch. For as long as we have the system we have, the parties will rule.
I don't like the way politics work. I don't like that politicians are always most concerned about the next election. I don't like having to base my vote on what I know are promises that are either unrealistic or straight up pandering. As much as you likely think I am a card-carrying Liberal, the truth is that I have voted Liberal, NDP, and Independent in federal elections.
I don't love everything JT does and some things are straight up disappointing, but the Conservatives were taking us in a different direction. I don't want a law and order, build more prisons and lock up pot smokers government. Or one that felt obligated to follow the US to war. Even the tar sands and the decisions of the Liberals today are affected by the policies of the Conservatives and their single focus on oil as our savior for over a decade.
The Liberals are a political machine, which is not necessarily a good thing, but my guess is they packed all the shit they knew would piss off voters in the first half so they can butter us up down the stretch. IMO, they MUST do more on climate change and that will be on my mind in the next election, but I don't expect anyone, even the NDP to shoot the golden goose in the tar sands so I will be looking more towards their efforts on renewables and research while the tar sands have a natural death. You don't have to agree with me, but you should know that trotting out stories about every Liberal misstep isn't going to make me re-evaluate my process because I am not married to the Liberals.
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"
Last edited by: chupacabra on March 1, 2018, 9:12 a.m., edited 1 time in total.
Posted by: chupacabra
As for the tar sands, this is not news.
https://news.vice.com/article/what-trudeaus-liberal-victory-means-for-canadas-oil-sands
Trudeau and the Liberals and been supporting pipelines since day one. I disagree with it, but I also think that the market will sideline the tar sands soon so i was not a high priority for me in voting.
A worthwhile read. Mostly a thought exercise, and one could argue the timelines a bit, but pretty much spot on otherwise.
https://shift.newco.co/this-is-how-big-oil-will-die-38b843bd4fe0
Posted by: KenN
A worthwhile read. Mostly a thought exercise, and one could argue the timelines a bit, but pretty much spot on otherwise.
https://shift.newco.co/this-is-how-big-oil-will-die-38b843bd4fe0
I've read that before, it's a cool piece. I think the most important point is the pace of change that we've been seeing in the past 20-40 years. I think for most of us here in the gen x age range, having lived with old tech and then through the evolution of new tech (tv's, mobile devices, comp's, auto tech) it's been a relatively cool trip, but as we've seen in some sectors companies can exist one day and simply disappear shortly thereafter when a new or better tech comes along. With the auto industry I am curious to see which one of the big manufacturers will make the hard jump into the deep end of the pool when it comes to electrics. Tesla is great, but they simply do not have the capacity to produce enough vehicles to feed significant consumer demand. I think whoever makes that switch first, particularly among the big 3, is pretty much going to wipe out the others and put a huge dent into the appetite for oil.
Last edited by: syncro on Feb. 28, 2018, 5:03 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
speaking of oil.. higher and higher gas prices can only accelerate the switch as well.
Im fortunate enough that work pays for my fuel, but i still look at the price and cringe a little.
Yeah I work pretty close to the truck crossing on 176th. I'm tempted to go down every Friday after work and fill up.
Posted by: KenN
A worthwhile read. Mostly a thought exercise, and one could argue the timelines a bit, but pretty much spot on otherwise.
https://shift.newco.co/this-is-how-big-oil-will-die-38b843bd4fe0
That was a good read. Predictions are not easy, but the key date is when production peaks. Anything after that is the post tar sand era. He predicts 2022, but even 2025 is too late for this pipeline to be of any consequence.
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: ReductiMat
Posted by: Stuminator
Sometimes folks vote for the lesser of two evils.
There isn't a better way to ensure the same outcome.
Yawn... You don't have a better way. You really don't. The Parliamentary system will create parties even if none exist. It is as natural as water flowing downhill because democracy always favours the groups with the largest numbers. If they were all suddenly independent today, they would start forming parties by lunch. For as long as we have the system we have, the parties will rule.
I don't like the way politics work. I don't like that politicians are always most concerned about the next election. I don't like having to base my vote on what I know are promises that are either unrealistic or straight up pandering. As much as you likely think I am a card-carrying Liberal, the truth is that I have voted Liberal, NDP, and Independent in federal elections.
I don't love everything JT does and some things are straight up disappointing, but the Conservatives were taking us in a different direction. I don't want a law and order, build more prisons and lock up pot smokers government. Or one that felt obligated to follow the US to war. Even the tar sands and the decisions of the Liberals today are affected by the policies of the Conservatives and their single focus on oil as our savior for over a decade.
The Liberals are a political machine, which is not necessarily a good thing, but my guess is they packed all the shit they knew would piss off voters in the first half so they can butter us up down the stretch. IMO, they MUST do more on climate change and that will be on my mind in the next election, but I don't expect anyone, even the NDP to shoot the golden goose in the tar sands so I will be looking more towards their efforts on renewables and research while the tar sands have a natural death. You don't have to agree with me, but you should know that trotting out stories about every Liberal misstep isn't going to make me re-evaluate my process because I am not married to the Liberals.
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"
Yawn? Typically you'd use that response after handily addressing all the questions and comments directed towards you.
Instead I just get, "You're dumb", with nothing addressed or answered.
Responding to your initial reply before the edit, I am not here to change your mind. I'm interested in the cognitive dissonance on display and I'm simply trying to pin down the how and where. This response has cemented my beliefs thus far.
You base your voting decisions on complex narratives you dream up based entirely on whatever news headlines you happen to see. CNN loves you.
Posted by: chupacabra
That was a good read. Predictions are not easy, but the key date is when production peaks. Anything after that is the post tar sand era. He predicts 2022, but even 2025 is too late for this pipeline to be of any consequence.
My WAG is that a pipeline of this size and scope would have a payback period of 25-35 years. So yeah, even if full on construction started today, maybe 2020 to completion. Only a few years of service at full utilization before reality hits. What gets me is that this is the sort of shit the CEOs of these companies should know already. There's a pot full of denial and cognitive bias going on at that level.
Last edited by: KenN on March 1, 2018, 2:24 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
Damage control for the mincing pimp. Trying to explain why a convicted murderer was on the invite list to a state dinner. This after he was initially snubbed by the Indian govt. Apparently this has sparked outrage in India. Trudeau is making an enemy with India. I think part of the reason for this trip is to try & steal some NDP voters from Singh.
Thread killer
There was no snub by the Indian president or its government. That's a ridiculous claim.
Posted by: ReductiMat
Yawn? Typically you'd use that response after handily addressing all the questions and comments directed towards you.
Instead I just get, "You're dumb", with nothing addressed or answered.
Responding to your initial reply before the edit, I am not here to change your mind. I'm interested in the cognitive dissonance on display and I'm simply trying to pin down the how and where. This response has cemented my beliefs thus far.
You base your voting decisions on complex narratives you dream up based entirely on whatever news headlines you happen to see. CNN loves you.
I can't think of anything I have not addressed or answered, and the yawn was not an insult to your intelligence, just that we have been back and forth on this so many times and you keep insisting that Liberals = Conservatives.
My voting decisions are based on complex narratives as they should be. It's called critical thinking. I understand why you support independents. Your disdain for political parties and your view that the outcomes are the same regardless of who wins are well established. Based on what you believe that makes sense to me. What I don't understand is why you have such a problem with me looking at my choice based on the small less earth-shattering difference between the parties. If my choice was Harper vs Harper and legal weed I would take the 2nd choice every time. The Liberals offer more than legal weed over the Conservatives IMO, but it is really that simple. Since there is a lot more to look at and since the 2 parties are clearly different, a complicated narrative is necessary for me to make an informed decision. I envy the simplicity of your process. You just have to pick the independent that most closely shares your views and then forget about it because they are irrelevant after they lose by a landslide, keeping your principles intact.
CCN loves me? LMAO. I do watch CNN, but only Fareed Zakaria, and he doesn't spend much time on Canadian politics. I have been interested in politics since I was a kid and my views have little to do with the latest headlines.
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: ReductiMat
Yawn? Typically you'd use that response after handily addressing all the questions and comments directed towards you.
Instead I just get, "You're dumb", with nothing addressed or answered.
Responding to your initial reply before the edit, I am not here to change your mind. I'm interested in the cognitive dissonance on display and I'm simply trying to pin down the how and where. This response has cemented my beliefs thus far.
You base your voting decisions on complex narratives you dream up based entirely on whatever news headlines you happen to see. CNN loves you.
I can't think of anything I have not addressed or answered, and the yawn was not an insult to your intelligence, just that we have been back and forth on this so many times and you keep insisting that Liberals = Conservatives.
My voting decisions are based on complex narratives as they should be. It's called critical thinking. I understand why you support independents. Your disdain for political parties and your view that the outcomes are the same regardless of who wins are well established. Based on what you believe that makes sense to me. What I don't understand is why you have such a problem with me looking at my choice based on the small less earth-shattering difference between the parties. If my choice was Harper vs Harper and legal weed I would take the 2nd choice every time. The Liberals offer more than legal weed over the Conservatives IMO, but it is really that simple. Since there is a lot more to look at and since the 2 parties are clearly different, a complicated narrative is necessary for me to make an informed decision. I envy the simplicity of your process. You just have to pick the independent that most closely shares your views and then forget about it because they are irrelevant after they lose by a landslide, keeping your principles intact.
CCN loves me? LMAO. I do watch CNN, but only Fareed Zakaria, and he doesn't spend much time on Canadian politics. I have been interested in politics since I was a kid and my views have little to do with the latest headlines.
You are confusing creative writing with critical thinking.
Decisions, when not based on measurable, quantifiable targets are prime candidates to fall prey to cognitive biases.
Posted by: ReductiMat
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: ReductiMat
Yawn? Typically you'd use that response after handily addressing all the questions and comments directed towards you.
Instead I just get, "You're dumb", with nothing addressed or answered.
Responding to your initial reply before the edit, I am not here to change your mind. I'm interested in the cognitive dissonance on display and I'm simply trying to pin down the how and where. This response has cemented my beliefs thus far.
You base your voting decisions on complex narratives you dream up based entirely on whatever news headlines you happen to see. CNN loves you.
I can't think of anything I have not addressed or answered, and the yawn was not an insult to your intelligence, just that we have been back and forth on this so many times and you keep insisting that Liberals = Conservatives.
My voting decisions are based on complex narratives as they should be. It's called critical thinking. I understand why you support independents. Your disdain for political parties and your view that the outcomes are the same regardless of who wins are well established. Based on what you believe that makes sense to me. What I don't understand is why you have such a problem with me looking at my choice based on the small less earth-shattering difference between the parties. If my choice was Harper vs Harper and legal weed I would take the 2nd choice every time. The Liberals offer more than legal weed over the Conservatives IMO, but it is really that simple. Since there is a lot more to look at and since the 2 parties are clearly different, a complicated narrative is necessary for me to make an informed decision. I envy the simplicity of your process. You just have to pick the independent that most closely shares your views and then forget about it because they are irrelevant after they lose by a landslide, keeping your principles intact.
CCN loves me? LMAO. I do watch CNN, but only Fareed Zakaria, and he doesn't spend much time on Canadian politics. I have been interested in politics since I was a kid and my views have little to do with the latest headlines.
You are confusing creative writing with critical thinking.
Decisions, when not based on measurable, quantifiable targets are prime candidates to fall prey to cognitive biases.
LOL. Your snark level is off the charts. Did my irrelevant independent remark hit a nerve? Is the market getting you down? (don't answer, we all know you're killing it)
So... share with us won't you the wisdom in your voting choices, because I can't say I have a clue what they are. I assume your measurable, quantifiable targets are beyond reproach... or at least they better be. ;)
I will be over here, not holding my breath.
Forum jump:
