In what way was the candidate dramatically works on Progressive policies? Jimmy would have fired government workers? Do you mean he would have built more Pipelines and pumped more oil? Or is it that you are worried that he wouldn’t have attacked freedom of speech quite as aggressively as the liberals have with their online bills?

There was no threat to Progressive policies with Poilievre. Or at least none that are not threatened already. And the simple fact of the matter is that the more the carney runs our economy and debt into the dirt, the more that Progressive people and poor people will suffer when eventually that has to be corrected and we can’t borrow any more money. You may be too young to remember how badly people suffered for the first Trudeau’s overspending when that had to be corrected, this time it’s going to be in order of magnitude worse and that date will come

I’ll give you that, although he’s not much better. He’s talking about the possibility of building a pipeline, Justin built a pipeline. And his price for doing that is a massive increase in carbon taxes for the oil fields which will make them far less competitive globally. So I don’t know about the whole nowhere close business. He may not be as bad but I don’t know that he’s that far off

So if I say something you don’t like I’m ‘spamming’ ? LOL How very intolerant!

But no, it was the $14 orange juice. It became a massive thing all on its own I was considered a sign that she was living it up at the taxpayers expense. But now those same people who screamed to the High Heavens about that aren’t batting an eye at Carney’s insane lavish food budget for airline food of all things

And that is pure hypocrisy whether I’m in here three days or 3,000

That’s complete nonsense. And let’s face it, because ideas are so bad why is mark carney running on them? 😆

Meanwhile under carney virtually every single metric is down and Canada’s economy is on the same negative ballistic course as it was under Justin Trudeau

The reform party was a brand new party. The only reason it existed was because conservative voters were disgusted with the corruption and bad behavior of the PC party.

I mean if we’re being 100% honest Mulroney was actually doing a fairly decent job. And no conservative wanted to see chretien get in.

But conservatives determined that the party was toast, so they created a new party and through the old one in the garbage. That’s what they’re prepared to do when they see corruption

And no it is absolutely ridiculous to think that the liberal voters punish the liberal party by voting from over only. That absolutely did not happen. The liberal party continued on just fine it was not destroyed or wiped out in any way shape or form. People just like Mulroney better than they like John Turner

When you’re reduced to below party status you’ve been wiped out politically. You might recover but let’s not pretend otherwise. Conservative voters have wiped their parties out to the point where they are no longer official parties And so have the NDP. The liberals have never done so. So I’m afraid you’re 100% incorrect there

The liberals lost and they lost badly in Ontario. I mean they had gone through four elections was a major thing with the liberals and they survived just fine. As it is what they say they lost the election badly but the party was not wiped out. They still have more seats then than the NDP has federally now

The liberal party Had corruption scandal after corruption scandal for over a decade and the liberal voters kept it in power and now they’ve been returned to a majority. And we’re already seeing corruption scandals with Carney but liberal voters just don’t care

Liberal voters will tolerate almost any level of corruption, to be honest it’s getting to the point where it’s practically a prerequisite. And EP voters and conservative voters are far less tolerant with conservatives being the least tolerant.

But it has nothing to do with that. Policy is one thing but what we’re talking about here is corruption. Conservative and NDP voters are less tolerant of their party being corrupt then liberals are. Liberals will accept a high level of corruption in their party

Case in point. Everybody lost their mind and screamed about how unfair it was including the liberals when Bev Oda bought a $14 glass of orange juice. But the liberals are insisting that it’s perfectly fine at Carney spent a million dollars on airline food last year because he works hard and deserves to eat well. Just on airline food for himself he spent more money than a family of four would spend on groceries in 50 years while telling Canadians they’re going to have to sacrifice.

And that’s just fine with the liberals. But an expensive orange juice when it’s not a liberal? She had to resign.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. So you’re saying you think that the liberals know how to apply to their people better? I mean that doesn’t really make sense to me. I think most people understand what corruption is and can identify it when they see it, I just don’t think that the liberal supporters actually care and that gives the liberal party a lot more freedom to do things that would get the other two parties in trouble

Well there are numerous examples of right wing parties or the NDP completely devastating or wiping out their parties in the face of corruption.

Consider the PC government federally after Brian Mulroney left and Kim Campbell disappointed by saying everything was fine and there’s no need to change. They went from being in power to being able to hold caucus meetings at a medium-sized booth at Denny’s. And then the party was eventually wiped out completely and replaced.

Consider the NDP in British Columbia when they had their scandal of the tail end of the 20th century and we’re reduced to two seats as I recall. Likewise the conservative party which was known as the social credit for absolutely bizarre reasons was wiped out after the Vanderzalm Scandals.

There is a willingness for Canadian voters on the right and the farther left to absolutely devastate if not completely destroy their political party if it is perceived that they have done something unethical. The conservatives most of all but the NDP as well

But there is no willingness on the part of the liberal sister they may knock their party out of power but they will never punish them even for severe corruption the way the conservatives and even the NDP will

He’s announced PP’s policies but he never delivered on them. He’s pretty good at announcing things people want to hear but he doesn’t actually do any of it

To be honest, historically and depending on the installation solar power is more useful in the summer or warmer months and dams are less useful because you’re hoping the reservoir fills up and provides power all winter. The reverse is true in the winter we’re damn sure produce more reliable energy but solar power is slightly less available

So to me this sounds like a fairly elegant solution where the dam will now produce large amounts of power throughout the spring and summer months as well as the fall and winter months allowing for more water to be saved up for the winter and more power generation. I’m sure the solar also helps augment the winter as well

Well in that case you should have no problem telling us what’s wrong with the article specifically and where it went wrong.

And honestly I respect that. Conservatives have destroyed their parties provincially in federally when they perceived that the party had become corrupt or morally bankrupt. And the NDP has done the same and your statement is an expression of that. The willingness to destroy the political party because of bad behavior is an absolute requirement for good democracy

But the liberal supporters do not have that track record. Even when they punish their party it’s mild and temporary and most often they don’t. And that creates a problem. How long will others watch that before they decide they should behave the same way then the political parties know they can get away with anything

If you genuinely thought a Bloomberg/Brookfield international banker with a history of renovictions and exploitation of slave-like labor whose primary job was to hide the wealth of the 1% was better than Poilievre then I think you need to seriously reconsider your judgments.

The damage being done to the economy currently is going to be generational and the people that will face and feel it the most are going to be the poor and disadvantaged that nDP voters normally care about. With Poilievre you would have gotten some of the same things, such as an oil pipeline, but you would have also gotten a healthy economy that wouldn’t been able to pay the needs of the week in the future

Instead an entire generation and probably too are going to grow up with a substandard life quality as a direct result of the liberal rule including Carney’s over the last 11 years.

I strongly encourage you to sit back and think about your choices. Watch what happens over the next few years and watch what happens as we attempt to recover for that in the years to follow and watch who suffers.

Well obviously a fair number of NDP voters kind of felt the same. And this is kind of a point that I was bringing up, historically both provincially and federally we have seen conservative supporters utterly destroy their party when their signs of corruption or egregious Behavior. And likewise you can say the same thing about the NDP including the recent destruction of the party.

For some reason you can’t say that about liberals. No matter how bad the liberals get they still tend to survive and their voters are reluctant to punish them the same way

I have never said anything remotely close to “The wages are the only component” If you have to be dishonest about what I’ve said in order to make your point then you probably don’t have a very good point. What I have said is that the wages are 100% included in the calculation. So if $50 is paid in wages then GDP goes up by $50 and that is absolutely true

And you fundamentally misunderstand the point I’m making. I never said anything about wages being the only cost. What I said originally was that the entirety of their wages are included in the value of the GDP and nothing about the fact that other costs are also included changes that fact. Which demonstrates that your original claim is false considering all wages are included with regards to those calculations in those sectors

I’m feeling like perhaps this is a little bit beyond your grasp. The original claim is that gDP minus income means something and my counterpoint which you are not getting is that gDP actually includes income for a significant portion of the sector therefore your statement is wrong. It doesn’t have to be the only input for that to be true

You can say anything is a distribution of profit. Wages are in distribution of profit, the company makes money and uses a portion of it to pay its employees. The company pays the shareholders in exchange for the money that the shareholders have paid to own a portion of the company. An employee transfers money from the company account to his personal account. This is absolutely a cost of doing business. Just like repaying a loan is a cost of doing business

Well it’s worth noting that poilievre got almost the same popular vote as carney did. And there’s no doubt the Carney had his own trudeomanium moments there in the campaign where people flock to him because they believed in him not because they didn’t believe in Poilievre. In fact based on the polling poilievre was gaining ground through most of the election.

None of the polling I saw indicated that defense was a major issue. And it wasn’t really brought up a lot during the election, that was more post-election. So while anything is possible I’m not seeing a lot of evidence for that being a major driving force

I don’t know that the new NDP is going to be pushing terribly hard for military spending.

Misunderstanding there I think, I was referring to Hoekstra, the reply is meant to be a reply directly to him about wanting American booze back on Canadian shelves not you. Sorry for the confusion, my bad

In the case of a public utility or not for profit exactly what I said is true.

“Because public services like healthcare, national defense, and education are rarely sold at a market price, Statistics Canada measures their output by calculating the cost to produce them. Therefore, the value of government output is deemed to be exactly equal to the total cost of the wages paid to public servants plus the cost of intermediate inputs.”

So wages in such cases directly increase the GDP. If you pay a nurse or a police officer $50 per hour then for that hour the GDP goes up by $50

In the case where a corporation distributes profits it absolutely is relevant. You made the statement that the corporation is retaining the profits and that’s not accurate. Dividends are akin to repayment of a loan. They are cost of doing business.

My statement in the original post could only be true if all costs are derived from labor.

Sure. In such a case GDP and income would be equal pre-tax.

Carney is a man who somehow, and I will never know how, convinced NDP voters the voting for an ex banker capitalist whose job it was to renovict people and hide the wealth of the 1% from taxation in Canada was the absolute best choice for progressives and left-wing voters to rally behind

Well then I guess you better find a way to do a deal with Canada and maybe stop acting like such a jackass