The Elections Topic

Grimson · Post by **Grimson** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:22

Fleexy wrote:A little late, but I side with Romney.

I'm so relieved he didn't make it, even though the President doesn't count for as much as most people like to think.

KeenEmpire · Post by **KeenEmpire** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:14

Grimson wrote:
Fleexy wrote:A little late, but I side with Romney.
I'm so relieved he didn't make it, even though the President doesn't count for as much as most people like to think.

Don't know about that

Grimson · Post by **Grimson** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 13:14

From your very article:

A president can't just do anything he wants -- he has to work with Congress.

Although in this case, the Congress is mostly Republican, so that + Romney would've been bad. Real bad.

StupidBunny · Post by **StupidBunny** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 13:16

Keening_Product wrote:
StupidBunny wrote:Scarlet's tone of political discussion is stuck in "Mugabe" mode.
There's faux power-sharing and non-faux spouse killing going on?

Heh I was talking more about his aggressive patronizing bombastic tone of argument but I guess Mugabe is a bit too specific for just that

KeenEmpire · Post by **KeenEmpire** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 13:59

Grimson wrote:From your very article:

A president can't just do anything he wants -- he has to work with Congress.
Although in this case, the Congress is mostly Republican, so that + Romney would've been bad. Real bad.

I'm talking very broadly. A 75% promise rating means that the president is not a trivial issue.

Post by **Flaose** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 23:38

Scarlet wrote:
The net flow to or from Alberta has fluctuated substantially. In the early 1980s, Albertans were the source of large real dollar per capita net inflows to the federal coffers but then, for the better part of a decade, Alberta too was a low level net recipient. After the mid-1990s, Alberta’s net contribution rose in line with those of British Columbia and Ontario.
http://www.business.ualberta.ca/Centres ... 2final.pdf

Asked a friend, he said...
[1:13:00 AM] : its not about being funded
[1:13:10 AM] : its about equaling everything out
[1:13:25 AM] : ontario and quebec were contributing way more then alberta
[1:13:52 AM] : so in that case alberta was receiving payments
[1:14:53 AM] : they never needed money to balance out
[1:15:14 AM] : but they still took advantage of the other provinces wealth

Both that report and (I assume) your friend are referring to all four major federal transfers taken together. Equalization payments, however are chunks of federal taxes that are paid to each province that doesn't reach a certain per-capita tax income (the so-called have-not provinces) to use however they see fit (unlike the other three transfers which all provinces receive, and are restricted for certain uses).

From the report you linked:

Per Capita Net Fiscal Impact on the Federal Treasury

(page 33)

Even at times when they receive a net flow of money, you can see in the graph above that Alberta (along with Ontario and British Columbia) have had much less of a negative impact on federal coffers than the other provinces, including Quebec.

Scarlet wrote:It is indeed one factor why the French were pissed off. It is not the only factor, but is indeed an important factor.

I've been looking for evidence of your claim over the last couple of days and have yet to find anything. Quebec, traditionally being a have-not province, almost always receives equalization payments (which they use, among other things, to keep tuition extremely low), the mid-90s was no exception. It's extremely unusual to complain about receiving free money. If you can show me something, anything, that talks about equalization being a sticking point I'd be happy to stand corrected.

Scarlet wrote:Spread your myths to someone else.

As can be seen, if anyone's spreading myths it's certainly not me.

Post by **Levellass** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:34

A little late, but I side with Romney.

Whelp, you're in a rapidly shrinking group of people. http://disappearingromney.com/ For some strange reason people are abandoning him in droves, you'd think that people were only supporting him as a lesser evil.

Snortimer · Post by **Snortimer** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:19

Fleexy wrote:A little late, but I side with Romney.

Interesting website. I got 96% for Jill Stein, myself. And 82% for Obama, but that seems too high to me because some of what that site considers "similar answers" I'd consider to be quite different. Also, many of Obama's stated policy positions that the test is based off are not what is shown by his record in office.

Copyright wasn't mentioned in that quiz, but if it was I'd side with this policy brief that the extreme right of the Republican Party released a few days ago and disavowed within 24 hours after pressure from Hollywood.

Scarlet · Post by **Scarlet** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 6:34

Flaose, I was referring to Alberta of the mid 1980s-mid 1990s. That was a very bad time for Alberta. I know people from there who fled to the US seeking employment. Simply said, the province collapses more or less when oil and gas prices are low.

Now yeah, you could look at 2005 or later and whatnot, yeah, I am not contesting that.

I've been looking for evidence of your claim over the last couple of days and have yet to find anything.

It is what some french people say who I have personally talked to. I think it's fair to say that it was not one of the issues that was out in the open, but one that was not talked about as much.

Quebec, traditionally being a have-not province

That is not true. Quebec was the center of commerce and industry or stuff... that got dislodged as the anglo's moved much of that activity to Toronto. The french are a marginalized group in my opinion.

StupidBunny wrote:
Flaose wrote:You need to tone down your hyperaggressive rhetoric.
Scarlet's tone of political discussion is stuck in "Mugabe" mode.

No, that's not the point. It's not that at all. We basically have a party that I see as a hitler-like party. They're scum, and that is a fact, they're ruining my country. The worst is how they openly lie and are not transparent. They're basically thugs and are digging the grave for my country. And please, do understand, I spent most of my life in the ridiculous USA... I do not want Canada to become that disaster. But, it is becoming that. Our homeless problem for example is now an actual thing. In 1980 we didn't have that problem, or if it did it was miniscule compared to today. In the 1980s the conservative freaks really screwed us over... and now they are starting to screw us over again. The only good thing is that voters will fight back. When they are a majority they always ruin things so bad that they have no chance to win again in the near future. A good example of that is the government in Ontario in the 1990s. I forget, I think the premiere was Harris or something... from the conservative party. They really hurt the province... and voters responded by not voting in a conservative provincial government since.

Post by **Levellass** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:39

It is what some french people say who I have personally talked to. I think it's fair to say that it was not one of the issues that was out in the open, but one that was not talked about as much.

I have talked to people. What they say is obviously true, and I need no ther evidence.

Now excuse me, I must get inside before the chemtrails cover me in poison, Obama found out I know about his 'birth certificate' and he wants to stop my state seceding.

thehackercat · Post by **thehackercat** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:46

Now that my interest has been piqued and I'm studying up on Canadian politics...

Actually, I'd just like to point something out. Speaking as a citizen of a state which actually DID secede in the 19th century... It's a terrible idea. A godawful idea. Don't do it. Please don't do it.

Scarlet · Post by **Scarlet** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 16:42

thehackercat wrote:Now that my interest has been piqued and I'm studying up on Canadian politics...

Actually, I'd just like to point something out. Speaking as a citizen of a state which actually DID secede in the 19th century... It's a terrible idea. A godawful idea. Don't do it. Please don't do it.

It is interesting, much more interesting than US elections, as there are more than two major parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ca ... of_results

Post by **Keening_Product** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:14

Levellass wrote:
It is what some french people say who I have personally talked to. I think it's fair to say that it was not one of the issues that was out in the open, but one that was not talked about as much.
I have talked to people. What they say is obviously true, and I need no ther evidence.

A survey I just conducted of one Australian informs me 100 per cent of Australians believe choc peppermint icecream should be free.

Post by **Levellass** » Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:41

Keening_Product wrote:
Levellass wrote:
It is what some french people say who I have personally talked to. I think it's fair to say that it was not one of the issues that was out in the open, but one that was not talked about as much.
I have talked to people. What they say is obviously true, and I need no ther evidence.
A survey I just conducted of one Australian informs me 100 per cent of Australians believe choc peppermint icecream should be free.

You fool! You're not supposed to disclose your sample size or error rates!

Post by **Fleexy** » Sat Nov 24, 2012 19:42

Levellass wrote:You fool! You're not supposed to disclose your sample size or error rates!

That sort of reminds me of that "study" back in the '80s or so that said only 10% of families at that time were "traditional." It turned out that "traditional" meant "a working father, a stay-at-home mom, and exactly two children (both of which must be unmarried and living at home)." With that much specification, I'm surprised 10% of families met the criteria.