Saying I’m in the minority isn’t an argument, it’s just a way to brush off my perspective, and I’ve seen that a lot in this thread. The whole point of debate is evidence and reasoning, not whether most people agree. Minority views are still valid and deserve to be heard.
Look at Orcenio’s rant. He dismisses people’s real worries about providing for their families by calling them fascists. That’s not engaging with facts, that’s attacking people to shut them up. He even says they are “scapegoating minorities” while doing the exact same thing. Pot, meet kettle. Labeling concerns as “pro-Trump” or “fascist” doesn’t solve anything, it just avoids the argument.
Ha! These Alberta Separatist weirdos are worthy of mocking. They do not care one bit about providing for their families. And YES they are Trump loving Fash. Trump is a 100% fascistic malice filled wannabe emperor. You refuse to open your eyes and see, but I’m not blind.
Stating unsupported opinions isn’t an argument either, and pointing out that the vast majority of people hold a different opinion to you isn’t “brushing off your perspective”; it’s presenting evidence that your opinion is likely wrong.
What we have seen a lot of in this thread is you presenting unsupported opinions as statements of fact, and then objecting when evidence and reasoning is applied to them. “The earth is flat” is also a minority view. Does it deserve to be heard without evidence and reasoning applied to it?
I have no views on Albertans per se, but as to those supporting Trumpist policies (in either country):
And if those “real worries” are not remotely based in reality, should that not be pointed out? What if the fact is that they do support fascist policies - does an irrational belief that they have a legitimate basis for doing so negate that?
One can “dismiss people’s worries” and “call them fascists” while still “engaging with facts”. And Trump supporters (in general) now support fascist policies. That is a fact.
If we’re still talking about Trump supporters, they are not remotely the same thing. Minorities are not engaged in a widespread criminal rampage, are not taking over cities and terrorizing the populaces, are not stealing and eating people’s pets. What are these people with “real worries about providing for their families” being scapegoated for that they’re not doing?
Trade talks with USA resume - Leblanc in Washington. I assume Carney had something to do with this, and Leblanc didn’t just pop down on his own.
I forget, are we supposed to hate Carney because he’s doing trade talks and is bowing to Trump, or hate him because he should be more conciliatory to Trump? It’s hard to keep track.
You appear to have missed the point. Criticism is fine, but what we’re often seeing is criticism that is mercurial, inconsistent and flailing. Carney is apparently not doing it right no matter what. Just wait to see what he does and find a reason to criticize - even if this is directly opposite to the criticism levied last week.
The loss of the Russia as an energy provider (due to embargos or just pipelines going boom) has changed the energy profile of large sections of Europe. I don’t know how much of the current demand for LNG sources has changed (vs movement to other power sources) but I’m guessing Carney does.
But I’m pretty sure you already knew that. And if they had done something then, we’d be close to coming online now potentially earning billions for Canada.
“Trudeau said Canada’s best chance of helping its allies may be to supply natural gas via existing pipelines to the U.S.”
Published Aug 22, 2022
Gee, whatever could have happened in the last two years to change this analysis? How dare that awful “Mr” Tru-dope not anticipate the absolute clusterfuck that no one else predicted! I’m of half a mind to demand he step down from being Prime Minister!
What was the opportunity cost of doing that? Why build our own LNG ports anyways? Having ex-drama teachers determine economic policy is probably not a good idea…But wasn’t Carney his economic advisor at this time?
Brookfield owns 25% of an LNG facility in Cove Point LNG terminal in the US and up to 50% in the NGPL pipeline system. Interesting. Would they benefit from increased LNG flowing from Canada? Carney wasn’t an official advisor. If he was he’d have had to declare the conflict.
The reality is that Canada loses when it can’t export its own products directly. Even a drama teacher should know that.
You don’t understand why using existing pipelines would allow Canada to help its allies now rather than waiting several years to build new ports? What would have been the opportunity cost for not doing it?
Seems like you’re arguing for the sort of massive government infrastructure projects you were condemning Trudeau and Carney for earlier.
So was he or wasn’t he?
Oh I see - he was Schrodinger’s economic advisor, and you’re just trying to collapse the waveform in a way that insinuates the most incompetence and corruption.
Are you under the impression this strengthens your argument at all?
