Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


-1=e^ipi last won the day on July 5 2018

-1=e^ipi had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

80 Excellent

About -1=e^ipi

  • Rank
    Full Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Gender: Agender. Gender roles are dumb.

Recent Profile Visitors

13,402 profile views
  1. I would be willing to pay the pigouvian level of taxation of my emissions. Average annual CO2 emissions per capita for Canada is about $20 per metric ton. The pigouvian level of taxation is around $40 per metric ton maybe. So I guess $800 for me. I guess you just put me in the extremist camp with your poll. Edit: the cost of the pigouvian tax would be offset by lowering other taxes, so maybe less than $800 Canadian for me. I would have to consult integrated assessment models such as by Nobel Prize winner William Nordhaus.
  2. So Harper 3.0? Conservatives never learn.
  3. Of course there is no ideology, conservatism is about the irrational desire to conserve stupid policies, be it supply management in Canada or killing gay people is Saudi Arabia. Thus the CPC's irrational hatred of taxing CO2 emissions, despite it being the most cost effective way to reduce emissions and despite it costing them the election.
  4. Or it could be that there are a lot of people in BC, particularly in the lower mainland, who support Hong Kong.
  5. Harper had his shot against Trudeau and lost. Harper 2.0 (Scheer) had his shot against Trudeau and lost despite LNC-Lavalin and Blackface. Scheer literally ran on a platform of "we should change nothing" during the CPC leadership race, so the label of Harper 2.0 is completely accurate. It wouldn't surprise me if the conservatives pick a Harper 3.0 and lose again. Conservatives are about conserving things and not changing or adapting to new circumstances. This can include conserving losing strategies.
  6. Harper had his shot... and then he was replaced by Harper 2.0. Are we going to have Harper 3.0 next?
  7. I think it's more likely that the politicians have 0 understanding of economics. So they naively believe in the propaganda of the first lobbiest that gets to them (such as the dairy cartel).
  8. In any case, I am not a conservative, have never voted conservative, and will never vote for parties that want to conserve bad ideas like a dairy cartel.
  9. Anyway, keep trying the harperite strategy of supporting the cartel, not advocating for anything, and shutting out discussion and debate in society. I'm sure if you keep trying the losing strategy of harper/scheer it will eventually work... *sarcasm* Edit, also ensure you have no policy differences with the so called 'liberal' party, which ensures that people will vote against the party with the leader that hates gay marriage and is against abortion rights. Clearly that is a 100% winning strategy.
  10. Because it's bad policy and we shouldn't vote for parties with bad policy.
  11. No, stupid policies exist contrary to popular opinion of the people because they are never challenged in an election.The continued existence of tax payer funded catholic schools in Ontario despite opinion polls showing most people are against them is an example. The fact is many countries around the world have political parties that get elected despite being against an awful cartel that makes food unnecessarily expensive for poor people. It's almost like people don't want unnecessarily expensive food.
  12. He loses more votes to people who oppose the cartel.
  13. Call me crazy, but I was under the impression that parties in countries around the world (Australia, New Zealand) consistently win elections while opposing supply management.
  14. ... And here i was under the impression that Scheer supports the socialist dairy cartel...
  • Create New...