it really does look like some kind of sea creature around 1:47.

it reminds you that we really don't know what's under the ice.

close, but not quite.

putin is an old style tory, in the image of somebody like winston churchill. except, of course, that's he russian and not british. what that means is that in addition to his traditional social conservative views, he also supports a welfare state, state capital and the maintenance of empire. that's british toryism. to a tee.

that's going to put him at odds with neo-liberals, and most of the populist right in the united states. but, it fits very well with the historical canadian right.

mulcair is backpedaling on the corporate tax rate this afternoon. the truth is that there's never been a left-wing ndp government elected anywhere, ever. they consistently end up further right than the liberals once they actually get in power.

more change in canadian politics happens through the court system than the political system. the three parties are almost exactly the same, with the liberals coming out furthest left on some social issues. activists need to focus on protests and legal challenges. the best message voters can send is low turnout. if we can get turnout to 30%, it might change the spectrum a little.

there was a time when john manley was considered to be on the left of the liberal party. he was responsible for reversing the paul martin budget cuts when he took over as finance minister. i don't think he's really the boogeyman he's being presented as, here.

and, the minimum wage is for federal workers; canada doesn't have a federal minimum wage, it's set by the provinces. this is the first time i've seen it presented dishonestly.

there are specific ridings where there are good mps running - most of them liberals - that i wouldn't advocate non-voting in.

but, the ndp slate is mostly zombie candidates that will do whatever party headquarters dictates. and, that is going to be a very right-wing agenda.

i have to broadly advocate not voting in this election.

if you really want satan out of your lives, i'd advise purchasing the Satan Spray and applying it generously across your window sills. that's where the bad spirits come in.

i think the more fundamental problem is that we tend to view marriage as an undissolvable permanent contract, rather than a short term arrangement. if both parties enter into the agreement on fully rational terms, and with the understanding that goals and dreams and opinions change and evolve, then the process of moving on can be taken out of the irrational space that religion places it in.

if a partner in a relationship begins to look elsewhere, that is not some kind of "sin". it's just a reflection of unhappiness. if the relationship was stable, that wouldn't happen. and, people should act on those impulses rather than try and suppress them. the only moral issue at play, here, is being honest with your partner about this. maintaining an unhappy relationship benefits nobody, especially not the kids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilFuzKURvhk

i'd hold off on this. quebec can swing on a dime, and will if mulcair says exactly the wrong right-leaning thing at exactly the wrong time. if the liberals are polling at 20-25% (and some recent polls put them closer to 30-35), then that's comparable to their numbers from 2008 and could actually see them more than double their seat count. ah, but those inconvenient truths don't help the narrative.

the quebec-centric (do you have a better term?) vote is less than 40%, meaning that if the bloc is polling near 15 then roughly half of the ndp vote is federalist. this should be remembered when you're calling them a bunch of separatists. the ndp polled around 10% before 2011. that constructs a 10% swing amongst federalists on the left, which we can see in the higher end of the liberal predictions.

the way the vote is distributed may make this matter little. the liberals are probably not competitive outside of greater montreal, and the ndp will probably sweep the bulk of the province even if they come in at something like 37. but, there's plenty of seats around the island. is mulcair further to the right than trudeau? this is of greater importance than anything else.

while it's clearly mulcair's race to lose, there are decent betting odds of him managing it.

ipolitics.ca/2015/08/22/why-you-dont-see-trudeaus-face-on-campaign-posters-in-quebec/

ndp cabinet material

- libby davies
- joe comartin
- bruce hyer
- bill siksay

oh. wait...

to be fair, there's enough to form a small cabinet:

- nycole turmel
- romeo saganash
- peggy nash
- megan leslie
- peter julian
- jack harris
- linda duncan
- paul dewar
- david christopherson
- nikki ashton

after that, it trails off pretty quick.

LoggerheadShrike
Sure, if you call Andrew Thomson "trailing off". LOL. You've deliberately excluded the finance minister (the most important of the entire bunch!) among others.

deathtokoalas
well, he's gotta win his seat, first. he might have a hard time convincing torontonians to vote for him, considering that he's from saskatchewan. and the ndp are not usually competitive in the riding, to begin with. that's a pretty long shot candidate, really.

i think you can expect scott brison to be finance minister. i think that's the point of getting rid of morgan wheeldon. gotta get them trilateral commission stooges in....

LoggerheadShrike
The NDP aren't usually competitive there because it's usually a stronghold for either the CPC or LPC. It's a battleground riding now, pretty much up for grabs. The NDP has a decent shot at taking it. Not guaranteed, of course, but I wouldn't say it's a stretch by any means.

The Liberals missed their chance to run their star candidate there, as she failed to win nomination, so they're running a lightweight who will probably sit as a backbencher on the off chance he gets elected and the Liberals do well enough to form a government. That's not much to offer. The CPC are running their finance guy, and prior to the NDP announcing Thomson, he was only neck and neck with this minor Liberal, Mendocino - so he can't be very popular. The NDP, meanwhile, before any candidate was committed, was still riding at 20 percent. The NDP has a very good shot at seizing this riding, now that they're willing to commit their finance portfolio there.

deathtokoalas
that's an intriguing perspective of the nomination process in the riding.

LoggerheadShrike
Nothing in my post mentions the nomination process - only the outcome of that process (that Eve Adams failed to win nomination). What are you intrigued by, then? I think it's my turn to be intrigued here!

deathtokoalas
i have reason to think that scott brison may be in negotiations to cross. i think that's what the mess in the riding was about.

if i was ralph, i'd think about it.

there's a few others that, depending on the outcome, may be swayed. including elizabeth may.

LoggerheadShrike
Scott Brisson isn't in that riding. We're talking about Eglington-Lawrence which happens to be the riding the CPC and NDP are running their finance guys in (Joe Oliver, Andrew Thomson). Scott Brisson is also a finance guy (for the LPC) but he's not running in that riding - he is in a very secure riding in Nova Scotia, no mess at all. I think you got confused somewhere.

Brisson is certainly not going to cross to the NDP. He's a red Tory, and was originally elected as a Tory. One thing to cross to the Libs, but crossing to the NDP is a bridge too far to be believed.

deathtokoalas
you got confused; please go back and read the previous posts. you may also want to google morgan wheeldon to understand what i'm talking about.

the ndp are campaigning as conservatives, and have governed as conservatives at the provincial level. the current ndp leadership likely views brison's past as a red tory as an asset. he has cabinet experience. that's what the ndp are going to be going out of their way to pull away from the liberals if the result allows for it. you heard it here first: he's the most likely candidate for finance minister.

the bigger question with elizabeth is that i'm not sure they'd have her.

voxfox
Interesting to see even populist activists repeating the self-serving dross from the likes of the Fraser institute and other shills for the 1%. We need a firm commitment for a large (at least 25%) increase in taxes on the rich & their corporations from the NDP (the Liberals are just talkers).

therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14533

deathtokoalas
mulcair is backpedaling on the corporate tax rate this afternoon. the truth is that there's never been a left-wing ndp government elected anywhere, ever. they consistently end up further right than the liberals once they actually get in power.

more change in canadian politics happens through the court system than the political system. the three parties are almost exactly the same, with the liberals coming out furthest level on some social issues. activists need to focus on protests and legal challenges. the best message voters can send is low turnout. if we can get turnout to 30%, it might change the spectrum a little.

Scalito
How ignorant must you be to not know that the various NDP provincial governments have a better record of delivering balanced budgets than the Cons and Libs combined.

deathtokoalas
i'm quite aware that the ndp have a history of austerity budgets. that's why i'm saying you shouldn't vote for them - they will slash spending. there's never been a left-wing ndp government anywhere, ever. they've always been deeply conservative.

Scalito
"In truth there's never been a left-wing NDP government elected anywhere, ever"

Now, all of a sudden, you seem to be aware of the fact that there have been, but you have to equivocate. You're making a fool of yourself with your self-serving flip-flopping.

deathtokoalas
you seem to be having difficulty understanding what i typed. i think i was really quite clear. however, i will quote precisely what i typed and explain it in further detail so that it's entirely understood:

"the truth is that there's never been a left-wing ndp government elected anywhere, ever. they consistently end up further right than the liberals once they actually get in power."

now, if it were not for the second sentence, i could understand how you could possibly have thought i meant to say that the ndp have never been elected. this would in fact be a false statement. the ndp have formed several governments across the country in multiple provinces.

but, i think it's quite clear that that is not what i meant to say. i will repeat the second part:

"they consistently end up further right than the liberals once they actually get in power."

that's the important part. now, let's go over what i typed one last time:

"the truth is that there's never been a left-wing ndp government elected anywhere, ever. they consistently end up further right than the liberals once they actually get in power."

is it understood, now?

Scalito
Nice try, chucklehead. You never mentioned any thing about NDP provincial governments, until I called you on it. Your statement was unequivocal, but now you're backtracking as fast as you can. Piss off until you can tell the truth.

deathtokoalas
i don't even understand what you're misunderstanding anymore.

if an ndp government is elected, they will cut services and attack the unions under belt-tightening austerity arguments. that's what every ndp government that's ever been elected has done. expecting otherwise is delusional.

i don't have kids and don't really care about fiscal restraint, so i'd never vote on this and ultimately don't care. but, i think you ought to look at each of these plans as short term in order to really understand them.

first, the ndp are probably not going to actually carry through with what they're promising. the liberals promised this for...as long as i can remember, anyways. it never happened. it's a function of the size and complexity of the country. cost of living varies drastically. this will be the first thing they bail on, and they'll probably stick with what currently exists - and then slowly scale it back. ndp governments tend to be very, very fiscally conservative. in the long run, i would expect them to phase this out entirely and leave people with nothing. shocked? well, that's what the ndp does

second, the conservatives are using it as a vote-buying scheme and social engineering tactic and will continue to modify it for those purposes. if they can change certain aspects to hone in on their voting base, they will. expect them to add further aspects to target key voting demographics, and remove parts to punish demographics that don't vote for them. also expect them to continue playing with it in a way that incentivizes the traditional arrangements of the nuclear family. it's not enough to pay for child care; it's a baby bonus. that's how these guys tick.

third, the liberal plan is something they're viewing as a necessary evil. they can hardly stand up and claim they want to scrap it. so, they'll try and make it a smarter plan by distributing it better using the principles of progressive taxation. if we must have childcare subsidies, this is very consistent with how liberals would do such a thing. but must we have this? would we not be better off finding ways to raise incomes, or finding ways to get people to work more at home? for now, they're fixing it. and, the fix is an improvement. but, the long term aim will be to replace government dependence with financial independence.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-comparing-the-major-parties-on-child-care-promises-1.3201117

yet another right-wing ndp leader. how's this going to turn out, do you think? more right-wing than bob rae? than roy romanow? than stephen harper?

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-mulcair-scales-back-magnitude-of-ndp-s-promised-corporate-tax-hike-1.3201087

TruthUponYou
the world had turned upside down. tom is right and steve is left. if you really want left vote steve.

Jessica Murray
the three of them are essentially indistinguishable on the economy, the environment and most other issues. but the liberals are solidly to the left of the ndp on social issues.

when you take 90% of the issues off the table by everybody agreeing with each other, marijuana policy starts to become an election driver. and that is the most cynical thing i've ever said.

Walter
A right wing NDP is still very far left from a Neo-Con Con government. That's a fact.

Jessica Murray
the fraser institute might disagree with you. they've had glowing praise for roy romanow.

TruthUponYou
the NDP daycare plan will not be a savings to most families, we have child care figured out by working different shifts, so the NDP will not save us any money. it will cost us more when they increase taxes.

Jessica Murray
the bottom line is that we've heard daycare promises before, and they don't come through because it doesn't make sense to implement it at a federal level. it's a provincial issue. that's a promise i wouldn't put much faith in.

see, this is a better way to target tax cuts. but, it's very thatcherian, and there's a solid criticism of it.

when you target tax credits like this, you put charitable work in the dictates of the people making the donations. now, a chorus of people are going to tell me that that's democracy, and that's all fine and good to a certain point. but, it then gives top-down hierarchical organizations more power to carry out their interests, and that's a force that is working against democracy.

i'm going to use somewhat of a cliched example, and i'm using this because it's broadly untrue in 2015 but gets the idea across. it's something that i know from first hand experience happens in the developing world. i have a family member that volunteered for a christian aid group in haiti. when she got there, she was disgusted to find that the compound was located behind barbed wire fences and handed out food in exchange for conversion. not willing to convert, attend service and help build the church? no food, for you. sorry...

now, up here in canada, we're a long ways from private organizations holding food over the head of the poor in order to get them to do what they want (unless you want to talk about wage slavery). but, the idea of putting all this power in the hands of private organizations at the expense of the most vulnerable is a giant problem.

unfortunately, when you put the impetus for charity in the hands of private citizens, they disproportionately choose these types of organizations - in large part because it's membership in these organizations that are driving the donations in the first place. it's generally a fundamental aspect of the group, whatever the group is.

secular state aid gets around this by putting standards in place that minimize those interests.

in the end, it's more reducible to a concept of what democracy is than a question of which is more democratic. but, i'd argue rather strenuously that it's more democratic to put aid in the hands of the people (which, right now, unfortunately means the state) and let them distribute it based on need and based on targets determined by study, rather than allowing private interests to use it as a tool to carry out their social engineering objectives, regardless of the popular will or what has been determined to be (in)effective.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-stephen-harper-unveils-tax-credit-plan-for-service-club-memberships-1.3200851