it's distressing that they're holding to the niqab line. unless they're trying to argue that they weren't as forceful as the liberals?
and, what's the logical conclusion? that they're being too liberal? that they should fully embrace the right?
they got beat on policy. they tried to hug the center and it backfired. i don't know if they're too white or not, but the real issue is that they've become too conservative.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-rebecca-blaikie-too-white-1.3516616
Saturday, April 2, 2016
if they get her on the emails, she should consider it getting off easy. she should really be charged with war crimes for her part in the carpet bombing of libya.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-email-indictment-1.3515080
Uncommon senses
Bush and Cheney would be a lot higher on war crimes list.
What 'carpet bombing' would you be referring to?
Did she make the decision to attack? No.
jessica murray
hillary clinton was the secretary of state at the time. i certainly hope that she made that decision.
i mean, who else would have? the shadow government?
hillary clinton is a neo-con. she is of the same school of foreign policy as bush & cheney. while i'd agree that they should also be prosecuted, i do not believe that she is any less culpable or that a clinton presidency would be any less disastrous.
Uncommon senses
Those decisions never come from the State Department.
Same as Bush and Cheney?
Ridiculous. Do some real research.
jessica murray
she was endorsed by henry kissinger! she gets her policy from the same think tanks and her money from the same donors. the foreign policy that exists was put in place near the end of her husband's presidency, was continued by bush, continued again by obama and will be kept on path by clinton.
of the remaining candidates, she is the most hawkish, the most interventionist and the most likely to get us (as in nato) bogged down in more stupid wars.
you have the choice to remain blind to this. but, this is the reality: she will simply carry on the bush regime. and, she is no less culpable, and no less deserving of imprisonment.
MJM
The SecState doesn't have the authority to declare war or deploy the US Armed Forces. You could probably Google to find out who does.
As for "carpet bombing," you should probably look that one up as well. There's been nothing remotely like it done by the US since Vietnam.
jessica murray
yeah: that's the congress, right? lol. that piece of paper doesn't mean anything.
the decision to invade libya happened at the united nations, and was orchestrated almost entirely by her department. the us armed forces did not attack libya. it was a un mission. and, it came out of a misleading and dishonest un resolution designed to create a legal basis for a convenient fiction. really, it was exactly like the lies that led us into iraq - except that it was orchestrated well, so the unilateral declaration wasn't necessary. it was really a lot of jostling with the russians, who got suckered into it (which has led to deep resentment in russia). so, there's your difference: the difference between clinton and bush is that clinton is not nearly as incompetent. is that good or bad?
and, yes, the bombing was indiscriminate and destroyed large swaths of the country.
justaviewer
What carpet Bombing?
Maybe your thinking of the Russian bombing of civilians in Syria?
jessica murray
no, i'm specifically referring to the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in libya and the dramatic loss of life and infrastructure that resulted. they were bombed back to the stone age. and, she should be held accountable for that.
J.White
Hillary Clinton can travel just about anywhere without worrying about being charged with war crimes, Henry Kissinger can't. If you want to start charging Americans with war crimes better start with him.
jessica murray
he endorsed her, actually. but, let's not be swayed by comparisons. the crimes of others are not important in determining the criminality of hillary clinton. we need to stop thinking in these relativistic terms and get back to right and wrong.
there are lots of other people that should be in jail next to her. they could appear to themselves on closed circuit tv. to make sure they're still real. sure. but the crimes of bush, cheney, kissinger, genghis khan or henry VIII are not of any relevance in determining the crimes of hillary clinton.
the right wing are FASCISTS
WAR crimes, you mean real war crimes like Bush/Cheney committed, kidnapping, torture, disappearances, fall attacks on a sovereign country that has killed over one million civilians.
jessica murray
all of that stuff happened in libya under her authority as well, but with less total civilian casualties (although this measurement is complex to place in an apples-to-apples comparison).
WaterGuy303
I guess you feel Putin should be charged for his carpet bombing of Syria. Either that or you're a hypocrite.
jessica murray
frankly, i'm not aware of the accusations or their accuracy. this is the first i've heard of it. but, i tend to be highly skeptical of western accusations against russia. i would need for the accusations to be verified by an independent source that i trust. my initial reaction would be that that would not make strategic sense or be in the russian self-interest. i need more evidence before i can make a decision, but i highly doubt the accusations are accurate.
JPalmer
It was Canadian jets that bore the brunt of the bombing missions in Libya, far more than any other nation. Six jets flew over 600 official bombing runs, and there were many more unofficial.
jessica murray
yes, our participation in this debacle is shameful. and, stephen harper should have his day in court, as well.
Cloakuncloak
except for obama is still the commander in chief and it was totally up to him to give said orders
jessica murray
it's like blaming the prorogation of parliament on the governor-general.
it is widely, and in fact universally, acknowledged that clinton was responsible for the invasion in libya. it is something that is not disputed in the literature. and, in fact, she has broadly gone out of her way to take credit for it, too. i'm not presenting an obscure perspective, here - or even something the candidate would dispute.
hillary clinton is not a peace candidate. she will never present herself in those terms. rather, she's a very open and very hard-nosed imperialist. the projection she desires in regards to libya is that she made a hard choice that proves she is a strong leader. she wants credit for the removal of a dictator and the addition of a new province to the empire. she believes in a strongly hegemonic empire that is deeply involved in global conflicts. she actively promotes the idea of america as the policeman of the world and attacks people that would suggest otherwise as being isolationist. and, worse, she subscribes to the whole neo-hobbesian narrative of society requiring an enmy to unite behind.
so, when i claim that hillary clinton is a war criminal for her involvement in libya, realize that she would not dispute the facts on the ground. rather, she would argue that her response was justified - and that it proves she's a strong-willed, decisive leader.
and, as critical as i am, i will concede. hillary clinton *will* make the trains run on time.
--
D @ CFB Ontario
Sanders and Warren would make the Democrats unbeatable. And restore much credibility to American political leadership.
Uncommon senses
Do you think that Congress would act to help implement Sanders' agenda or just block everything?
jessica murray
see, this is such a terrible argument. the best thing you can do is convince somebody not to vote. because, you're basically giving up before you start. if you can't win, don't try?
sanders is going to have a hard time getting good legislation through. clinton will have an easier time getting bad legislation through. if i was an american, i'd rather hold out on the fight and keep pushing for good legislation than just give up. i mean, why run at all? why not just let the republicans win and go home and watch tv?
that said. bernie has been clear that he's going to need to flip the congress. so, yes: bernie will have difficulty with the existing congress. and the solution is to fire everybody in congress. which is necessary if you want anything done, anyways.
approval ratings for congress rarely exceed 20%, fwiw. and turnout is consistently atrocious. it really shouldn't be all that hard. you just need to get people to vote. and, hillary's not your ticket if you want enthusiasm.
--
starship3
I'm wondering how Bill's comments about Obama's 'awful legacy' can help Hilary. Is this all an indication the Clinton camp is beginning to implode?
jessica murray
clinton stumbled over his tongue. he got lost in a time warp and thought it was 2008. he was referring to the bush presidency.
the problem in 2008 was the media. the reality is that obama was running as a conservative democrat from the start. he came out against single payer healthcare during the primaries. he was throwing around all kinds of imperialist rhetoric. he was insisting on "fiscal responsibility". he sounded like stephen harper's conscience - that part of himself that nobody's allowed to see. and, he won by beating her on the right, too.
but, the media built him up as some kind of liberal. and, it only worked because he was a blank slate.
they're doing the same thing this year to trump. the reality is that trump is a moderate democrat. i mean, he's spent most of his life as a moderate democrat. he's well to the left of hillary on almost every issue. but, the media is working him up as a right-winger, despite all evidence to the contrary.
if trump somehow manages to win, and then governs as a moderate, there's going to be this mass of disappointed conservatives. but, they didn't do their research. they just relied on media to tell them a lie - and then they believed it.
justaviewer
Your correct in that Obama was a media darling - the toughest question he got was to rank college basketball teams. But he did try to fundamentally change America - just not in a positive direction. Obamacare is a disaster - who can afford a deductible in the thousands? More people lost their healthcare than gained it. In the end the only winners were the ones who donated money to his campaign they got paid back 10 fold.
jessica murray
i agree that obamacare is a disaster. but, we have easily forgotten that it is virtually identical to romneycare, which was modeled on gingrichcare. it was developed by the heritage institute. it's designed to increase profits for the insurance industry, and prevent the country from moving towards a socialized health care system. remember: hillary, at the time, was proposing a canadian-style, single-payer system. so, the entire narrative - from the primary debates through to the present - is consistent with obama running to hillary's right.
today, we're in the absurd position of people voting for hillary to "save obamacare from the republicans" - when, in fact, obamacare was written by the republicans to prevent the democrats from bringing in single-payer. it's surreal. but, it demonstrates just how powerful the media is in framing things for people that have a weak understanding of the issues.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-email-indictment-1.3515080
Uncommon senses
Bush and Cheney would be a lot higher on war crimes list.
What 'carpet bombing' would you be referring to?
Did she make the decision to attack? No.
jessica murray
hillary clinton was the secretary of state at the time. i certainly hope that she made that decision.
i mean, who else would have? the shadow government?
hillary clinton is a neo-con. she is of the same school of foreign policy as bush & cheney. while i'd agree that they should also be prosecuted, i do not believe that she is any less culpable or that a clinton presidency would be any less disastrous.
Uncommon senses
Those decisions never come from the State Department.
Same as Bush and Cheney?
Ridiculous. Do some real research.
jessica murray
she was endorsed by henry kissinger! she gets her policy from the same think tanks and her money from the same donors. the foreign policy that exists was put in place near the end of her husband's presidency, was continued by bush, continued again by obama and will be kept on path by clinton.
of the remaining candidates, she is the most hawkish, the most interventionist and the most likely to get us (as in nato) bogged down in more stupid wars.
you have the choice to remain blind to this. but, this is the reality: she will simply carry on the bush regime. and, she is no less culpable, and no less deserving of imprisonment.
MJM
The SecState doesn't have the authority to declare war or deploy the US Armed Forces. You could probably Google to find out who does.
As for "carpet bombing," you should probably look that one up as well. There's been nothing remotely like it done by the US since Vietnam.
jessica murray
yeah: that's the congress, right? lol. that piece of paper doesn't mean anything.
the decision to invade libya happened at the united nations, and was orchestrated almost entirely by her department. the us armed forces did not attack libya. it was a un mission. and, it came out of a misleading and dishonest un resolution designed to create a legal basis for a convenient fiction. really, it was exactly like the lies that led us into iraq - except that it was orchestrated well, so the unilateral declaration wasn't necessary. it was really a lot of jostling with the russians, who got suckered into it (which has led to deep resentment in russia). so, there's your difference: the difference between clinton and bush is that clinton is not nearly as incompetent. is that good or bad?
and, yes, the bombing was indiscriminate and destroyed large swaths of the country.
justaviewer
What carpet Bombing?
Maybe your thinking of the Russian bombing of civilians in Syria?
jessica murray
no, i'm specifically referring to the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in libya and the dramatic loss of life and infrastructure that resulted. they were bombed back to the stone age. and, she should be held accountable for that.
J.White
Hillary Clinton can travel just about anywhere without worrying about being charged with war crimes, Henry Kissinger can't. If you want to start charging Americans with war crimes better start with him.
jessica murray
he endorsed her, actually. but, let's not be swayed by comparisons. the crimes of others are not important in determining the criminality of hillary clinton. we need to stop thinking in these relativistic terms and get back to right and wrong.
there are lots of other people that should be in jail next to her. they could appear to themselves on closed circuit tv. to make sure they're still real. sure. but the crimes of bush, cheney, kissinger, genghis khan or henry VIII are not of any relevance in determining the crimes of hillary clinton.
the right wing are FASCISTS
WAR crimes, you mean real war crimes like Bush/Cheney committed, kidnapping, torture, disappearances, fall attacks on a sovereign country that has killed over one million civilians.
jessica murray
all of that stuff happened in libya under her authority as well, but with less total civilian casualties (although this measurement is complex to place in an apples-to-apples comparison).
WaterGuy303
I guess you feel Putin should be charged for his carpet bombing of Syria. Either that or you're a hypocrite.
jessica murray
frankly, i'm not aware of the accusations or their accuracy. this is the first i've heard of it. but, i tend to be highly skeptical of western accusations against russia. i would need for the accusations to be verified by an independent source that i trust. my initial reaction would be that that would not make strategic sense or be in the russian self-interest. i need more evidence before i can make a decision, but i highly doubt the accusations are accurate.
JPalmer
It was Canadian jets that bore the brunt of the bombing missions in Libya, far more than any other nation. Six jets flew over 600 official bombing runs, and there were many more unofficial.
jessica murray
yes, our participation in this debacle is shameful. and, stephen harper should have his day in court, as well.
Cloakuncloak
except for obama is still the commander in chief and it was totally up to him to give said orders
jessica murray
it's like blaming the prorogation of parliament on the governor-general.
it is widely, and in fact universally, acknowledged that clinton was responsible for the invasion in libya. it is something that is not disputed in the literature. and, in fact, she has broadly gone out of her way to take credit for it, too. i'm not presenting an obscure perspective, here - or even something the candidate would dispute.
hillary clinton is not a peace candidate. she will never present herself in those terms. rather, she's a very open and very hard-nosed imperialist. the projection she desires in regards to libya is that she made a hard choice that proves she is a strong leader. she wants credit for the removal of a dictator and the addition of a new province to the empire. she believes in a strongly hegemonic empire that is deeply involved in global conflicts. she actively promotes the idea of america as the policeman of the world and attacks people that would suggest otherwise as being isolationist. and, worse, she subscribes to the whole neo-hobbesian narrative of society requiring an enmy to unite behind.
so, when i claim that hillary clinton is a war criminal for her involvement in libya, realize that she would not dispute the facts on the ground. rather, she would argue that her response was justified - and that it proves she's a strong-willed, decisive leader.
and, as critical as i am, i will concede. hillary clinton *will* make the trains run on time.
--
D @ CFB Ontario
Sanders and Warren would make the Democrats unbeatable. And restore much credibility to American political leadership.
Uncommon senses
Do you think that Congress would act to help implement Sanders' agenda or just block everything?
jessica murray
see, this is such a terrible argument. the best thing you can do is convince somebody not to vote. because, you're basically giving up before you start. if you can't win, don't try?
sanders is going to have a hard time getting good legislation through. clinton will have an easier time getting bad legislation through. if i was an american, i'd rather hold out on the fight and keep pushing for good legislation than just give up. i mean, why run at all? why not just let the republicans win and go home and watch tv?
that said. bernie has been clear that he's going to need to flip the congress. so, yes: bernie will have difficulty with the existing congress. and the solution is to fire everybody in congress. which is necessary if you want anything done, anyways.
approval ratings for congress rarely exceed 20%, fwiw. and turnout is consistently atrocious. it really shouldn't be all that hard. you just need to get people to vote. and, hillary's not your ticket if you want enthusiasm.
--
starship3
I'm wondering how Bill's comments about Obama's 'awful legacy' can help Hilary. Is this all an indication the Clinton camp is beginning to implode?
jessica murray
clinton stumbled over his tongue. he got lost in a time warp and thought it was 2008. he was referring to the bush presidency.
the problem in 2008 was the media. the reality is that obama was running as a conservative democrat from the start. he came out against single payer healthcare during the primaries. he was throwing around all kinds of imperialist rhetoric. he was insisting on "fiscal responsibility". he sounded like stephen harper's conscience - that part of himself that nobody's allowed to see. and, he won by beating her on the right, too.
but, the media built him up as some kind of liberal. and, it only worked because he was a blank slate.
they're doing the same thing this year to trump. the reality is that trump is a moderate democrat. i mean, he's spent most of his life as a moderate democrat. he's well to the left of hillary on almost every issue. but, the media is working him up as a right-winger, despite all evidence to the contrary.
if trump somehow manages to win, and then governs as a moderate, there's going to be this mass of disappointed conservatives. but, they didn't do their research. they just relied on media to tell them a lie - and then they believed it.
justaviewer
Your correct in that Obama was a media darling - the toughest question he got was to rank college basketball teams. But he did try to fundamentally change America - just not in a positive direction. Obamacare is a disaster - who can afford a deductible in the thousands? More people lost their healthcare than gained it. In the end the only winners were the ones who donated money to his campaign they got paid back 10 fold.
jessica murray
i agree that obamacare is a disaster. but, we have easily forgotten that it is virtually identical to romneycare, which was modeled on gingrichcare. it was developed by the heritage institute. it's designed to increase profits for the insurance industry, and prevent the country from moving towards a socialized health care system. remember: hillary, at the time, was proposing a canadian-style, single-payer system. so, the entire narrative - from the primary debates through to the present - is consistent with obama running to hillary's right.
today, we're in the absurd position of people voting for hillary to "save obamacare from the republicans" - when, in fact, obamacare was written by the republicans to prevent the democrats from bringing in single-payer. it's surreal. but, it demonstrates just how powerful the media is in framing things for people that have a weak understanding of the issues.
at
11:19
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i think that wynne is essentially confusing people, in taking a handful of very progressive positions while selling off various things to the banks. the thing is that the unpopular positions she has taken - like selling off parts of the grid to pay off debt - are really powerful, because they bring back memories of harris. so, it's this difficult situation where the broad swath of left-leaning ontarians are going to agree with 95% of what she does, and yet be strongly alienated by the few unpopular things. that's different than the last federal election, which was broadly ideological rather than focused on specific policies.
the pcs are going to get a certain amount of the vote, regardless. but, the broad narrative in ontario (outside of the tabloids) remains to keep the conservatives out. i think, at this point, the liberals could run a sock puppet and still manage to win - so long as they remain solidly in second. a more likely scenario sees liberal support move in large chunks towards the ndp.
but, the ndp are not doing the kinds of things that would be necessary to facilitate that shift. they're continuing to run to the right of the liberals. and, as such, they're really failing to take advantage of an opportunity.
so long as the ndp stick to their current strategy, i don't see the scenario shifting. people may be uncomfortable with the government, and sort of frustrated by the lack of options. but, at the end of the day, the more important task is preventing the conservatives from winning. so, all those undecideds and habitual leftists wander back, in the end.
but, the ndp could very quickly build very strong support if it would stop trying to be moderate and present the progressive option that people want.
to put it another way, if the ndp wants to beat the liberals then it needs to stop being hillary clinton and start being bernie sanders. i see absolutely no evidence that this is in any way even being contemplated. but, i do note that the liberals are making some changes to their side of the tuition puzzle.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/29/kathleen-wynne-approval-rating-poll_n_9564970.html
Ed Vella
These are interesting numbers. Andrea Horwath is the most popular, yet only 24% would vote for her, which is just confusing. The Ontario Ndp brand needs to pick up some slack. It's the same dilemma as anywhere for the Ndp; competing for media attention is the biggest hurdle IMO.
David Y. Ho
More like competing for relevancy when the Liberals are already leaning very left.
Christopher Gilmore
The Liberals are not "leaning Left," if anything Premier Wynne has enraged progressive voters with her sneaky privatisation of Hydro One, and has given Horwath a fresh cause on which to campaign.
2. It will be very difficult for Wynne to pull the same trick in 2018, pretending to be to the "Left" of the NDP after she laid off hundreds of nurses and privatised Hydro One despite not having made one scintilla of mention of it during the last campaign. Voters are pretty pissed off.
3. In 2018 the political situation will not be the same as it is now. The Trudeau honeymoon/love-in will have ended, meaning that there will be no positive rub-off vis a vis the Liberal brand for Wynne; Patrick Brown will either have defined himself to Ontarian voters or his opponents will define him as a scary social conservative; and voters will have forgotten Horwath's ill-conceived strategy from 2014.
Put together, this means that Andrea Horwath is probably in the best position moving forward. She is the most well known and trusted of the three party leaders, as the 2015 and 2011 federal elections and 2015 Alberta election proved, a party can cruise on the popularity of its leader; Patrick Brown has too many skeletons in his closet and will have a difficult time building a strong positive rapport in only two years time, and Ontarians are pretty sick of the Ontario Liberal Party.
They survived McGuinty's numerous broken promises, the Gas Plant scandal, some of the worst fiscal management in Canadian history, the ORNGE ambulance scandal, and the e-health scandal, but 2018 might just be their Waterloo.
jessica amber murray
but, it wasn't a trick. as bankster-y as wynne is, horwath is really, honestly to her right. it's not that the liberals are leaning left and crowding out the ndp; it's more that the ndp are leaning right, and forfeiting the space. it's a really stupid strategy that was pioneered by jack layton and keeps being emulated, despite awful results. but, it also really kills the credibility of the party.
i broadly agree with your analysis, but the thing that has to change for the ndp to be competitive is ndp policy. so long as the ndp are just another centre-right party, voters will flock to the liberals to keep the conservatives out under the absolutely reasonable argument that they have the better chance of winning.
and, that's not healthy - because it gives the liberals a free pass. the system needs vigorous left-wing opposition from the ndp. they have to find a way to break this cycle.
i think the immediate answer is that horwath needs to step down and make way for somebody who is more ideologically aligned with the left of the party. but, this struggle is really existential and is going to take a long time to play out. but, if the conservatives are honestly trying to reclaim that red tory space, it squeezes the ndp back the other way. i think it's a matter of time. and the left is consequently just forced to sit around and wait for her to go away, kind of thing. and that won't likely be until after the next election.
it's very early. but, i'm suggesting the liberals can hold on, for now, as the left sticks with wynne due to disinterest in horwath.
the pcs are going to get a certain amount of the vote, regardless. but, the broad narrative in ontario (outside of the tabloids) remains to keep the conservatives out. i think, at this point, the liberals could run a sock puppet and still manage to win - so long as they remain solidly in second. a more likely scenario sees liberal support move in large chunks towards the ndp.
but, the ndp are not doing the kinds of things that would be necessary to facilitate that shift. they're continuing to run to the right of the liberals. and, as such, they're really failing to take advantage of an opportunity.
so long as the ndp stick to their current strategy, i don't see the scenario shifting. people may be uncomfortable with the government, and sort of frustrated by the lack of options. but, at the end of the day, the more important task is preventing the conservatives from winning. so, all those undecideds and habitual leftists wander back, in the end.
but, the ndp could very quickly build very strong support if it would stop trying to be moderate and present the progressive option that people want.
to put it another way, if the ndp wants to beat the liberals then it needs to stop being hillary clinton and start being bernie sanders. i see absolutely no evidence that this is in any way even being contemplated. but, i do note that the liberals are making some changes to their side of the tuition puzzle.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/29/kathleen-wynne-approval-rating-poll_n_9564970.html
Ed Vella
These are interesting numbers. Andrea Horwath is the most popular, yet only 24% would vote for her, which is just confusing. The Ontario Ndp brand needs to pick up some slack. It's the same dilemma as anywhere for the Ndp; competing for media attention is the biggest hurdle IMO.
David Y. Ho
More like competing for relevancy when the Liberals are already leaning very left.
Christopher Gilmore
The Liberals are not "leaning Left," if anything Premier Wynne has enraged progressive voters with her sneaky privatisation of Hydro One, and has given Horwath a fresh cause on which to campaign.
2. It will be very difficult for Wynne to pull the same trick in 2018, pretending to be to the "Left" of the NDP after she laid off hundreds of nurses and privatised Hydro One despite not having made one scintilla of mention of it during the last campaign. Voters are pretty pissed off.
3. In 2018 the political situation will not be the same as it is now. The Trudeau honeymoon/love-in will have ended, meaning that there will be no positive rub-off vis a vis the Liberal brand for Wynne; Patrick Brown will either have defined himself to Ontarian voters or his opponents will define him as a scary social conservative; and voters will have forgotten Horwath's ill-conceived strategy from 2014.
Put together, this means that Andrea Horwath is probably in the best position moving forward. She is the most well known and trusted of the three party leaders, as the 2015 and 2011 federal elections and 2015 Alberta election proved, a party can cruise on the popularity of its leader; Patrick Brown has too many skeletons in his closet and will have a difficult time building a strong positive rapport in only two years time, and Ontarians are pretty sick of the Ontario Liberal Party.
They survived McGuinty's numerous broken promises, the Gas Plant scandal, some of the worst fiscal management in Canadian history, the ORNGE ambulance scandal, and the e-health scandal, but 2018 might just be their Waterloo.
jessica amber murray
but, it wasn't a trick. as bankster-y as wynne is, horwath is really, honestly to her right. it's not that the liberals are leaning left and crowding out the ndp; it's more that the ndp are leaning right, and forfeiting the space. it's a really stupid strategy that was pioneered by jack layton and keeps being emulated, despite awful results. but, it also really kills the credibility of the party.
i broadly agree with your analysis, but the thing that has to change for the ndp to be competitive is ndp policy. so long as the ndp are just another centre-right party, voters will flock to the liberals to keep the conservatives out under the absolutely reasonable argument that they have the better chance of winning.
and, that's not healthy - because it gives the liberals a free pass. the system needs vigorous left-wing opposition from the ndp. they have to find a way to break this cycle.
i think the immediate answer is that horwath needs to step down and make way for somebody who is more ideologically aligned with the left of the party. but, this struggle is really existential and is going to take a long time to play out. but, if the conservatives are honestly trying to reclaim that red tory space, it squeezes the ndp back the other way. i think it's a matter of time. and the left is consequently just forced to sit around and wait for her to go away, kind of thing. and that won't likely be until after the next election.
it's very early. but, i'm suggesting the liberals can hold on, for now, as the left sticks with wynne due to disinterest in horwath.
at
10:58
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'll tell you what: why don't we just annex the northern states? run a referendum. there's some benefits for us in this.
at
10:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i am stuck in a loop and not getting anything done. so, i am going to refrain from editing until i finish clearing out my laptop.
once the laptop is cleared out, i'll be able to multitask effectively and these bottlenecks should cease. there's plenty of adventures and rants and other things to check out in the mean time.
i'm hoping it's just a few days, but i'm not joking - i need to clear this out before i do any more editing.
once the laptop is cleared out, i'll be able to multitask effectively and these bottlenecks should cease. there's plenty of adventures and rants and other things to check out in the mean time.
i'm hoping it's just a few days, but i'm not joking - i need to clear this out before i do any more editing.
at
10:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
01-04-2016: a pleasant day!
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
at
04:17
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'm a little skeptical about those polls in west virginia and kentucky and indiana. i mean, it would be good news. but, i'll wait for more widely reported polling.
and i have no comment on clinton's supposed collapse in the south. i'm more inclined to suggest that the north and south are dramatically culturally different than i am to suggest that sanders doing well amongst black in the north implies her support amongst blacks is failing in the south. i mean, that's the same logical error, in reverse.
but the article is broadly drawing attention to the correct things. finally.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/hillary-clintons-support-_b_9579544.html
and i have no comment on clinton's supposed collapse in the south. i'm more inclined to suggest that the north and south are dramatically culturally different than i am to suggest that sanders doing well amongst black in the north implies her support amongst blacks is failing in the south. i mean, that's the same logical error, in reverse.
but the article is broadly drawing attention to the correct things. finally.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/hillary-clintons-support-_b_9579544.html
at
03:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i need to remind you that my academic background is not in politics or philosophy or screwing around and having fun. it is in mathematics. i am interested in policy, and i don't have much interest in competition, but i find the idea of approaching the election as a math problem to be fascinating. that's why i'm bothering. i've been over this elsewhere. it's not exactly a typical approach.
the support for the idea that race is predictive just isn't there. i've railed against racist media narratives. but, it may also be a little bit of laziness all around. it may be attempting to try and reuse ideas from 2008.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/01/bernie_sanders_may_be_leading_hillary_clinton_with_black_voters_in_this_one_very_important_state/
the support for the idea that race is predictive just isn't there. i've railed against racist media narratives. but, it may also be a little bit of laziness all around. it may be attempting to try and reuse ideas from 2008.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/01/bernie_sanders_may_be_leading_hillary_clinton_with_black_voters_in_this_one_very_important_state/
at
02:19
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
shit hillary said vol 17
"The other half of community policing, of course, is the community’s role. Citizens have to be active participants in crime prevention. In Houston, nearly a thousand new officers added to the city’s police force since 1991 have been joined by thousands of citizen patrollers observing and reporting suspicious or criminal behavior in an anticrime campaign."
at
01:37
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)