May 24, 2016 11:09 am

T Fletcher • a year ago
Jill Stein and the Greens have a fantastic shot at getting my vote depending on how things unfold.
And remember that the Movement is much more about transforming your everyday lives and your communities than it is about voting for president.
RRuin T Fletcher • a year ago
The President nominates the justices on the Supreme Court. If you don't think that will impact your communities than you're fooling yourself. This is not an intellectual exercise. It has real consequences. All a vote for Jill Stein will do is increase the possibility of a President Trump and a right wing Supreme Court. Then let us see if you still think the vote for President has no impact.
deathtokoalas RRuin • a year ago
i'm not convinced that clinton's picks will be less right-wing than trump's. i mean, we're talking about somebody that rejected gay marriage to the very last moment, wants a constitutional restriction on access to abortion, has supported trade deals with secret tribunals, supports mass deportation and has stood up for corporate hegemony at every possible opportunity. if you let clinton shape the supreme court, she will put it on a rightward path that will not be reversible for another generation.
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal?tsk=adminpreview

May 24, 2016 1:01 pm

RRuin • a year ago
Jill Stein has no more serious qualifications to be POTUS than Donald Trump. The Presidency is NOT an entry level position. Sure, disgruntled Bernie followers can vote for Stein and help elect Donald Trump. No, this isn't about a lesser of two evils either. This is about a bigot, Trump, running against Hillary Clinton who is one of the most experienced and qualified candidates to run for the Presidency. It's all swell to give these academic holier than thou lectures about our democracy. But this is the real world where a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. That is reality.If nothing else remember the future of the Supreme Court is up for grabs. Think long and hard before casting a protest vote.
Carls Pen RRuin • a year ago
You're right, just look what happened in the 2000 election and see how well that worked out. If the people in this country would take the time to really understand our history they might stop making the same stupid mistakes over and over again.
loebner Carls Pen • a year ago
let's explain for those to young
Ralph Nader ran as a liberal third party candidate vs Gore and Bush, thus ensuring Bush's victory.
Nader's followers kept saying "there's no difference between Gore and Bush."
Fools
deathtokoalas loebner • a year ago
i still don't think there would have been any difference between gore and bush except in public perception. so, when gore invaded iraq, he wouldn't have generated the same kind of protests.
loebner deathtokoalas • a year ago
No, no, no dtk. There is a world of difference between Gore and Bush. We *know* that Bush invaded Iraq. We don't *know* that Gore would have invaded. Why did Bush invade? Oil. You are aware, I presume, that the only ministry protected was oil? And that VP Cheney was CEO of Hallibuton. Gore would not have had the oil interests pushing for invasion.
And of course Bush is lauded for his concern for the environment. (sarcasm)
deathtokoalas loebner • a year ago
well, we know that gore supported the sanctions under the clinton regime, and no doubt thought that the price of hundreds of thousands of dead children was worth it. your argument that gore was less beholden to oil interests is simply not upheld by any evidence.
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal?tsk=adminpreview
May 24, 2016 5:09 pm

Tariq Shakoor • a year ago
I think Jill Stein's invitation to Bernie supporters (I am one) is a significant one and has immense future possibilities for a viable third party in this country. I'm all for it---just not in this particular election cycle. Why? Because the one thing this otherwise excellent article did not touch on was the surrendering of the Supreme Court and at least one or two appointments in the next few years. If Trump wins this election, we already know what he will do---"appoint a judge like Scalia." Okay? You can't be more clear than that. Hillary for all her warts and issues will never make such a disastrous appointment. Why? She has a constituency that would literally drag her ass out of the White House if she did make that type of appointment. She may be a lot of things---but, stupid is not one of them. The Supreme Court appointments are not small factor to consider when you look at all the possible issues the left holds dear all of a sudden become DOA. So, I do not hold the same opinion that both Trump and Hillary would be equally bad for this country---that is only true in some areas---not all, and especially the social programs that we support. Roe v. Wade, LGBT rights, Obamacare/Single Payer Healthcare, Voting Rights, Social Security, Public Education, Consumer rights, wage equality for women, and so much more. It's easy to say she is a war hawk and should not serve----but, do you actually think Trump is going to be able to be the isolationist he wants to be without losing massive support from his base and the GOP establishment? No, if they want war--there will be a war, and he won't be able to stop them. So, let's look beyond the issue that they both will be on the same page about ultimately. I feel our support for all the other programs are more important and more realistic to bring us together.
Plato Tariq Shakoor • a year ago
Honduras death squads? Haiti, invasion and repression? Libya, wealthiest country in Africa bombed to the stone age and Hillary Clinton gloating that ISIS with U.S. support tortured and murdered the president? Funding, arming and importing terrorists to Syria? From destroying Yugoslavia to the extermination of the native population of Palestine, Hillary Clinton never saw a bloodbath she didn't love.
MPEG1982 Plato • a year ago
You didn't actually address Tariq's point. Several Republicans appointed to the bench could be a serious disaster for this country, arguably more so than any war. Look at the impact of decisions like Citizen's United.
Clinton has done some horrid things, but at least she won't hand over the Supreme Court.
deathtokoalas MPEG1982 • a year ago
but, it simply doesn't make sense to vote for clinton if you're trying to keep the right off the bench.
if it's trump v. clinton, the issue is already decided: the right keeps the court for another generation.
this boat has sailed.
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal?tsk=adminpreview
May 24, 2016 7:06 pm
sorry, just to be clear: sanctions are an act of war. they imply the intent for war. and, in context, they were preparation for an eventual invasion. the fact that gore actively and belligerently supported the sanctions, the no-fly zone and everything else indicates pretty clearly that he was on the side of invasion and would have either done it on his watch or set it up nicely for the next president to do it.
the fact that he was out of the senate at the time robs us of absolute proof. but, we know who was in the senate, and how she voted. gore's logic may have differed mildly from bush', but he would not have made a different decision than clinton did.
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal?tsk=adminpreview

May 24, 2016 7:16 pm
and, i'm going to post a sobering link to some comments gore made in 2002.
"So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster." - al gore on the iraq war, 2002
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/02/gore-f20.html
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal?tsk=adminpreview

june 12, 2016 9:09 pm

Tippi • a year ago
Or he could just become a Democrat - an actual one, not just someone who thought running as an independent wouldn't him get enough attention.
deathtokoalas Tippi • a year ago
i'd rather see him split the democrats in half. two-party spectrums are really one-party oligarchies. a third party is necessary to save the country's democratic institutions from lapsing into a nepotistic cesspool, to be sold to the highest bidder.
ipolitics.ca/2016/06/11/clinton-owes-sanders-a-dignified-exit/


june 13, 2016 4:44 am

this is a canadian site, so i can speak in more plain terms that will be better understood.
obama v clinton was like ignatieff v rae. they had different hair. they were otherwise identical candidates that represented identical interests. they were clearly of the same party.
trying to get sanders and clinton to work together is more like trying to build a coalition between the liberals and the ndp. they may both hate trump. but, there's major hurdles to overcome. and, at the end of the day, it's something that ultimately simply just doesn't make sense.
there ought to be a lot of haggling between now and july, but i frankly don't think that clinton is even going to grant him an audience beyond some initial pleasantries. he's not going to get a thing from her. so, i'm hoping that sanders marches his supporters to stein - because it's now too late for him to get on the ballot in most states.
i mean, if you want to argue that you should vote liberal to stop harper, you're going to get quite a bit of sympathy. but, you're going to get quite a bit of push back, too. worse, the reality is that the american spectrum has become so skewed that clinton is really running well to the right of harper - she's so far to the right that she wouldn't even get nominated in this country. she's got kagan and kristol and kissinger endorsing her. so, there *has* to be some pull back to a more sane place on the spectrum.
in the end, trump might win. but, it's blatantly obvious to many, now, that there's no use in continuing to support the democrats in their current incarnation. if they can't be steered in a different direction, the party needs to collapse.
ipolitics.ca/2016/06/11/clinton-owes-sanders-a-dignified-exit/

june 28, 2016

hillary needs to make the choice about what side of the spectrum she wants to run on and then run on it aggressively.

if she decides to run as a conservative, and does it with conviction, then she can win some of these red states that everybody thinks are not in play - but she will probably destroy the democratic party's ability to appeal to the left for a generation or longer. is that already accomplished, anyways? i don't think she'll split the left in any meaningful way, because she'll cut too far into the right; if she loses 10% on her left, she'll gain 15% on the center-right. shouldn't tennessee be in play? kentucky? arkansas? that was her husband's map...

if she decides to run on the left, she'll have to concede some space on the right but with the aim of preventing a split. she'd be looking to emulate the obama map.

if i was working on her campaign, i would be a nihilist. i would be solely interested in power and reject ideology as simplistic modernist naivete. so, i would see these options as equally acceptable and judge them solely on their likelihood of success.

i would conclude she should run on the right, in an attempt to take advantage of conservative disillusionment with trump. she can offer a more credible conservative vision than he can. that's a big vacuum with a big reward. while she may lose support on her left, it is so unlikely to migrate to trump that it is not worth worrying about.

if she tries to hug the center, she will be unanimously rejected and lose.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/285110-polls-show-tight-clinton-trump-race-in-2016-battlegrounds

july 23, 2016 5:49 pm

Doug N Toni LeAnn Williams • a year ago
Carter caused huge inflation and unemployment. I agree with Bob that Republicans probably made a deal but I doubt Reagan was personally involved. After the huge inflation and unemployment Carter caused I'm glad the Republicans got him out.
deathtokoalas Doug N • a year ago
the inflation was a consequence of the oil embargo. it had nothing to do with carter, except in the sense that he was an ally of israel. the person you should be blaming is henry kissinger.
rick0857 deathtokoalas • a year ago
If that picture is your true picture YOU are not even OLD ENOUGH to know who jimmah Karter is, let alone comment on the history of the time. IF you know anything about it at all about that time, it was spoon fed to you by some MARXIST LEFTIST SCHOOL HOUSE/INDOCTRINATION CENTER with a definite leftward slant!
deathtokoalas rick0857 • 10 months ago
i actually don't have much of a rebuttal to this, other than to point out that the schools i've attended have been right-leaning, and i've sought marxist analyses on my own initiative.
what i'm presenting, though, is a very centrist keynesian/liberal analysis, and not a marxist one.
Martha Bartha deathtokoalas • a year ago
Proper names should be Capitalized.
deathtokoalas Martha Bartha • 10 months ago
but, i'm an anti-capitalist.
Martha Bartha deathtokoalas • 10 months ago
Oh OK. Is that a thing?
deathtokoalas Martha Bartha • 10 months ago
i don't know if it's a thing. i know i've been an anti-capitalist, alphabetical egalitarian and general grammar anti-authoritarian since the 90s. one could say it's a running gag, at least.
Doug N deathtokoalas • a year ago
What did Henry Kissinger have to do with it or being an ally of Israel? I guess you'd blame being an ally of Israel on the terrorist attacks too. Nothing to do with Islam and Arab oil producers.
deathtokoalas Doug N • 10 months ago
assigning blame in complex situations is often foolhardy, and this is a good example of this. as i'm sure you know, however, the embargo was a consequence of us support for israeli policies. it does consequently follow that the architect of this us support shoulders a great deal of the responsibility for the embargo.
Doug N deathtokoalas • 10 months ago
You have a point about the reason not being Carter but I'll blame it on the ones who made it, the oil Muslims as there is nothing wrong with Israel being who and what it is.
deathtokoalas Doug N • 10 months ago
you'll notice that i'm assigning the majority of the blame to kissinger, not to the israeli state. i will agree that you can't fault israel for aggressively pursuing it's self-interest.
Doug N deathtokoalas • 10 months ago
However you assign blame I don't see wrong in US policy with Israel. I see wrong with the Islamic countries unprovoked continuous actions of attempted genocide and smearing of Israel. I don't see Kissinger at fault for good policy that benefits both countries.
deathtokoalas Doug N • 10 months ago
this is a moral argument, not a logical one. kissinger should have been able to see the consequences of his policies, and bears responsibility for them.
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/07/new-dnc-email-leak-is-the-final-nail-in-the-party.html


august 12, 2016 11:08 am

you can't understand this in a vacuum. first, the green party in canada was up until this point a very unstable coalition of conservatives, right-libertarians, primitivists and environmentalists. may herself is a "progressive conservative", which nowadays is a junior leadership branch of the liberal party. she claims bds is a distraction without acknowledging that the fact that she's pro-life is a hugely unnecessary issue on the canadian left and is massively restricting their ability to gain voters. i'd be rich if you gave me a quarter for every leftist i've met that has pointed to her pro-life stance as a reason they can't vote for her. on top of that, they tend to run these market fundamentalists that are clueless about the green party platform and think the answer is more property rights - ideas that are strongly on the libertarian right. the party has no choice but to collapse in one direction or another to grow.
as it turns out, the canadian left is currently in extreme flux. after running a campaign on balanced budgets, and then being triangulated by the center-right liberals as a consequence of it, the dominant soft-left party (the ndp) is in a freefall that it might not recover from. a year ago, a lot of people were suggesting that the liberal party was dead. but, the ndp seems to have stepped in front of the bullet. this influx of green party members is coming from leftists that are fed up with the ndp and looking for a new left that is tied less to union activism and more to environmental sustainability.
in order for these leftists to take over the party, they will need to push the libertarians out of it. there's no other way this can work. may is not one of them, but she will have to go with them.
but, what does bds have to do with the environment? quite a bit, actually. and i'd like to see this point raised more often....
why do we have to support israel, again, despite the human rights atrocities? the reason is that we need a reliable ally in the middle east. is israel a reliable ally? probably not. but, the perception is that it is. so, as long as we need that reliable ally, we're stuck turning the other way as they commit this genocide in slow motion.
but, why do we need this military base in the middle east? the reason is the reliance on middle eastern oil. if we can remove our reliance on imported energy, we no longer need that ally in the middle east - and we can react accordingly. pushing for a green shift to renewables is consequently the most realistic thing that we can do, as citizens, to stand in solidarity and help stop the slaughter.
it follows that opposition to bds is the same thing as support for the fossil fuel industry, and that the greens should at least not be opposing it.
forward.com/opinion/347396/why-canadas-green-party-leader-might-resign-over-bds/

august 17, 2016 10:11 pm

it was always intended to be a way to get people back and forth from the hockey arena, and little else.

https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2016/01/18/lets-be-honest-detroits-m-1-rail-is-shaping-up-to-be-a-streetcar-that-leaves-much-to-be-desired

sept 5, 2016 12:30 am

unworkable and simplistic?
i don't like this minister one bit...
rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/brent-patterson/2016/09/lasting-ramifications-tsilhqotin-decision-on-fish-farms-pipel

sept 5, 2016 1:38 am
she's right.
instead of telling her to shut up, you should just ignore her. that may mean getting up and walking away.
rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2016/09/unlearning-anti-black-racism-101-stop-canadiansplaining

dec 1, 2016 9:22 am

indeed. this article gives a lot away. the ndp are falling all over themselves to be indiscernible from the conservatives, and now the conservatives are realizing that they're running against themselves. i suppose this is a victory for capital. but, it's a sad day for alberta, and a sad day for dippers.

the way out of this is that you refrain from voting next time, let the conservatives back in and rebuild. that sends the message to the ndp that they can't hold their base if they're going to govern like conservatives.

Ian Coutts deathtokoalas • 7 months ago
Yeah. Doing something now that people have wanted done for years is the same as doing something bad, and having done nothing for years is the same as having done something good. Yeah. I follow that logic.
Please continue being sad. It's all you're capable of.
deathtokoalas Ian Coutts • 7 months ago
this is something that *conservatives* have wanted done for years, and leftists have fought at every turn - and will continue to fight against, whether these corporate dippers are on our side, or not.
Ian Coutts deathtokoalas • 7 months ago
"corporate dippers". Now that's a phrase I hadn't heard before. Sort of like socialist capitalists, and leftist rightists, and vegan meat-eaters. You're so smart you're an idiot.

deathtokoalas Ian Coutts • 7 months ago
obviously, the point is that the ndp are not socialists at all but crony capitalists like the rest of them. i'm sorry if you haven't caught on, yet.
Carpediem Ian Coutts • 7 months ago
No, they are the ones/Dippers that once they actually have to govern start showing they recognize the validity of business interests for the health of the society they are responsible for now. These are the ones the purity ponies find traitors and sell-outs nce they actually have to govern for all and not just speak to their own. Remember, context and perspective can be oh so relative and subjective, and that is what this is in my view.
\I've actually encountered the term before, and that seems to be what it comes down to. We see a stronger strain of it in the USA within the Democratic base as well, especially when you look at those within the Dem base who were Sanders core supporters (and I am defining this solely by his support within that party base, not the outsiders he also brought into his campaign from it) versus the rest of the party, but the dynamics are much the same.
Scotian
deathtokoalas Carpediem • 7 months ago
i'm not going to argue with you. i don't disagree with your analysis. sure: they got in power and started acting like corporatist swine. it's just not what i vote for when i vote ndp. if i wanted a party that "recognize(s) the validity of business interests for the health of the society", i would vote for the capitalist parties. and, my sole intent is pointing out that the ndp is exactly that: a capitalist party.
ipolitics.ca/2016/11/30/trudeau-notley-and-trans-mountain-in-your-face-mr-kenney/

dec 25, 2016 11:29 am

i think the key characteristic that differentiates reagan from trump is an ability to project a trustworthiness of character. trump's ideas about unpredictability have a basis in cold war game theory, but they rely on true unpredictability, not feigned terms of an already determined deal. where the russians could legitimately not predict reagan's intent with his arms buildup, they and the chinese should both be able to see through trump's arrangements - because trump's game is in actuality both rational and predictable.

so, i wouldn't hold much to reagan as a comparison.

i'd hold closer to nixon, myself.

Inigo deathtokoalas • 6 months ago
You think Trump will weaponize the IRS like Nixon and Barry did?
deathtokoalas Inigo • 6 months ago
i haven't had a discussion with an anti-tax nut in a while, actually. i meant more broadly than that, but i'm not suspecting that trump wants to talk to the irs much more than he has to, by law.
Inigo deathtokoalas • 6 months ago
Pro-tip: You're not supposed to drink the bong-water.
deathtokoalas Inigo • 6 months ago
not even on christmas? you gotta put the kids to sleep somehow, right, might as well have a taste....
www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-wallace-people-underestimated-reagan-they-might-be-doing-the-same-with-trump/

jan 3, 2017 8:51 am

personally, i think he should have been forced to spend the holidays working as a door-to-door shoveler for spare change. if i have to live in the winter, i demand that everybody else in the country does, too!

i'm consistent on this point, as well. i expect that everybody else in the world should experience every single one of my problems, and i have nothing but contempt and rage for those that have the nerve to avoid them.

when i see inequality in the world, and there is so much of it, i ALWAYS demand that the people with more accept less. the obvious solution to inequality is that we must all be miserable and poor. that's equality: forcing the rich to become poor.

signed,
average dipshit canadian taxpayer.
ipolitics.ca/2017/01/02/trudeau-vacationing-in-bahamas-pmo-says/

jan 3, 2017 8:54 am

(deleted)

deathtokoalas Guest • 6 months ago
actually, i think there's a long list of reasons to criticize trudeau: the pipeline approvals, the inaction on repealing c-51, the inaction on aboriginal issues. but, this? this is just fucking stupid.
(deleted)

deathtokoalas Guest • 6 months ago
no. this is fucking stupid.
ipolitics.ca/2017/01/02/trudeau-vacationing-in-bahamas-pmo-says/

jan 6, 2017 5:10 am

whether you agree with this particular charge or not, levant is long overdue to face some consequences for his dishonesty. i hope they ruin him.


ipolitics.ca/2017/01/05/levant-faces-libel-claim-for-comparing-activists-to-nazis/


jan 9, 2017 5:08 pm

the media has a hate on for dion, but he's popular in his riding and seems to legitimately enjoy being an mp. i don't recall a single media source even mentioning him for cabinet, and then he lands one of the most important roles. whether the media likes it or not, he's well respected in the party and likely to continue to play a prominent role. sending him to france may make the dipshits at ctv news happy, but i can't imagine the party even contemplating it.
i'm hoping they turf jim carr.
you'll notice that a lot of the speculation is around women. this is a real concern, in adjusting to trump instead of clinton, although i'm not sure how best to approach it. i would also suspect that they're going to need to avoid sending certain types of minorities to washington for the next couple of years. it's realpolitik. and, i'm sure everybody can agree that it's better than getting ignored. that might mean that harjit sajjan could be in for a new role.
freeland will do well wherever you put her. but, i actually think that the best way to approach a reanalysis of nafta is to send somebody a little more left-leaning. i don't think that the uncritically pro-trade rhetoric is accurate when applied to either trudeau or the liberals; remember that freeland is on the right wing of the party. if we're getting a chance to open this up, i'd rather they send somebody with a more skeptical approach towards trade to do it. but, is there anybody still around or are they all gone, now?
jplondon deathtokoalas • 5 months ago
'the (major) speculation around women' in this article mentions primarily one woman, and touts her for one of the top-two positions in cabinet (global affairs, the other being finance).
the article includes mention of ms hajdu; speculation elsewhere and in this article itself taps her for a promotion based on a compassionate and masterful handling of the file and excellent communications skills.
it further mentions two others, ms's monsef and mihychuk. ms monsef's difficulties communicating and engaging opposing points of view are well-known and simply cannot be ignored. in your scenario, ms mihychuk, whatever her difficulties (and i've not read of any), should be safe. like mr carr, the minister is from winnipeg, and dropping him would make her position iron-clad..
be careful what you wish for.
deathtokoalas jplondon • 5 months ago
actually, i would have greatly preferred for them to have dropped carr (who is the classic anti-labour industry representative) in favour of mihychuk, as she was the closest thing to a labour representative. the glaring lack of labour representation was one of the most obvious weaknesses of this government when it was sworn in. merely putting her in cabinet was never going to be enough; taking her out of cabinet sends the message that the government does not have the interests of working people in mind, and will continue to act solely in the interests of capital.
ipolitics.ca/2017/01/09/freelands-the-one-to-watch-in-trudeau-cabinet-shuffle/

jan 11, 2017 5:24 pm

see, the irony is that this is where the rhetoric is actually accurate: we can't choose between economic growth and labour rights. they're intricately tied together; if we ignore labour rights, we will not get meaningful growth.

https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/01/10/Trudeau-New-Man-China/

jan 29, 2017 10:27 pm

Jay Ross • 5 months ago
Ahhhh, I see how this is going to go. A damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
Silence implies agreement and complicity. Are all of us to remain silent at what is happening? Are we to remain silent while at least five Muslims are killed at their place of worship? In this country?!! In order to not ruffle the Orange ones feathers?!! I don't think so.
Trudeau made a statement yesterday that only the thinnest of skins could take the wrong way. He announced that Canada is a safe refuge for those fleeing war and terror. It's a stand he's taken ever since he started bringing Syrian refugees into this country.
I'm sure you've heard this saying Stephen. It's one that bears repeating during these times...
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
deathtokoalas Jay Ross • 5 months ago
are you going to quote edmund burke's views on human rights, or the french revolution, while you're at it?
i'm not getting involved with this...
ipolitics.ca/2017/01/29/trudeau-must-speak-for-canada/

feb 24, 2017 5:18 pm

Frank_inBC • 4 months ago
So much for walking a middle path or taking a centrist position, instead Trudeau moved further to the Right than Harper.
I bet even Harper didn't look at Site C, all the LNG plants and pipelines and think he could approve all of them.
bklsz#flp Frank_inBC • 4 months ago
....and that's good !
Frank_inBC bklsz#flp • 4 months ago
Good for you at least. I don't understand why Trudeau's polling numbers aren't higher at the expense of the Conservatives.
bklsz#flp Frank_inBC • 4 months ago
Well Frankie, sorry to clue you in on reality, but Junior garnered less that 40% of the popular vote in the last election and the Conservatives got a little over 32%. The dippers are back in their traditional third place with less than 20%
There are a lot more Conservatives around than you may like and by 2020 perhaps enough to retire the Liberals (with their mishandling of the economy) for another term or to.
That's my hope ]:-)
Frank_inBC bklsz#flp • 4 months ago
I think you missed my point, perhaps I worded it wrong. You are happy with at least some of Trudeau's policies so it stands to reason there are lots of other Conservatives who are too. Yet I don't see that showing up in polling.
In BC a lot of Conservative voters have gradually moved to the Liberals provincially and a bit less so federally.
deathtokoalas Frank_inBC • 4 months ago
the hard conservative base - about 30% of the population - doesn't care about mining, it votes on social issues like immigration and abortion. and, the liberals themselves seem incapable of grasping this.
bklsz#flp Frank_inBC • 4 months ago
The one and only thing I'm pleased about is the approval of Transmountain which contributes to the economic growth of the Canadian economy.
Everything else he's done just extracts wealth from the unborn thru deficits.
I'm focus entirely on what Junior is doing with for the nation and leaving poll trends for another day. Naval gazing by following polling numbers are for others.
Frank_inBC bklsz#flp • 4 months ago
Well he also approved Christy Clark's LNG dreams and other pipelines so although you might not be happy overall I would think at least some other Conservatives would be.
bklsz#flp Frank_inBC • 4 months ago
Thanks for pointing out the LNG approvals, it slipped my mind.
I'm a Conservative and indeed pleased with approval of these privately funded infrastructure projects.
deathtokoalas bklsz#flp • 4 months ago
yeah, but, you're going to vote on right-wing social issues at the end of the day, like you always do.
ipolitics.ca/2017/02/23/hes-a-liar-why-the-left-coast-may-be-writing-off-justin-trudeau/


feb 24, 2017 8:17 pm

Irene Wright • 4 months ago
Some of us are old enough to remember Tommy Douglas's excellent story
"Mouseland". In this story the mice voted regularly for either the Black Cats or the White Cats (representing for us the Liberals and the Conservatives) and always suffered as a result. One day a little mouse stood up in front of the other mice and said that they, being mice, should vote for a mouse. The cats, after all were just doing what cats do (reducing mouse hole sizes so that cats could get their paw in, and requiring the mice to run at a slower speed, etc.), I'll not tell you the end, but I'm sure you can find a version on the internet. For me, the Conservatives talk and act like conservatives while the Liberals talk like New Democrats and act like Conservatives when in power. There is an alternative. You can probably guess the one I prefer.
deathtokoalas Irene Wright • 4 months ago
but, what if the ndp are cats nowadays, too? orange tabby cats...
ipolitics.ca/2017/02/23/hes-a-liar-why-the-left-coast-may-be-writing-off-justin-trudeau/

june 12, 2017 10:50 pm


blair & casey seem to be consistent in their public intention to get c-45 bogged down in committee. now, there is a rumour that trudeau is going to prorogue parliament before it gets out of committee...
but, i have nothing negative to say about c-46. i understand what long time users are saying, but long time users are surely cognizant of the dangers of being lenient on short term users. the same thing is true of alcohol, of course. and, what happens on a dui? unless it's paired to something else, and if it's reasonably close to the limit, what happens is that you have to do some community service. shit, somebody's gotta pick up the garbage in your neighbourhood, right?
but, i think the real crux of the situation is that the fears are being overblown. here's the truth of it: the cops don't pull you over unless you're swerving, and if you're swerving you should get pulled over. i know, i know - all you old willie nelsons are claiming you're fine to drive your pickup after a pinner, but if you think that's true then you have the burden of proof to drive competently enough to not get stopped. and, you mostly *won't* get stopped, either. but, a clear-thinking person wants the cops to have the power to get that giggling 19 year-old off the road before he hurts somebody.
https://www.hilltimes.com/2017/05/23/house-to-debate-seismic-shift-federal-policy-canadian-society-impaired-driving-marijuana-bills-coming-days/107849

this is the post that disappeared when i accessed it.

i even got an error through google cache. but, i already had it archived elsewhere.

--

june 28, 2016

hillary needs to make the choice about what side of the spectrum she wants to run on and then run on it aggressively.

if she decides to run as a conservative, and does it with conviction, then she can win some of these red states that everybody thinks are not in play - but she will probably destroy the democratic party's ability to appeal to the left for a generation or longer. is that already accomplished, anyways? i don't think she'll split the left in any meaningful way, because she'll cut too far into the right; if she loses 10% on her left, she'll gain 15% on the center-right. shouldn't tennessee be in play? kentucky? arkansas? that was her husband's map...

if she decides to run on the left, she'll have to concede some space on the right but with the aim of preventing a split. she'd be looking to emulate the obama map.

if i was working on her campaign, i would be a nihilist. i would be solely interested in power and reject ideology as simplistic modernist naivete. so, i would see these options as equally acceptable and judge them solely on their likelihood of success.

i would conclude she should run on the right, in an attempt to take advantage of conservative disillusionment with trump. she can offer a more credible conservative vision than he can. that's a big vacuum with a big reward. while she may lose support on her left, it is so unlikely to migrate to trump that it is not worth worrying about.

if she tries to hug the center, she will be unanimously rejected and lose.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/285110-polls-show-tight-clinton-trump-race-in-2016-battlegrounds

i'm also a little worried about this page, here.

i post here far too much to be able to keep track of anything. but, i glance over and look at the number from time to time, and it seems to keep getting over 1600 and then falling back.

i haven't been paying close enough attention to hone in on anything. i'm not aware of google censoring anybody over this medium; i would be more likely to lean towards an interested hacker.

it's currently at 1524. i'm going to keep a closer eye on it.

from my point of view, it's just disappointing that anybody could be so obtuse as to think that deleting unflattering blog posts by a disabled artist in canada is worth their time. that's really a special kind of stupid, isn't it? what's the point?

am i to be expected to unthink these thoughts? is somebody afraid of my foresight? and, if so, how did they arrive at the conclusion that deleting insights that they acknowledge are valid is the way to go? that's basically book burning.

i'm just confused by the attention. i'm an isolated disabled artist in canada. i have no resources. i have no contacts. you'd think they'd have something better to do, right?

i don't even want to say it's a function of their stupidity. it's more of a function of my harmlessness. i'm an easy target. but, i'm an easy target for the precise reason that i'm an isolated disabled artist in canada.

they can't find any real leads, so they key in on me instead, and pretend i'm fronting something.

again: i am legitimately trying to archive my statements. i am being prevented from doing so. i apologize to the future.

i'm trying to archive my posts on disqus, and somebody is actually seriously going through and deleting statements that attempt to portray clinton as the obvious conservative that she is.

so, i'd like to apologize to history. i'm trying. but, i'm being obfuscated.

Philpott said the tribunal made a “factual error in the decision” because it said there was a “refusal to provide funding” to the community.

“That funding was never refused,” said Philpott.

i hope she loses her seat.

 http://aptnnews.ca/2017/06/23/trudeau-liberals-take-human-rights-tribunal-to-court-over-first-nation-children-ruling/