no, tom. tax cuts *don't* create jobs!
it doesn't work when a conservative does it, it doesn't work when a liberal does it and it doesn't work when a member of the ndp does it, either.
it might work if an mlm did it, because they'd just make up the employment report after and put you in jail if you argue.
in general, though, it doesn't matter what party somebody is in when they cut taxes. nary a job will appear.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-mulcair-manufacturing-1.3204311
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
i'm in the group of people that doesn't expect a rebound any time soon. the factors keeping oil down are pretty long term, and more likely to exacerbate. there will not be another reset in american-russian relations, nor is russia likely to fall apart any time soon as they've been banking on.
this should hopefully allow local businesses an opportunity to rebuild. i'm sick of buying tomatoes from mexico and strawberries from california. let's get the infrastructure for indoor growing up and running. you do it in bulk, you cut down on costs. and, the bigger the space, the more solar panels you can set up.
the reality is that a low dollar is a far better job creation strategy than any kind of tax cut or pipeline scheme - but it has to be maintained. and, hopefully we can get some leadership in place that's more concerned about jobs in the local economy, and is willing to set rates to keep the dollar low, than it is about investors and money launderers.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/enjoy-canada-s-low-dollar-while-you-can-don-pittis-1.3203133
Andy the Great
Low dollar is good for the super rich, not the common person!
You must be love the super rich then, the low dollar only helps them. Also it does not affect the labour market since most companies are not spending because of the low CDN!
As for Russia. Most people there only earn $500 CDN a year. Yeah let copy them
Jessica Murray
the reason the dollar is down is that the united states has put sanctions in place to hurt the russian economy. it's always funny that conservatives continue to be stuck in the 20th century in their insinuations that leftists have some kind of affiliation with russia. russia is one of the most right-wing countries in the world. and the fact is that stephen harper and vladimir putin have a lot in common.
one of the things they have in common is that they both banked very strongly on high oil prices. what that means is that sanctions designed to hurt russia by cutting the price of oil will also drive down the canadian dollar, because harper's economic policies are very similar to putin's, which has put us in a situation where we will suffer the same effects as they are from the sanctions put in place to harm them.
oops.
the truth is that there's a long list of similar screw-ups, including selling our oil to our protector's largest competitor. that's not going to happen.
it follows that the continued tensions between the united states and russia will have a long-term effect on the canadian dollar. which means you should get used to a low dollar.
one way around this is to diversify the economy. my understanding is that this will require a change in government.
now, regarding the dollar, the idea that it helps the rich is pretty much completely absurd. i'm not sure where you're getting that from, but it sounds like a conservative talking point - because it's the precise opposite of the reality of the situation.
as mentioned, it makes our labour costs relatively lower, which attracts investment. it makes our exports more competitive. and, it acts as somewhat of a tariff in the sense that it makes locally produced products cheaper than imports. these are all excellent things for the working class.
but, it's bad news for people with currency reserves, currency manipulators, certain types of investors and a long list of other wealthy people.
as an aside, the reason there's been little spending by corporations is because there's been little demand for products. this is largely an issue related to stagnant wages and rising *household* debt - people don't have a lot of disposable income. there's a few ways to try and stimulate that. a tax cut for middle wage earners is a good idea in principle. as might be traditional keynesian spending.
i'd personally take somewhat of a step back from that, due to recent structural changes in the economy. a lower dollar might actually help to reverse those changes, in the sense that it acts somewhat as a tariff. that would take time.
but, nobody would ever argue that a lower dollar would act as a disincentive for investment in canada. quite the opposite would be true.
Andy the Great
Good solution, one currency for North America and call it the dollar !
Jessica Murray
that's the one and only way to turn canada into greece. no thanks.
this should hopefully allow local businesses an opportunity to rebuild. i'm sick of buying tomatoes from mexico and strawberries from california. let's get the infrastructure for indoor growing up and running. you do it in bulk, you cut down on costs. and, the bigger the space, the more solar panels you can set up.
the reality is that a low dollar is a far better job creation strategy than any kind of tax cut or pipeline scheme - but it has to be maintained. and, hopefully we can get some leadership in place that's more concerned about jobs in the local economy, and is willing to set rates to keep the dollar low, than it is about investors and money launderers.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/enjoy-canada-s-low-dollar-while-you-can-don-pittis-1.3203133
Andy the Great
Low dollar is good for the super rich, not the common person!
You must be love the super rich then, the low dollar only helps them. Also it does not affect the labour market since most companies are not spending because of the low CDN!
As for Russia. Most people there only earn $500 CDN a year. Yeah let copy them
Jessica Murray
the reason the dollar is down is that the united states has put sanctions in place to hurt the russian economy. it's always funny that conservatives continue to be stuck in the 20th century in their insinuations that leftists have some kind of affiliation with russia. russia is one of the most right-wing countries in the world. and the fact is that stephen harper and vladimir putin have a lot in common.
one of the things they have in common is that they both banked very strongly on high oil prices. what that means is that sanctions designed to hurt russia by cutting the price of oil will also drive down the canadian dollar, because harper's economic policies are very similar to putin's, which has put us in a situation where we will suffer the same effects as they are from the sanctions put in place to harm them.
oops.
the truth is that there's a long list of similar screw-ups, including selling our oil to our protector's largest competitor. that's not going to happen.
it follows that the continued tensions between the united states and russia will have a long-term effect on the canadian dollar. which means you should get used to a low dollar.
one way around this is to diversify the economy. my understanding is that this will require a change in government.
now, regarding the dollar, the idea that it helps the rich is pretty much completely absurd. i'm not sure where you're getting that from, but it sounds like a conservative talking point - because it's the precise opposite of the reality of the situation.
as mentioned, it makes our labour costs relatively lower, which attracts investment. it makes our exports more competitive. and, it acts as somewhat of a tariff in the sense that it makes locally produced products cheaper than imports. these are all excellent things for the working class.
but, it's bad news for people with currency reserves, currency manipulators, certain types of investors and a long list of other wealthy people.
as an aside, the reason there's been little spending by corporations is because there's been little demand for products. this is largely an issue related to stagnant wages and rising *household* debt - people don't have a lot of disposable income. there's a few ways to try and stimulate that. a tax cut for middle wage earners is a good idea in principle. as might be traditional keynesian spending.
i'd personally take somewhat of a step back from that, due to recent structural changes in the economy. a lower dollar might actually help to reverse those changes, in the sense that it acts somewhat as a tariff. that would take time.
but, nobody would ever argue that a lower dollar would act as a disincentive for investment in canada. quite the opposite would be true.
Andy the Great
Good solution, one currency for North America and call it the dollar !
Jessica Murray
that's the one and only way to turn canada into greece. no thanks.
at
01:32
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
again: it's just all a giant exercise in absurdity. first, we had the conservatives claiming they were best at managing the economy. now, we've got everybody arguing over who is going to best manage the economy.
governments don't manage the economy.
tax cuts for businesses don't create jobs. tax increases for businesses don't destroy jobs. targeted tax cuts for consumers can increase purchases, but it's no longer clear that this creates jobs, either. direct investment can create jobs, but there are now rules in place that restrict our ability to do this. the only thing government can do to create middle class jobs is directly hire people - it can expand itself.
a low dollar makes us more competitive for jobs with high capital mobility (like call centers), and more competitive with exports (like cheese). in the context of expanding free trade, this is a good thing and should be maintained.
budget deficits do not affect the economy.
just, please, do me a favour: when you finally get rid of this government, do everything you can to change the ballot question and the narrative. we've reduced elections to a process of deciding which party is better at doing something that government doesn't do, and erected an entire vocabulary of nonsense in the process. the whole narrative is completely in the realm of fantasy. and, we wonder why nobody votes...
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-justin-trudeau-accuses-tom-mulcair-of-austerity-over-balanced-budget-pledge-1.3202773
governments don't manage the economy.
tax cuts for businesses don't create jobs. tax increases for businesses don't destroy jobs. targeted tax cuts for consumers can increase purchases, but it's no longer clear that this creates jobs, either. direct investment can create jobs, but there are now rules in place that restrict our ability to do this. the only thing government can do to create middle class jobs is directly hire people - it can expand itself.
a low dollar makes us more competitive for jobs with high capital mobility (like call centers), and more competitive with exports (like cheese). in the context of expanding free trade, this is a good thing and should be maintained.
budget deficits do not affect the economy.
just, please, do me a favour: when you finally get rid of this government, do everything you can to change the ballot question and the narrative. we've reduced elections to a process of deciding which party is better at doing something that government doesn't do, and erected an entire vocabulary of nonsense in the process. the whole narrative is completely in the realm of fantasy. and, we wonder why nobody votes...
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-justin-trudeau-accuses-tom-mulcair-of-austerity-over-balanced-budget-pledge-1.3202773
at
01:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i just want to point out that there's no such thing as a blue liberal. i know it seems fair and everything, so your sense of fair play and equal treatment will scream at you. you want the symmetry, at least. but? nope. and there really never has been. there's not a trace of these people in any poll ever taken. the truth is that they're all red tories, there in that fiscally responsible and socially liberal space. once you get left of red tory, harper's never had - and never will have - a fighting chance. it's an impenetrable brick wall of perpetual concern regarding social issues.
but, i'm going to give harper a gift, because i'd like to realign the spectrum. what we've got going on currently isn't of much use to me. i don't want a right-wing ndp government.
something harper seems to have missed in his micro-polling and over-targeting is that there's a significant pool of voters that could be called "tim horton's socialists". i've been in broad contact with these people through various social organizing. the provincial ndp in ontario has been targeting these voters to varying effects, but is limited by where it can move. harper is less limited on this front, because he's more aligned with a syncretic kind of social credit position than anything traditionally conservative. the dynamic is reversed: these are voters that are socially conservative and fiscally socialist. they want big spending and help for the poor, but are rather right-wing on a host of issues from immigration to abortion to the death penalty.
if you conservatives want to help the left get rid of these voters, i think we'd both be better off.
ipolitics.ca/2015/08/25/its-not-your-first-election-mr-harper-time-to-stop-screwing-up/
but, i'm going to give harper a gift, because i'd like to realign the spectrum. what we've got going on currently isn't of much use to me. i don't want a right-wing ndp government.
something harper seems to have missed in his micro-polling and over-targeting is that there's a significant pool of voters that could be called "tim horton's socialists". i've been in broad contact with these people through various social organizing. the provincial ndp in ontario has been targeting these voters to varying effects, but is limited by where it can move. harper is less limited on this front, because he's more aligned with a syncretic kind of social credit position than anything traditionally conservative. the dynamic is reversed: these are voters that are socially conservative and fiscally socialist. they want big spending and help for the poor, but are rather right-wing on a host of issues from immigration to abortion to the death penalty.
if you conservatives want to help the left get rid of these voters, i think we'd both be better off.
ipolitics.ca/2015/08/25/its-not-your-first-election-mr-harper-time-to-stop-screwing-up/
at
00:34
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this is scott brison's riding. i suspect it's a deal to ensure the ndp doesn't split the vote, in exchange for a cabinet position should they win. the ndp were not likely to win the riding, but a bigger than normal ndp turnout could cut into the liberal vote enough to swing it to the conservatives.
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/death-of-a-candidacy
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/death-of-a-candidacy
at
00:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
thoughts on the latest spencer krug recording
i've listened to a few tracks off this record, and i'll admit that i grasp why a pop audience would react positively to it - it sounds fancy. i'm not being an ass on purpose (although i probably couldn't prevent myself), but it's the basic idea. it gives you the opportunity to put down the garbage you normally listen to and feel sophisticated and upper class for an hour. and, maybe it might act as somewhat of a gateway.
but, it's just so terribly contrived. the cadences. the crescendos. it's blatant cliche, and clearly consciously designed to maximize itself as such. and, on top of that, he plays the instrument like a blunt poke in the eye - most of the record sounds like a player piano. not a sequencer. you can program dynamics into a sequencer. this is just straight artillery fire.
the guy has demonstrated potential. and his refusal to do what he's expected is definitely refreshing. but, i'm sorry to say that this is some of the deadest piano music that i've heard.
but, it's just so terribly contrived. the cadences. the crescendos. it's blatant cliche, and clearly consciously designed to maximize itself as such. and, on top of that, he plays the instrument like a blunt poke in the eye - most of the record sounds like a player piano. not a sequencer. you can program dynamics into a sequencer. this is just straight artillery fire.
the guy has demonstrated potential. and his refusal to do what he's expected is definitely refreshing. but, i'm sorry to say that this is some of the deadest piano music that i've heard.
at
23:58
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this is uncharacteristically interesting, coming from spencer krug. it's evidence that he maybe needs to slow down a little and focus on writing a handful of good songs every few months rather than a constant stream of mediocre ones. to put it another way, it's evidence that he's able to create a really good record if he wants to. electronic pop is such a saturated space nowadays, and so little of it is worth engaging with. it's a treat when you do run across that rare solid disc in the constant stream of fluffy noise.
at
23:05
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
thoughts on the new pinkish black single
the last one took a bit to click, but it eventually did, and this is likewise a bit disorienting. you have to give this band full marks for a subtle evolution. but it comes with the caveat that they're getting harder to follow because they seem to be getting poppier and poppier.
this is moving slowly into something like spencer krug territory.
(that one record he did, organ music - not vibraphone music like i hoped, is actually uncharacteristically interesting. it's a saturated space, with a lot of mediocrity, but nothing hits you in the gut like a good, dark, smart synth pop song.)
this is moving slowly into something like spencer krug territory.
(that one record he did, organ music - not vibraphone music like i hoped, is actually uncharacteristically interesting. it's a saturated space, with a lot of mediocrity, but nothing hits you in the gut like a good, dark, smart synth pop song.)
at
22:37
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
actual weekly results
To: nnanos@nanosresearch.com
hi.
i'm just curious if you'd be willing to start releasing your actual weekly results in your pdfs. i know your sample sizes are small, so it's important to be cautious and everything. but i'm sure you're aware that the media tends to (on purpose or not) not understand the difference between a snap poll and a rolling average, and is consistently reporting your results as a snap poll. i realize there's value in what you're doing. but, if you were to put the actual weekly data at the bottom of the pdf somewhere, it would help people construct and understand your results better.
j
hi.
i'm just curious if you'd be willing to start releasing your actual weekly results in your pdfs. i know your sample sizes are small, so it's important to be cautious and everything. but i'm sure you're aware that the media tends to (on purpose or not) not understand the difference between a snap poll and a rolling average, and is consistently reporting your results as a snap poll. i realize there's value in what you're doing. but, if you were to put the actual weekly data at the bottom of the pdf somewhere, it would help people construct and understand your results better.
j
at
22:16
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
it's a scam. it's not a way to reduce emissions. it's a way to convert emissions into an abstraction that can be inflated and deflated into profits for investors. in a sense, it's the sacred cow that industry has been looking for since the beginning of industrialization: how can we turn waste products into profits?
the basic premise is that the solution to capitalism is more capitalism.
people are going to look back at cap & trade as the defining symptom of an utterly insane society.
the basic premise is that the solution to capitalism is more capitalism.
people are going to look back at cap & trade as the defining symptom of an utterly insane society.
at
22:05
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i've never liked this question, because it's not clear what it means for a government to "manage an economy" in a global free market system. i mean, it's a perception thing, i get that. but, then you're not really measuring what people actually think - you're doing market research on the effectiveness of the conservative election propaganda. they themselves never actually explain what they mean by "managing the economy". i pay pretty close attention, and have for many years, and ten years on it's still just a vague slogan. the entire narrative has always been incoherent.
i mean, i could understand the marxist-leninist-maoist party running on a platform of "managing the economy". they'd lay out their four year economic action plans, and we'd get our chance to put some input into it. of course, they probably wouldn't listen. nor would they respect the results of the election. i digress.
it's important because if the question is just a measurement of how people are reacting to ads then it's not actually an election driver. it would become interchangeable with whatever else is being advertised, because it's just the repetition of a slogan. people changing their mind wouldn't suggest any change in opinion so much as it would say something about the effectiveness of various ads. i don't think that's actually true - or at least not broadly. i give people more credit than that. but unless the question is specified, it's not clear what people mean when they're changing their views, or what they even meant in the first place. even if it's just a perception, there must be a thought process underlying it.
if they could be a little bit more specific, it would be helpful in understanding if this is actually an election issue or if it's just an advertising issue.
i've generally interpreted the shift in this question as the populace stepping back from neo-liberalism and free markets and re-evaluating keynesianism and social democracy. there's also some evidence that marx has become somewhat trendy recently, although i'm not sure how relevant that is, or how well people understand any of it. but, the neo-liberal model has taken a bit of a beating in the public sphere (and quite badly over social media) so it seems rational and consistent with my experience that people that are rejecting the conservatives on "managing the economy" - or not managing the economy - are swinging left on it.
but, i'm not entirely sure that that's justified.
it would certainly help the direction of public policy over the next decade if some polling could clarify.
more pointedly: are they rejecting the neo-liberal ideology, or are they rejecting the conservative party?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-economy-leaders-aug25-1.3201735
i mean, i could understand the marxist-leninist-maoist party running on a platform of "managing the economy". they'd lay out their four year economic action plans, and we'd get our chance to put some input into it. of course, they probably wouldn't listen. nor would they respect the results of the election. i digress.
it's important because if the question is just a measurement of how people are reacting to ads then it's not actually an election driver. it would become interchangeable with whatever else is being advertised, because it's just the repetition of a slogan. people changing their mind wouldn't suggest any change in opinion so much as it would say something about the effectiveness of various ads. i don't think that's actually true - or at least not broadly. i give people more credit than that. but unless the question is specified, it's not clear what people mean when they're changing their views, or what they even meant in the first place. even if it's just a perception, there must be a thought process underlying it.
if they could be a little bit more specific, it would be helpful in understanding if this is actually an election issue or if it's just an advertising issue.
i've generally interpreted the shift in this question as the populace stepping back from neo-liberalism and free markets and re-evaluating keynesianism and social democracy. there's also some evidence that marx has become somewhat trendy recently, although i'm not sure how relevant that is, or how well people understand any of it. but, the neo-liberal model has taken a bit of a beating in the public sphere (and quite badly over social media) so it seems rational and consistent with my experience that people that are rejecting the conservatives on "managing the economy" - or not managing the economy - are swinging left on it.
but, i'm not entirely sure that that's justified.
it would certainly help the direction of public policy over the next decade if some polling could clarify.
more pointedly: are they rejecting the neo-liberal ideology, or are they rejecting the conservative party?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-economy-leaders-aug25-1.3201735
at
05:38
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
you have to understand that the nanos polling is a rolling average, not a snap poll. it's not nik's fault. he's clear about what he's doing. but, it's consistently reported inaccurately.
this report does not suggest that the parties are running at that level right now. it suggests that it is the average level of support that they ran at last month. to present it as a snap poll is dishonest - perhaps accidentally, as i know that journalists are often not so good at math.
the value of this kind of polling is to track long term trends. and, because nik's samples are so small and consequently vary a lot, it works together to smooth itself out.
it's a measure of party viability. and, because this election is so long, it may be useful in understanding where people's brains really are in the long run, rather than where their votes are in the short-run.
it's just important that you understand what you're actually reading. and, it would help if the media were clearer about it.
nik's polls have a lag built into them - it's by design. it's just measuring something else. they will align with the current consensus over the next month, as they catch up. but, by then, the consensus may have changed, and they'll be behind again.
right now, they're useful because the race is young and there's a lot of undecideds. but, as we get closer and closer to the election, this method will be unable to predict last minute changes.
for example, something you can pull out of nik's polling that you won't see elsewhere is that the ndp support base in quebec is relatively weak - some of that support is torn between the bloc and the ndp, whereas some of it is torn between the ndp and the liberals. it's not that snap polling would be over-estimating current support so much as it's pointing out that the current support level is not strong, not decided and still open to switching.
it also suggests that the ndp support in ontario is very weak, and possibly driven by perception about who has a better chance of winning. again: that's not to suggest that the snap polling is wrong. it's to suggest that the support is not strong.
and, so the takeaway is that the race is still wide open, and that the snap polling at this early stage should be taken with some caution.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/three-main-federal-parties-tangled-in-three-way-tie-nanos-poll/article26090470/
this report does not suggest that the parties are running at that level right now. it suggests that it is the average level of support that they ran at last month. to present it as a snap poll is dishonest - perhaps accidentally, as i know that journalists are often not so good at math.
the value of this kind of polling is to track long term trends. and, because nik's samples are so small and consequently vary a lot, it works together to smooth itself out.
it's a measure of party viability. and, because this election is so long, it may be useful in understanding where people's brains really are in the long run, rather than where their votes are in the short-run.
it's just important that you understand what you're actually reading. and, it would help if the media were clearer about it.
nik's polls have a lag built into them - it's by design. it's just measuring something else. they will align with the current consensus over the next month, as they catch up. but, by then, the consensus may have changed, and they'll be behind again.
right now, they're useful because the race is young and there's a lot of undecideds. but, as we get closer and closer to the election, this method will be unable to predict last minute changes.
for example, something you can pull out of nik's polling that you won't see elsewhere is that the ndp support base in quebec is relatively weak - some of that support is torn between the bloc and the ndp, whereas some of it is torn between the ndp and the liberals. it's not that snap polling would be over-estimating current support so much as it's pointing out that the current support level is not strong, not decided and still open to switching.
it also suggests that the ndp support in ontario is very weak, and possibly driven by perception about who has a better chance of winning. again: that's not to suggest that the snap polling is wrong. it's to suggest that the support is not strong.
and, so the takeaway is that the race is still wide open, and that the snap polling at this early stage should be taken with some caution.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/three-main-federal-parties-tangled-in-three-way-tie-nanos-poll/article26090470/
at
05:05
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
see, i share this concern. but, it's why i think it's important to stand up. remember when we claimed no allegiance to countries, to leaders or states? when we would kill the generals on our own side to stop the war, rather than continue to fight it? so, why are we marching in lock stop with this party as it swings well to the right of the liberals?
there's an alternate outcome of this sad tale: the caucus revolts, starts a new party and rejuvenates itself. will there be enough independent voices left to do so? if not in parliament, then certainly outside of it.
we will win most of our battles in court. we all know this. but, if we continue to support the same policies under a different slogan, we embolden them to continue.
you don't have to stand in line. you can vote for another party to send a message. or not vote at all to send an even stronger one, if you see nothing you can truly support.
and, if harper wins again? well, can you point to a single policy point where the ndp is truly preferable?
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/j-baglow/2015/08/mulcairs-lead-polls-does-not-protect-him-criticism
there's an alternate outcome of this sad tale: the caucus revolts, starts a new party and rejuvenates itself. will there be enough independent voices left to do so? if not in parliament, then certainly outside of it.
we will win most of our battles in court. we all know this. but, if we continue to support the same policies under a different slogan, we embolden them to continue.
you don't have to stand in line. you can vote for another party to send a message. or not vote at all to send an even stronger one, if you see nothing you can truly support.
and, if harper wins again? well, can you point to a single policy point where the ndp is truly preferable?
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/j-baglow/2015/08/mulcairs-lead-polls-does-not-protect-him-criticism
at
04:28
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
these articles never say anything about transmarginal inhibition. i think we're all mostly ultra-paradoxical on most advertising, and that it can consequently backfire badly.
the opposition hasn't helped, either. i think the truth is that all the liberals had to do to win last election was not run a war criminal. they couldn't figure out how to find a candidate that wasn't a war criminal, apparently. the liberals that did vote swung to the ndp.
it's a kind of a correlation v. causality thing. when the dust lifts, i think we're going to realize that we're attributing far more to harper than we ought to, and that rather than being some kind of evil genius, the truth is that he's really an absolute imbecile that's had the good fortune of dealing with the most incompetent opposition in canadian history.
thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/24/Polarizing-Voter-Tactics/
the opposition hasn't helped, either. i think the truth is that all the liberals had to do to win last election was not run a war criminal. they couldn't figure out how to find a candidate that wasn't a war criminal, apparently. the liberals that did vote swung to the ndp.
it's a kind of a correlation v. causality thing. when the dust lifts, i think we're going to realize that we're attributing far more to harper than we ought to, and that rather than being some kind of evil genius, the truth is that he's really an absolute imbecile that's had the good fortune of dealing with the most incompetent opposition in canadian history.
thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/24/Polarizing-Voter-Tactics/
at
03:45
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Monday, August 24, 2015
we need to turf that fixed elections law.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-harper-economy-markets-1.3201727
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-harper-economy-markets-1.3201727
at
23:35
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
farmers,
i wouldn't expect the conservatives to move on this. they benefit from maintaining their print media bias, and restricting the spectrum of opinions. and you, our necessary producers of the only thing we all absolutely need, are their rock solid core of support. they'd rather you just keep your subscription to the national post.
this is something you could move on yourselves by laying cables. it's actually very easy and relatively inexpensive to set up a broadband internet connection - it's really just a question of laying cables. with a bit of starting capital, your kids could relatively easily set up isp businesses.
www.techvibes.com/blog/rural-canadians-internet-election-2015-08-24
i wouldn't expect the conservatives to move on this. they benefit from maintaining their print media bias, and restricting the spectrum of opinions. and you, our necessary producers of the only thing we all absolutely need, are their rock solid core of support. they'd rather you just keep your subscription to the national post.
this is something you could move on yourselves by laying cables. it's actually very easy and relatively inexpensive to set up a broadband internet connection - it's really just a question of laying cables. with a bit of starting capital, your kids could relatively easily set up isp businesses.
www.techvibes.com/blog/rural-canadians-internet-election-2015-08-24
at
23:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this is a specific discussion forum. the logic underlying his
decision to pull out of general debates without harper is strategically
understandable, if questionable - there's a cost-benefit analysis,
there. but, there's really only three reasons he could be seen to pull
out of something like this:
1) elizabeth may. i think that's the big issue. he'd have been more likely to participate if it were an all male debate, or if there were at least two women. but, he's concerned that putting himself in a women's debate with a single female candidate is something that cannot end well. and, i think everybody can agree that he's probably right. that's something that trudeau's team probably should have thought through a bit better. there is only one possible winner of the debate.
2) the ndp is currently leading in the female vote. he doesn't want to risk that by contrasting himself with the other candidates.
3) how can i say this? his personal hygiene and general appearance is not his utmost priority. even with harper on the stage, he's clearly the least attractive of the candidates. this is a kind of an intangible, but mulcair is running a very psychologically-driven campaign and i have no doubt that this is a big part of the calculus.
to be honest with you, i'm not sure it's a great idea to have three or four guys and a sixty year-old pro-life female minister get together and talk women's rights, anyways. i don't see where that's going...
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/24/womens-issues-debate-called-off-after-mulcair-drops-out-organizers/
dtgraham
Personal hygiene? You can smell him through the TV? This is getting stupid at this point.
deathtokoalas
the beard is flat out gross. deal with it.
(deleted coment)
deathtokoalas
that wasn't intended as an insult. nor am i suggesting that women are going to just pick the cute one. but, there are complex psychological concerns at play here that the mulcair campaign was no doubt aware of.
running for prime minister is not a beauty contest, and this shouldn't be an issue in the campaign. but, that doesn't mean that there aren't certain optics that the mulcair campaign is going to seek to avoid, regarding the context of him standing next to trudeau.
(deleted comment)
deathtokoalas
if you would like to interpret my accurate observations as insults, that's your prerogative. but, a true statement does not have a moral value judgement attached to it. and, if you wish to cry over neutral and valid observations, i would suggest you find yourself a nice, isolated basement to do it in. once there, you won't have to deal with the oppression of the real world anymore. and, there's a bonus for the rest of us adults - we can discuss things openly, honestly and bluntly without having to worry about hurting your feelings.
i don't care if you're insulted or not. his appearance is unhygienic. that's a problem his campaign is aware of and will need to manage.
and, i will continue to speak over your obfuscating, politically correct howls.
Diggersin
Not shaving is not unhygienic. You sound OCD.
deathtokoalas
see, calling me ocd out of the blue is shitty form - that's the kind of thing you don't do, unless you're an asshole and have it branded on your t-shirt.
i live on disability for psychological reasons. i do have symptoms that align with ocd, but they are not very strong. your suspicion is mildly accurate.
but, it doesn't change the reality the facial hair is, in fact, both unhygienic on a practical level and unclean looking on an impressions level.
unlike most of the people that post on these sites, i am neither paid to support a party nor am i partisan hack. i'm interested in breaking through the noise and providing an objective, fact-based analysis. and i'm not concerned about tip-toeing around people's feelings as i do so.
fwiw, my education is more broad than it is specialized. like many young people, i was not able to determine what i wanted to study. in the process, i ended up completing multiple partial degrees. i only have one piece of paper, but you will find few people that have completed as many credits as i have. and i'm very confident that i'm speaking from an informed perspective.
if you are an expert in psychology, i would behoove you to expand upon my point rather than deflect from it.
dtgraham
Yes, you are suggesting that women are going to just pick the cute one. Otherwise why on earth would Mulcair have a problem with appearing on stage with Trudeau at a women's issues debate when he has no problem being on stage with him at any other debate that Harper attends? You have a very shallow opinion of women voters. If what you're saying were actually true, then Elizabeth May might as well skip it too.
deathtokoalas
i'm sorry that you were not able to understand the subtlety of my observations. it's a subconscious, psychological thing. and, it's not an obscure point, either. it's well understood that we form opinions based on first impressions, and that appearances are paramount in that process. if you set up a debate about women's issues with a bunch of dudes talking, you exacerbate that process. then, you end up with unconscious biases.
again: mulcair is running a very psychological campaign. this is first year stuff that his campaign is no doubt aware of. you can bet it was a part of the calculus.
every candidate has pros and cons. mulcair's a policy wonk, but he's kind of creepy looking and that's a liability in certain contexts. you can expect his campaign to continue to strategize around that.
i believe that the technical term for what i'm describing is "beardo".
1) elizabeth may. i think that's the big issue. he'd have been more likely to participate if it were an all male debate, or if there were at least two women. but, he's concerned that putting himself in a women's debate with a single female candidate is something that cannot end well. and, i think everybody can agree that he's probably right. that's something that trudeau's team probably should have thought through a bit better. there is only one possible winner of the debate.
2) the ndp is currently leading in the female vote. he doesn't want to risk that by contrasting himself with the other candidates.
3) how can i say this? his personal hygiene and general appearance is not his utmost priority. even with harper on the stage, he's clearly the least attractive of the candidates. this is a kind of an intangible, but mulcair is running a very psychologically-driven campaign and i have no doubt that this is a big part of the calculus.
to be honest with you, i'm not sure it's a great idea to have three or four guys and a sixty year-old pro-life female minister get together and talk women's rights, anyways. i don't see where that's going...
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/24/womens-issues-debate-called-off-after-mulcair-drops-out-organizers/
dtgraham
Personal hygiene? You can smell him through the TV? This is getting stupid at this point.
deathtokoalas
the beard is flat out gross. deal with it.
(deleted coment)
deathtokoalas
that wasn't intended as an insult. nor am i suggesting that women are going to just pick the cute one. but, there are complex psychological concerns at play here that the mulcair campaign was no doubt aware of.
running for prime minister is not a beauty contest, and this shouldn't be an issue in the campaign. but, that doesn't mean that there aren't certain optics that the mulcair campaign is going to seek to avoid, regarding the context of him standing next to trudeau.
(deleted comment)
deathtokoalas
if you would like to interpret my accurate observations as insults, that's your prerogative. but, a true statement does not have a moral value judgement attached to it. and, if you wish to cry over neutral and valid observations, i would suggest you find yourself a nice, isolated basement to do it in. once there, you won't have to deal with the oppression of the real world anymore. and, there's a bonus for the rest of us adults - we can discuss things openly, honestly and bluntly without having to worry about hurting your feelings.
i don't care if you're insulted or not. his appearance is unhygienic. that's a problem his campaign is aware of and will need to manage.
and, i will continue to speak over your obfuscating, politically correct howls.
Diggersin
Not shaving is not unhygienic. You sound OCD.
deathtokoalas
see, calling me ocd out of the blue is shitty form - that's the kind of thing you don't do, unless you're an asshole and have it branded on your t-shirt.
i live on disability for psychological reasons. i do have symptoms that align with ocd, but they are not very strong. your suspicion is mildly accurate.
but, it doesn't change the reality the facial hair is, in fact, both unhygienic on a practical level and unclean looking on an impressions level.
unlike most of the people that post on these sites, i am neither paid to support a party nor am i partisan hack. i'm interested in breaking through the noise and providing an objective, fact-based analysis. and i'm not concerned about tip-toeing around people's feelings as i do so.
fwiw, my education is more broad than it is specialized. like many young people, i was not able to determine what i wanted to study. in the process, i ended up completing multiple partial degrees. i only have one piece of paper, but you will find few people that have completed as many credits as i have. and i'm very confident that i'm speaking from an informed perspective.
if you are an expert in psychology, i would behoove you to expand upon my point rather than deflect from it.
dtgraham
Yes, you are suggesting that women are going to just pick the cute one. Otherwise why on earth would Mulcair have a problem with appearing on stage with Trudeau at a women's issues debate when he has no problem being on stage with him at any other debate that Harper attends? You have a very shallow opinion of women voters. If what you're saying were actually true, then Elizabeth May might as well skip it too.
deathtokoalas
i'm sorry that you were not able to understand the subtlety of my observations. it's a subconscious, psychological thing. and, it's not an obscure point, either. it's well understood that we form opinions based on first impressions, and that appearances are paramount in that process. if you set up a debate about women's issues with a bunch of dudes talking, you exacerbate that process. then, you end up with unconscious biases.
again: mulcair is running a very psychological campaign. this is first year stuff that his campaign is no doubt aware of. you can bet it was a part of the calculus.
every candidate has pros and cons. mulcair's a policy wonk, but he's kind of creepy looking and that's a liability in certain contexts. you can expect his campaign to continue to strategize around that.
i believe that the technical term for what i'm describing is "beardo".
at
21:53
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this is definitely the set up to a stephen king novel, where the marionette takes control of the person that finds it and slowly drives them insane.
at
00:31
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
like, i'm sorry - but this is pornography. it's even porn music. i don't want to get all moral on your ass or something; i don't care if you enjoy porn. whatever. but, let's stop pretending that this is a music video. it's porn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWnXB2tDvog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWnXB2tDvog
at
00:16
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
is this a plea to restore nasa funding?
"baby, you were there when we took our first step,
but now you've sold me out to investors on the free MAR-KET!"
baby, take me back..
"baby, you were there when we took our first step,
but now you've sold me out to investors on the free MAR-KET!"
baby, take me back..
at
00:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Sunday, August 23, 2015
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.
it reminds you that we really don't know what's under the ice.
at
11:23
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
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.
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.
at
10:59
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
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.
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.
at
10:25
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
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 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
at
09:55
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
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.
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.
at
03:26
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
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.
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.
at
01:47
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
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
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
at
01:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
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.
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.
at
00:35
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
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
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
at
00:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Saturday, August 22, 2015
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.
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/22/what-would-tommy-douglas-say-liberals-target-ndps-left-flank/15:13
Jh
Ignorant or Stupid? Roy Romanow, Saskatchewan. Bob Rae Ontario, Rachel Notley, Alberta. That's just off the top of my head. None of these premiers ever went as right as the Liberals have although they certainly have made compromises as governments. Too early to say for Rachel. Liberals copy NDP ideas and pretend that they are theirs. Trudeau senior with national healthcare is a classic example. Its time we reward the people with the real new ideas and make Canada a better place.
deathtokoalas
neither: informed. much more than you are. romanow & rae are two of the most right-wing premiers that the country has ever seen and both of them managed to completely destroy the party's base in their respective provinces.
to this day, in ontario, you will not find a major union that supports the ndp. every single one of them supports the liberals. such is the extent of the catastrophe to the left that was bob rae.
and, romanow is often cited by the fraser institute as an example of good conservative governance.
Dw
Citations, please?
deathtokoalas
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fraser+institute+roy+romanow
jh
Unions are like businesses and vote and fund their interests and many are not what I'd call ' left.' The Fraser institute is not what I'd call a credible organization. Honestly I don't care if they are right or left so long as they have good policy ideas for the public and a party apparatus that will implement those ideas. The Liberals historically have been far more willing to preach principle and practice the opposite than the NDP.
deathtokoalas
see, i think that's the question that is up for debate. the stuff in the 90s is sort of complicated (they had to cut things temporarily to prevent the imf from cutting the credit rating, which is the only meaningful consequence of budget deficits, and they brought spending back when they could. blame the imf. it's fun. but the liberals have taken the bulk of the blame for having to make difficult choices to fix mulroney's mess.), but if you take the bc liberals (and maybe the quebec liberals) out, because they're not really liberals, i think the opposite is more true. the liberals have to walk a line in the centre that restricts them from cracking down on labour too hard, whereas the ndp consistently take the labour vote for granted and then poke sticks in their eyes and make faces at them, while they kick them in the shins. it's just the historical reality of it.
when bob rae took over in ontario, he set up mandatory unpaid days off called "rae days" in order to "fight the deficit". only the ndp could have done something so absurd to get to the conservative aim of a balanced budget. it would have led to a general strike if the liberals tried something like that. and, this sort of thing is true of ndp governments across the country.
i'm broadly happy with the liberal government in ontario. they've taken concrete steps on carbon emissions. they've made positive structural changes on income inequality - they're modest, but they'll be felt. i'd like to see them re-nationalize the grid, but not even the ndp are talking about that. really, the ndp are just pushing tax cuts and yelling about corruption. again: they sound like conservatives. and, they have to - because they simply can't get unionized workers to vote for them anymore. all they've got left is the "tim horton's vote".
it's not a clear-cut issue, or anything. but i think that a careful, objective analysis will demonstrate that the liberals have generally stayed closer to their principles and leaned further to the left.
Jh
I disagree. I was a union steward when Rae days came along. We loved them. Much of organized labour hated Rae for that but it was a mistake. They paid for that when Mike Harris showed up on the scene and many of those opposed to Rae ideas ate crow as jobs were destroyed.
I think presuming all unions are left is a mistake. Some are, some are not. They do what they feel is in their members interests. As you pointed out many became Liberal but many went back to the NDP. I do not think the NDP took the labour vote for granted. Quite the opposite. I think many labour leaders couldn't believe Rae didn't do exactly as they wanted.
Rae days - Considering the economic and budget context - it was lose your job or take some time off. I think time off was and is the best choice. It worked. The economy recovered quickly under Rae. To manage the economy well is not a conservative or right issue. Harris did a terrible job in Ontario leaving it 3 billion in debt. Same pumpkins now are in Ottawa.
The Liberals also had choices and made them. They pulled far right under Chrétien and Martin. They balanced the budget and good for them. But a careful objective analysis reveals a Liberal campaigns left and when in power fails to keep those promises. Time and again. Federally it's why they got destroyed last election. Now they've put all their Eggs with Justin who seems like a nice guy. He's just with the wrong party if he wants to be a real progressive. Wynne is no different. I admire some of her policies like the pension plan but the privatization of Hydro is a very bad idea.
Cutting and pasting other party ideas and calling it a grand vision is what Liberals do. There is no consistent liberal vision, there are no consistent liberal principles there is only say what seems the middle at the time to get elected. Liberals are 'conveniently progressive' which to my mind are the worst kind.
deathtokoalas
see, again: you have to keep in mind that the issue federally was the credit rating. the next step is imf restructuring, including privatization. we had a really hard choice, there: if we didn't find a way to improve the credit situation, we'd be in a situation where we'd start losing things like our health care system. that sounds like a scare tactic, but look around at the world. these financial institutions are vampires.
what the feds had to do was raise taxes and temporarily cut services, then put them back once the revenue stream was put in order. mulroney got the tax in place, at least. and, they followed through with the rest. i've been over this with a lot of people. and, it's very hard to explain it. but, they weren't acting out of ideological persuasion. again: these institutions were horrid.
rae was not under the same pressure. there was nothing stopping him from raising corporate taxes, or even just running a deficit. instead, he went after workers. it's consistent...
jh
Rae was under even more pressure. Ontario did lose its credit ratings of double AA. Whoopdi do. To this day you can find Conservatives that think he was the anti Christ. Despite this he found an interesting solution in very challenging times. The federal Liberals on the other hand caved like wet cardboard. I do agree there was some things they had to do to retain a credit rating at the time but they went way overboard. The cuts were deep and the services not restored. By the way these are the same agencies that gave AAA credit to Lehmans before the 2008 collapse.
The IMF cannot call the shots on Canada because we own a disproportionate share of their financial drawing rights and represent other middle powers of similar standing. We could have threatened to withdraw that cash built up since WW2 to pay down sovereign debt. They wouldn't like that. This was not even investigated nor entertained by the Liberals because they let fear, not hope guide their policy decisions. This is not ideological- just practical.
The IMF and the World bank now have a new world bank to deal with because their policies have failed over and over again around the world and they failed to respond to demands from emerging economies. The consortium is led by China and has 53 countries signed up including the UK.
deathtokoalas
AA is not junk status. there was serious talk of default. and, while it would be nice to see the feds push back like that on a utopian level, the reality is that the retaliation would be swift. it's not something you can seriously entertain.
Jh
"Retaliation would be swift." Really? What would or could the IMF do? The rating agencies? We might take a hit to credit ratings for a brief period at worst. We attack their analysis and conclusions for the nonsense it was. Hell South Korea came out of the Asian financial crisis better and by taking on the IMF and ignoring most of their advice. Seriously? Liberals - no principle and no courage, take credit for others work. Its a consistent pattern.
I understand and accept the Liberals contributed to healthcare in Canada with Mackenzie King and Trudeau but it was the CCF/NDP that had the courage and skill and did the heavy lifting. I apologize for my earlier remark. You are better informed than many on this site.
deathtokoalas
if we were to legitimately give the imf the finger like that, they'd probably launch a coup. i think canada is too big and close to the united states for them to be able to put somebody like pinochet in power. but, the sitting government would be gone pretty quickly, one way or another.
as an aside, the health care thing was a joint effort. the ndp pushed for it, but there was legitimate desire from the liberals for it. also, it was pearson & douglas, not trudeau & lewis.
dtgraham
That was strictly an NDP Tommy Douglas thing in Saskatchewan in 1944. Eventually, bible Bill Aberhart in Alberta bought in and a few others did later, but there was no legitimate desire from the federal Liberals for it at that time. None. That came much later.
deathtokoalas
i know that the ndp likes to pretend that it's entirely responsible for the health care system, but it's simply not accurate.
after the war, mackenzie-king set up a commission to discuss the issue with the full intent of creating a single-payer system like the one in britain. talks fell apart. it was only after these talks fell apart that tommy douglas set the ball rolling on a number of things. however, his initial plan in 1944 was not universal - it was restricted to special categories like pensioners. in 1947, he created a hospital insurance plan that was universal (but this is still not universal medicare). this was emulated by paul martin's father (a liberal mp) in 1957 and passed as a private member's bill while diefenbaker was prime minister. so, this was a liberal bill based on an ndp idea passed in a conservative legislature. sometimes, good ideas are good ideas and get cross-partisan support.
it wasn't until 1962 that a universal health insurance plan was set up in saskatchewan, but it was a very different system than we're used to - it was a traditional insurance plan that everybody pays into. closer to obamacare than single payer. the hospital adaptation was pretty spot on emulation. but the federal health insurance system is really not a direct adaptation of the system initially devised in saskatchewan; it is far superior. pearson introduced this legislation in 1965 and once again got cross-party support for it. pearson did not require douglas' support for the bill to pass, he could have passed it with support from diefenbaker.
in 1984, trudeau then took the acts from '57 and '66 and put them together into the canada health act. this was under a liberal majority.
while one can argue with some likelihood that medicare in canada would be rather different if it were nor for douglas, one can argue just as strenuously that it would also be rather different if douglas had written the legislation.
Jh
Medicare would not have happened without Tommy Douglas and the CCF and the NDP. Period. Certainly Liberals jumped on the bandwagon as the political opportunists they are (hooray :-( ) but let's not pretend the Liberals would have done it on their own. The NDP made it work and the federal Liberals followed cause it was very popular. One could argue otherwise but then they would be wrong.
deathtokoalas
i think that what's more accurate to say is that the liberals would not have had the popular support to do it on their own. if you want to know how canada actually reacted to health care, take a look at the debate in the states. there were howls and cries of government tyranny and dictatorial socialism. the doctors went on strike. that's why the mackenzie-king commission fell apart. and, that was douglas' real accomplishment - he fought the doctors, he set it up and he proved it could work without bringing in death panels. that created a shift in public attitudes that allowed the liberals to bring in single-payer to popular support rather than public outcry.
Jh
I know how they reacted. I know that the NDP led the fight for socialized medicine against doctors and insurance companies and Tommy made it work and consequently more popular. I know the Liberals of the time thought 'hey we should try and take some credit for that idea and movement that the other party represents.' Just like now. The Liberals deserve credit for nationalizing healthcare but they had to. The NDP was growing much stronger and the Liberals made the right political calculus for time. Your initial comment was the NDP try to take all the credit for national healthcare. Well it was their idea, they fought the tough battles, they popularized it and they implemented the first large scale working model. The Liberals copied and nationalized it. So let's agree that the NDP are historically responsible for healthcare in Canada but the Liberals deserve some credit in copying a good policy idea when they saw one and tweaked it to make it work at a national level.
deathtokoalas
as mentioned previously, the discussions for a national health care system in canada were set off by mackenzie-king right after the war, with the intention of emulating the british national health service. tommy douglas began fighting for a provincial system after the breakdown of those talks. his success in building that system allowed the liberals to carry through with their original plan.
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.
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/22/what-would-tommy-douglas-say-liberals-target-ndps-left-flank/15:13
Jh
Ignorant or Stupid? Roy Romanow, Saskatchewan. Bob Rae Ontario, Rachel Notley, Alberta. That's just off the top of my head. None of these premiers ever went as right as the Liberals have although they certainly have made compromises as governments. Too early to say for Rachel. Liberals copy NDP ideas and pretend that they are theirs. Trudeau senior with national healthcare is a classic example. Its time we reward the people with the real new ideas and make Canada a better place.
deathtokoalas
neither: informed. much more than you are. romanow & rae are two of the most right-wing premiers that the country has ever seen and both of them managed to completely destroy the party's base in their respective provinces.
to this day, in ontario, you will not find a major union that supports the ndp. every single one of them supports the liberals. such is the extent of the catastrophe to the left that was bob rae.
and, romanow is often cited by the fraser institute as an example of good conservative governance.
Dw
Citations, please?
deathtokoalas
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fraser+institute+roy+romanow
jh
Unions are like businesses and vote and fund their interests and many are not what I'd call ' left.' The Fraser institute is not what I'd call a credible organization. Honestly I don't care if they are right or left so long as they have good policy ideas for the public and a party apparatus that will implement those ideas. The Liberals historically have been far more willing to preach principle and practice the opposite than the NDP.
deathtokoalas
see, i think that's the question that is up for debate. the stuff in the 90s is sort of complicated (they had to cut things temporarily to prevent the imf from cutting the credit rating, which is the only meaningful consequence of budget deficits, and they brought spending back when they could. blame the imf. it's fun. but the liberals have taken the bulk of the blame for having to make difficult choices to fix mulroney's mess.), but if you take the bc liberals (and maybe the quebec liberals) out, because they're not really liberals, i think the opposite is more true. the liberals have to walk a line in the centre that restricts them from cracking down on labour too hard, whereas the ndp consistently take the labour vote for granted and then poke sticks in their eyes and make faces at them, while they kick them in the shins. it's just the historical reality of it.
when bob rae took over in ontario, he set up mandatory unpaid days off called "rae days" in order to "fight the deficit". only the ndp could have done something so absurd to get to the conservative aim of a balanced budget. it would have led to a general strike if the liberals tried something like that. and, this sort of thing is true of ndp governments across the country.
i'm broadly happy with the liberal government in ontario. they've taken concrete steps on carbon emissions. they've made positive structural changes on income inequality - they're modest, but they'll be felt. i'd like to see them re-nationalize the grid, but not even the ndp are talking about that. really, the ndp are just pushing tax cuts and yelling about corruption. again: they sound like conservatives. and, they have to - because they simply can't get unionized workers to vote for them anymore. all they've got left is the "tim horton's vote".
it's not a clear-cut issue, or anything. but i think that a careful, objective analysis will demonstrate that the liberals have generally stayed closer to their principles and leaned further to the left.
Jh
I disagree. I was a union steward when Rae days came along. We loved them. Much of organized labour hated Rae for that but it was a mistake. They paid for that when Mike Harris showed up on the scene and many of those opposed to Rae ideas ate crow as jobs were destroyed.
I think presuming all unions are left is a mistake. Some are, some are not. They do what they feel is in their members interests. As you pointed out many became Liberal but many went back to the NDP. I do not think the NDP took the labour vote for granted. Quite the opposite. I think many labour leaders couldn't believe Rae didn't do exactly as they wanted.
Rae days - Considering the economic and budget context - it was lose your job or take some time off. I think time off was and is the best choice. It worked. The economy recovered quickly under Rae. To manage the economy well is not a conservative or right issue. Harris did a terrible job in Ontario leaving it 3 billion in debt. Same pumpkins now are in Ottawa.
The Liberals also had choices and made them. They pulled far right under Chrétien and Martin. They balanced the budget and good for them. But a careful objective analysis reveals a Liberal campaigns left and when in power fails to keep those promises. Time and again. Federally it's why they got destroyed last election. Now they've put all their Eggs with Justin who seems like a nice guy. He's just with the wrong party if he wants to be a real progressive. Wynne is no different. I admire some of her policies like the pension plan but the privatization of Hydro is a very bad idea.
Cutting and pasting other party ideas and calling it a grand vision is what Liberals do. There is no consistent liberal vision, there are no consistent liberal principles there is only say what seems the middle at the time to get elected. Liberals are 'conveniently progressive' which to my mind are the worst kind.
deathtokoalas
see, again: you have to keep in mind that the issue federally was the credit rating. the next step is imf restructuring, including privatization. we had a really hard choice, there: if we didn't find a way to improve the credit situation, we'd be in a situation where we'd start losing things like our health care system. that sounds like a scare tactic, but look around at the world. these financial institutions are vampires.
what the feds had to do was raise taxes and temporarily cut services, then put them back once the revenue stream was put in order. mulroney got the tax in place, at least. and, they followed through with the rest. i've been over this with a lot of people. and, it's very hard to explain it. but, they weren't acting out of ideological persuasion. again: these institutions were horrid.
rae was not under the same pressure. there was nothing stopping him from raising corporate taxes, or even just running a deficit. instead, he went after workers. it's consistent...
jh
Rae was under even more pressure. Ontario did lose its credit ratings of double AA. Whoopdi do. To this day you can find Conservatives that think he was the anti Christ. Despite this he found an interesting solution in very challenging times. The federal Liberals on the other hand caved like wet cardboard. I do agree there was some things they had to do to retain a credit rating at the time but they went way overboard. The cuts were deep and the services not restored. By the way these are the same agencies that gave AAA credit to Lehmans before the 2008 collapse.
The IMF cannot call the shots on Canada because we own a disproportionate share of their financial drawing rights and represent other middle powers of similar standing. We could have threatened to withdraw that cash built up since WW2 to pay down sovereign debt. They wouldn't like that. This was not even investigated nor entertained by the Liberals because they let fear, not hope guide their policy decisions. This is not ideological- just practical.
The IMF and the World bank now have a new world bank to deal with because their policies have failed over and over again around the world and they failed to respond to demands from emerging economies. The consortium is led by China and has 53 countries signed up including the UK.
deathtokoalas
AA is not junk status. there was serious talk of default. and, while it would be nice to see the feds push back like that on a utopian level, the reality is that the retaliation would be swift. it's not something you can seriously entertain.
Jh
"Retaliation would be swift." Really? What would or could the IMF do? The rating agencies? We might take a hit to credit ratings for a brief period at worst. We attack their analysis and conclusions for the nonsense it was. Hell South Korea came out of the Asian financial crisis better and by taking on the IMF and ignoring most of their advice. Seriously? Liberals - no principle and no courage, take credit for others work. Its a consistent pattern.
I understand and accept the Liberals contributed to healthcare in Canada with Mackenzie King and Trudeau but it was the CCF/NDP that had the courage and skill and did the heavy lifting. I apologize for my earlier remark. You are better informed than many on this site.
deathtokoalas
if we were to legitimately give the imf the finger like that, they'd probably launch a coup. i think canada is too big and close to the united states for them to be able to put somebody like pinochet in power. but, the sitting government would be gone pretty quickly, one way or another.
as an aside, the health care thing was a joint effort. the ndp pushed for it, but there was legitimate desire from the liberals for it. also, it was pearson & douglas, not trudeau & lewis.
dtgraham
That was strictly an NDP Tommy Douglas thing in Saskatchewan in 1944. Eventually, bible Bill Aberhart in Alberta bought in and a few others did later, but there was no legitimate desire from the federal Liberals for it at that time. None. That came much later.
deathtokoalas
i know that the ndp likes to pretend that it's entirely responsible for the health care system, but it's simply not accurate.
after the war, mackenzie-king set up a commission to discuss the issue with the full intent of creating a single-payer system like the one in britain. talks fell apart. it was only after these talks fell apart that tommy douglas set the ball rolling on a number of things. however, his initial plan in 1944 was not universal - it was restricted to special categories like pensioners. in 1947, he created a hospital insurance plan that was universal (but this is still not universal medicare). this was emulated by paul martin's father (a liberal mp) in 1957 and passed as a private member's bill while diefenbaker was prime minister. so, this was a liberal bill based on an ndp idea passed in a conservative legislature. sometimes, good ideas are good ideas and get cross-partisan support.
it wasn't until 1962 that a universal health insurance plan was set up in saskatchewan, but it was a very different system than we're used to - it was a traditional insurance plan that everybody pays into. closer to obamacare than single payer. the hospital adaptation was pretty spot on emulation. but the federal health insurance system is really not a direct adaptation of the system initially devised in saskatchewan; it is far superior. pearson introduced this legislation in 1965 and once again got cross-party support for it. pearson did not require douglas' support for the bill to pass, he could have passed it with support from diefenbaker.
in 1984, trudeau then took the acts from '57 and '66 and put them together into the canada health act. this was under a liberal majority.
while one can argue with some likelihood that medicare in canada would be rather different if it were nor for douglas, one can argue just as strenuously that it would also be rather different if douglas had written the legislation.
Jh
Medicare would not have happened without Tommy Douglas and the CCF and the NDP. Period. Certainly Liberals jumped on the bandwagon as the political opportunists they are (hooray :-( ) but let's not pretend the Liberals would have done it on their own. The NDP made it work and the federal Liberals followed cause it was very popular. One could argue otherwise but then they would be wrong.
deathtokoalas
i think that what's more accurate to say is that the liberals would not have had the popular support to do it on their own. if you want to know how canada actually reacted to health care, take a look at the debate in the states. there were howls and cries of government tyranny and dictatorial socialism. the doctors went on strike. that's why the mackenzie-king commission fell apart. and, that was douglas' real accomplishment - he fought the doctors, he set it up and he proved it could work without bringing in death panels. that created a shift in public attitudes that allowed the liberals to bring in single-payer to popular support rather than public outcry.
Jh
I know how they reacted. I know that the NDP led the fight for socialized medicine against doctors and insurance companies and Tommy made it work and consequently more popular. I know the Liberals of the time thought 'hey we should try and take some credit for that idea and movement that the other party represents.' Just like now. The Liberals deserve credit for nationalizing healthcare but they had to. The NDP was growing much stronger and the Liberals made the right political calculus for time. Your initial comment was the NDP try to take all the credit for national healthcare. Well it was their idea, they fought the tough battles, they popularized it and they implemented the first large scale working model. The Liberals copied and nationalized it. So let's agree that the NDP are historically responsible for healthcare in Canada but the Liberals deserve some credit in copying a good policy idea when they saw one and tweaked it to make it work at a national level.
deathtokoalas
as mentioned previously, the discussions for a national health care system in canada were set off by mackenzie-king right after the war, with the intention of emulating the british national health service. tommy douglas began fighting for a provincial system after the breakdown of those talks. his success in building that system allowed the liberals to carry through with their original plan.
at
15:13
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
want a metric on how weird the election is going to be?
a lawn sign for my zombie ndp candidate just went up on my lawn, presumably from my landlord's brother (who lives in one of the units).
this is a person that has tried to argue with me to stop recycling. solid ndp supporter, apparently.
i suspect he's in support of the energy rebate from the last *provincial* election. energy costs seem to be a priority in the unit. they've been swapping out the electric heaters for gas furnaces. i don't like this, but i can't argue with them - the price of electricity in ontario has become ridiculous.
it's just one example. but, support seems to be solidifying in rather unusual - and perhaps somewhat unpredictable - ways.
a lawn sign for my zombie ndp candidate just went up on my lawn, presumably from my landlord's brother (who lives in one of the units).
this is a person that has tried to argue with me to stop recycling. solid ndp supporter, apparently.
i suspect he's in support of the energy rebate from the last *provincial* election. energy costs seem to be a priority in the unit. they've been swapping out the electric heaters for gas furnaces. i don't like this, but i can't argue with them - the price of electricity in ontario has become ridiculous.
it's just one example. but, support seems to be solidifying in rather unusual - and perhaps somewhat unpredictable - ways.
at
10:12
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
listen: this is ridiculous. trying to frame an election around trust is just going to suppress turnout, because....i mean, honestly. politicians. trust. it's absurd. it's a very rare circumstance when voters aren't making a lesser evil calculation. it doesn't matter what kind of voters you're talking about, either; an anti-abortion voter is making the same basic calculation that an environmentalist is: who is going to get me the closest to what i want, with the least damage to what i care about. nobody lines up perfectly behind any kind of platform. there's no trust involved; there's a mental calculation to minimize distrust. it's a house of representatives, it's not a bloody church.
if you can somehow warp me into accepting this narrative and force me to vote based on nothing but trust, i'm going to conclude they're all scheming liars and i'm not going to vote at all. and, the target becomes the benefactor.
i like to say "i wouldn't trust a politician in ottawa to tell me the time of day when we're standing underneath the peace tower". and, it's broadly true. across the spectrum. you want to push this, really? you want to enumerate the lies and psychologically manipulative half-truths told by mulcair and trudeau on the campaign trail, type them up and publish them? do it candidate-by-candidate, riding by riding?
in the end, we'll all be writing in dudley do-right.
voting is a calculated risk. part of the process is working this out - trying to figure out which lies are obviously ridiculous, which lies are attempts to obscure positions, which lies are a big problem in where you stand and which lies don't really matter. but, you don't expect not to be lied to. not unless you're the most ridiculous caricature of the naive canadian ever imagined.
you don't get the opportunity to run for acting and effective head of state in an oecd country unless you've proven yourself an effective liar - or perhaps come from a political dynasty, in which case you've got an uphill battle in figuring the art out.
harper's problem is less that he's a liar. it's more that he's not very good at it, and/or has become flippant and haphazard about it.
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/20/message-management-in-the-harper-pmo-replacing-one-lie-with-another/
if you can somehow warp me into accepting this narrative and force me to vote based on nothing but trust, i'm going to conclude they're all scheming liars and i'm not going to vote at all. and, the target becomes the benefactor.
i like to say "i wouldn't trust a politician in ottawa to tell me the time of day when we're standing underneath the peace tower". and, it's broadly true. across the spectrum. you want to push this, really? you want to enumerate the lies and psychologically manipulative half-truths told by mulcair and trudeau on the campaign trail, type them up and publish them? do it candidate-by-candidate, riding by riding?
in the end, we'll all be writing in dudley do-right.
voting is a calculated risk. part of the process is working this out - trying to figure out which lies are obviously ridiculous, which lies are attempts to obscure positions, which lies are a big problem in where you stand and which lies don't really matter. but, you don't expect not to be lied to. not unless you're the most ridiculous caricature of the naive canadian ever imagined.
you don't get the opportunity to run for acting and effective head of state in an oecd country unless you've proven yourself an effective liar - or perhaps come from a political dynasty, in which case you've got an uphill battle in figuring the art out.
harper's problem is less that he's a liar. it's more that he's not very good at it, and/or has become flippant and haphazard about it.
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/20/message-management-in-the-harper-pmo-replacing-one-lie-with-another/
at
02:52
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
JACKROU
WE LEARNED MULCAIR SAID ABSOLUTELY NO PIPELINES UNDER HIS GOV
OIL WILL STAY IN THE GROUND
AND THERE WILL BE A NATIONAL CARBON TAX
AND QUEBECERS LOVE IT
Jessica Murray
actually, i think what he's said - consistently - is that he'll use a rubber stamp review process to try and convince environmentalists to stop opposing the pipelines - in so much psychologically tricky language. because he thinks you're stupid. just like harper....
his basic argument is that gutting the environmental reviews is the cause of the opposition, and that if the government was performing it's proper orwellian functions than the "ministry of the environment" would be properly functioning as the "ministry of industry", and nobody would be upset about this. therefore, in order to get opposition levels down to a point where they can build the pipelines, the government needs to put the environmental review process back in place. it's what people in britain refer to as "new labour psychology".
it's just that he went bond criminal on it and explained it open view - at the *debates*, actually.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-learned-this-week-aug22-1.3196750
WE LEARNED MULCAIR SAID ABSOLUTELY NO PIPELINES UNDER HIS GOV
OIL WILL STAY IN THE GROUND
AND THERE WILL BE A NATIONAL CARBON TAX
AND QUEBECERS LOVE IT
Jessica Murray
actually, i think what he's said - consistently - is that he'll use a rubber stamp review process to try and convince environmentalists to stop opposing the pipelines - in so much psychologically tricky language. because he thinks you're stupid. just like harper....
his basic argument is that gutting the environmental reviews is the cause of the opposition, and that if the government was performing it's proper orwellian functions than the "ministry of the environment" would be properly functioning as the "ministry of industry", and nobody would be upset about this. therefore, in order to get opposition levels down to a point where they can build the pipelines, the government needs to put the environmental review process back in place. it's what people in britain refer to as "new labour psychology".
it's just that he went bond criminal on it and explained it open view - at the *debates*, actually.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-learned-this-week-aug22-1.3196750
at
02:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this is what happens when you push evangelical christianity down on children with the force of a twenty tonne fist: they reject it in bizarre ways, and identify with it's opposite. the social engineers need to get up to date with some more modern psychological techniques.
the best way to get kids to grasp moral principles is to raise them as atheists and let them arrive at them through reason.
the best way to get kids to grasp moral principles is to raise them as atheists and let them arrive at them through reason.
at
01:26
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
in terms of pure numbers, stalin's holocaust of the ukrainians was larger than hitler's holocaust of the jews. i've seen a lot of criticism of the conflation. but, it's rooted in a denial of how brutal stalin was. a lot of the outside world sees the soviet union as liberators and gets confused by it. but, it's easy to understand the conflation from a ukrainian standpoint if you're aware of the history.
you don't need these kinds of restrictions here in canada because they're universally reviled.
you don't need these kinds of restrictions here in canada because they're universally reviled.
at
00:47
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
the cape to cairo railroad? geez. that's nineteenth century british imperialist policy, pushed mostly by cecil rhodes, iirc. that old society. can't get rid of these guys, huh? you'd think they'd maybe update it a bit, though.
forget about highways. let's move forwards. how about a high speed electric rail system?
"we want african countries to compete with each other"
africa needs to avoid falling into this trap. for, it is true - if the country next door offers even lower wages and even lower standards, then the company will get up and move. the more that african countries compete with each other, the worse off they all are - as a whole.
rather, the african solution needs to be to form trade blocs that align common standards to prevent that kind of race to the bottom. i hope that african leaders see that, but the corruption on the continent is discouraging. and, there are those pesky trade agreements...
forget about highways. let's move forwards. how about a high speed electric rail system?
"we want african countries to compete with each other"
africa needs to avoid falling into this trap. for, it is true - if the country next door offers even lower wages and even lower standards, then the company will get up and move. the more that african countries compete with each other, the worse off they all are - as a whole.
rather, the african solution needs to be to form trade blocs that align common standards to prevent that kind of race to the bottom. i hope that african leaders see that, but the corruption on the continent is discouraging. and, there are those pesky trade agreements...
at
00:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Friday, August 21, 2015
there aren't a lot of circumstances where markets look like a better approach, but i have to accept this is one of them - with some strong caveats.
i think everybody understands that flooding corrupt governments with cash doesn't accomplish anything, except political bribery. it gets a military on the west's side. it doesn't alleviate poverty. this is true whether we're talking about dictatorships or democracies. and while not every government in africa is corrupt, a substantial number of them are rotten beyond any sort of possible redemption - and it takes a lot of corruption for somebody standing in north america to say that.
so, if you look at the three development possibilities - government, co-operatives, markets - it sort of immediately reduces the actual choice to one between co-operatives and markets. and, you know where a good reliable lefty comes down in a discussion between co-operatives and markets.
i think a good strategy would be co-operative oriented. and, my understanding of how the culture in most of africa is inherently suggests it would be difficult for a market strategy to ignore co-operative development. but, at the end of the day co-ops can't do things like build power plants. and, it's those sorts of inputs that are necessary for a seriously co-operative economy.
i think capitalism is fooling itself if it thinks it can swing africa entirely. it just fooled itself into thinking it could swing india entirely. and, we're generally very good at deluding ourselves. but, african capitalism could never be western capitalism. it would necessarily have deep social roots.
however, focusing on private investment seems like the right step forwards to get things moving. and, you don't need a marxist concept of history to realize that. or a nice check from the gates foundation.
i think everybody understands that flooding corrupt governments with cash doesn't accomplish anything, except political bribery. it gets a military on the west's side. it doesn't alleviate poverty. this is true whether we're talking about dictatorships or democracies. and while not every government in africa is corrupt, a substantial number of them are rotten beyond any sort of possible redemption - and it takes a lot of corruption for somebody standing in north america to say that.
so, if you look at the three development possibilities - government, co-operatives, markets - it sort of immediately reduces the actual choice to one between co-operatives and markets. and, you know where a good reliable lefty comes down in a discussion between co-operatives and markets.
i think a good strategy would be co-operative oriented. and, my understanding of how the culture in most of africa is inherently suggests it would be difficult for a market strategy to ignore co-operative development. but, at the end of the day co-ops can't do things like build power plants. and, it's those sorts of inputs that are necessary for a seriously co-operative economy.
i think capitalism is fooling itself if it thinks it can swing africa entirely. it just fooled itself into thinking it could swing india entirely. and, we're generally very good at deluding ourselves. but, african capitalism could never be western capitalism. it would necessarily have deep social roots.
however, focusing on private investment seems like the right step forwards to get things moving. and, you don't need a marxist concept of history to realize that. or a nice check from the gates foundation.
at
14:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
aug 6 is the anniversary of....
her appointment in the department. so, it will be a day of celebration. let there be an explosion of happiness. i'm sure everybody will have a positive reaction. let's throw a party that makes it look like the place got hit by a bomb!
"...as we get ready for the onslaught..."
egads.
her appointment in the department. so, it will be a day of celebration. let there be an explosion of happiness. i'm sure everybody will have a positive reaction. let's throw a party that makes it look like the place got hit by a bomb!
"...as we get ready for the onslaught..."
egads.
at
13:05
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'm going to rain angry fire down on mulcair if he even thinks about it.
at
12:31
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
ricohman
Markets are falling, oil will be $30 a barrel soon and this is what Tom considers important to Canadians.
Jessica Murray
marijuana is the future of the economy. oil is not.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-mulcair-marijuana-decriminalization-1.3199532
Markets are falling, oil will be $30 a barrel soon and this is what Tom considers important to Canadians.
Jessica Murray
marijuana is the future of the economy. oil is not.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-mulcair-marijuana-decriminalization-1.3199532
at
11:52
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
further demonstrating harper's dishonesty is spitting on a fish. it's been clear he's a pathological liar since at least 2008.
72% say it doesn't matter because that's the swing vote on the left. you can take that down further by ignoring conservative base supporters.
the best-case estimates for the liberals are that there's about a 10% red tory swing vote, mostly in the suburbs, that will be irritated enough about it that they think harper's lost the "moral authority" to govern, or something.
but, for the vast majority of voters, it doesn't matter because they'd never vote for the conservatives, anyways.
that won't stop the media from confirming it's own irrelevancy when the conservatives are at least reduced in october. but, the harsh truth is that it's just another subplot in what has been a fantasy media narrative for many years, now.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-duffy-aug21-1.3199132
i mean, what do you want, exactly? for people to vote for some other party twice?
it's like suggesting that 70% of people don't consider hitler's perspective on cartels important in supporting the aims of the second world war. a difference of scale, sure. but the basic idea is what the polling is measuring - that this is minor, in comparison to philosophical differences in *policy*.
ad scam did not lead to liberal party collapse - that's the same imaginary media narrative. if that was true, the swing would have moved right. it actually swung left. the fall in liberal voters at the time was correlated with an increase in ndp support and stagnation in conservative numbers. and, the reason was that people didn't want to vote for paul martin because they opposed his budget cuts and general reputation as a fiscal conservative [which is only half fair].
that doesn't suggest voter ignorance, so much as it reflects an ability for voters to prioritize issues properly as they matter to them.
people arguing that this ought to be an issue are the same people that remain confused by canada's complete rejection of ignatieff. they think he was a brilliant philosopher; most canadians saw him as a war crimes collaborator, and not a particularly deep thinker, either. it's this class of people that think they're brilliant, but that in truth are really quite dense.
so, when 72% say that it's not going to affect their vote, that doesn't mean 72% don't care at all. that's a logical fallacy in reasoning. it just means that 72% prioritize actual issues, rather than media circuses and what are essentially protestant accusations of moral impiety. this evil-doer rhetoric doesn't fly here. we're a broadly secular country.
it's a right-wing strategy to sway a very significantly left-leaning electorate.
but, whatever, i've been banging my head against the wall since 2004, warning liberals that the ndp are going to steal all their votes if they don't change their strategy. nobody's listened. but, hey - take a look at the polls, eh?
--
Kit's Kat
After what we have seen this week about the Harper PMO in action, I am not sure why anyone would vote for Harper and the Conservative candidates.
Jessica Murray
this is another talking point that's of no use in convincing anybody.
there's a handful of issues that are unpopular in urban canada but command a majority in rural canada - opposition to abortion (which, if you think is not an issue, you should think again), a certain type of support for the military that makes liberals cringe, vengeance-based crime policy (including capital punishment), etc. a lot of this is off the radar, but it's still driving voters because there remains this perception that the conservatives will carry through with it - it's irrational projection, but it's real. and mark my words: if the conservatives end up having to deal with a long term scorched earth policy in the urban centres, you can expect them to hail mary on some of this stuff, as they fall back into their reform roots. the blunt reality is that you can't convince an anti-abortion voter with much of anything, if you continue to support abortion.
it's an ideological gulf. there's no way to break through it. and, it's been cemented in canadian politics for at least 80 years.
the conservative polling numbers right now ought to be seen as an absolute best case scenario for the liberals & ndp. remember: they haven't polled under 29% since world war two, and the only time they polled under 30% was when joe clark endorsed the liberals. it's astounding that they're consistently polling in the 20s. this is a historic shift unto itself that liberals should be jumping at glee over. don't get greedy....
i remain exceedingly skeptical that they'll finish under 30% in the general. it's just demographically infeasible. and if they land at 27% or lower, *it will be the worst showing for the conservative party since confederation*.
nothere4ueither
@Jessica Murray Good observations. There seems to be a belief in a lot of supposed Canadian laws and traditions that never really did exist.
Jessica Murray
borden swept bc in the 1911 election under the slogan "a white canada", getting 60% of the vote and all 7 seats. it's a little more complicated today than it was then. but, the rejection of pearsonian multiculturalism remains a vote driver on the rural right.
i think the long term trend suggests that the conservative party is moving into the space that the socreds used to occupy - a sort of fringe western right-wing party. whomever replaces harper is likely to be a lot more right-wing on social issues. it's kind of "phase 2", from what i can gather. and, they're kind of stuck. they only pretend to hug the middle for so long before the strategy seems pointless, and unable to bear fruitful results (from their perspective). and, it's consequently only so long before the party heads have to make a choice between carrying through on these projections and watching the party collapse again. i suspect they won't let it collapse a second time.
but, if we're optimistic, we can look at 25% as an absolute minimum floor, for this election. and, that extra cut is going to come mostly in ridings where they're not particularly competitive in the first place.
this is rock bottom for the conservative party. people need to deal with that.
72% say it doesn't matter because that's the swing vote on the left. you can take that down further by ignoring conservative base supporters.
the best-case estimates for the liberals are that there's about a 10% red tory swing vote, mostly in the suburbs, that will be irritated enough about it that they think harper's lost the "moral authority" to govern, or something.
but, for the vast majority of voters, it doesn't matter because they'd never vote for the conservatives, anyways.
that won't stop the media from confirming it's own irrelevancy when the conservatives are at least reduced in october. but, the harsh truth is that it's just another subplot in what has been a fantasy media narrative for many years, now.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-duffy-aug21-1.3199132
i mean, what do you want, exactly? for people to vote for some other party twice?
it's like suggesting that 70% of people don't consider hitler's perspective on cartels important in supporting the aims of the second world war. a difference of scale, sure. but the basic idea is what the polling is measuring - that this is minor, in comparison to philosophical differences in *policy*.
ad scam did not lead to liberal party collapse - that's the same imaginary media narrative. if that was true, the swing would have moved right. it actually swung left. the fall in liberal voters at the time was correlated with an increase in ndp support and stagnation in conservative numbers. and, the reason was that people didn't want to vote for paul martin because they opposed his budget cuts and general reputation as a fiscal conservative [which is only half fair].
that doesn't suggest voter ignorance, so much as it reflects an ability for voters to prioritize issues properly as they matter to them.
people arguing that this ought to be an issue are the same people that remain confused by canada's complete rejection of ignatieff. they think he was a brilliant philosopher; most canadians saw him as a war crimes collaborator, and not a particularly deep thinker, either. it's this class of people that think they're brilliant, but that in truth are really quite dense.
so, when 72% say that it's not going to affect their vote, that doesn't mean 72% don't care at all. that's a logical fallacy in reasoning. it just means that 72% prioritize actual issues, rather than media circuses and what are essentially protestant accusations of moral impiety. this evil-doer rhetoric doesn't fly here. we're a broadly secular country.
it's a right-wing strategy to sway a very significantly left-leaning electorate.
but, whatever, i've been banging my head against the wall since 2004, warning liberals that the ndp are going to steal all their votes if they don't change their strategy. nobody's listened. but, hey - take a look at the polls, eh?
--
Kit's Kat
After what we have seen this week about the Harper PMO in action, I am not sure why anyone would vote for Harper and the Conservative candidates.
Jessica Murray
this is another talking point that's of no use in convincing anybody.
there's a handful of issues that are unpopular in urban canada but command a majority in rural canada - opposition to abortion (which, if you think is not an issue, you should think again), a certain type of support for the military that makes liberals cringe, vengeance-based crime policy (including capital punishment), etc. a lot of this is off the radar, but it's still driving voters because there remains this perception that the conservatives will carry through with it - it's irrational projection, but it's real. and mark my words: if the conservatives end up having to deal with a long term scorched earth policy in the urban centres, you can expect them to hail mary on some of this stuff, as they fall back into their reform roots. the blunt reality is that you can't convince an anti-abortion voter with much of anything, if you continue to support abortion.
it's an ideological gulf. there's no way to break through it. and, it's been cemented in canadian politics for at least 80 years.
the conservative polling numbers right now ought to be seen as an absolute best case scenario for the liberals & ndp. remember: they haven't polled under 29% since world war two, and the only time they polled under 30% was when joe clark endorsed the liberals. it's astounding that they're consistently polling in the 20s. this is a historic shift unto itself that liberals should be jumping at glee over. don't get greedy....
i remain exceedingly skeptical that they'll finish under 30% in the general. it's just demographically infeasible. and if they land at 27% or lower, *it will be the worst showing for the conservative party since confederation*.
nothere4ueither
@Jessica Murray Good observations. There seems to be a belief in a lot of supposed Canadian laws and traditions that never really did exist.
Jessica Murray
borden swept bc in the 1911 election under the slogan "a white canada", getting 60% of the vote and all 7 seats. it's a little more complicated today than it was then. but, the rejection of pearsonian multiculturalism remains a vote driver on the rural right.
i think the long term trend suggests that the conservative party is moving into the space that the socreds used to occupy - a sort of fringe western right-wing party. whomever replaces harper is likely to be a lot more right-wing on social issues. it's kind of "phase 2", from what i can gather. and, they're kind of stuck. they only pretend to hug the middle for so long before the strategy seems pointless, and unable to bear fruitful results (from their perspective). and, it's consequently only so long before the party heads have to make a choice between carrying through on these projections and watching the party collapse again. i suspect they won't let it collapse a second time.
but, if we're optimistic, we can look at 25% as an absolute minimum floor, for this election. and, that extra cut is going to come mostly in ridings where they're not particularly competitive in the first place.
this is rock bottom for the conservative party. people need to deal with that.
at
11:35
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
nonsense. i immediately understood both statements as limited to federal workers. every time i've heard mulcair himself state the $15/hr raise, he's stated "for federal workers".
there's been absolutely no ambiguity, and it's been entirely clear from the start.
some voters like to project their fantasies on to candidates. that's something we've seen before.
for example, consider obama & the iraq war. barack obama was always crystal clear: he opposed the iraq war because he thought it was bad strategy. he thought they should have attacked pakistan, instead. he never suggested he was anti-war or any kind of dove on the anti-war spectrum. and, yet, masses of people pulled that out of the clouds somehow and interpreted "we should have bombed pakistan instead of iraq" as some kind of adherence to gandhian principles of non-violence.
that's not obama's fault. Drone Strike Tuesdays are obama's fault. but, he was perfectly clear that he was going to be an absolute war monger.
the truth is that voters just made stuff up. they heard what they wanted to hear, not what was actually said. and they'll do that. repeatedly. and predictably.
an example of that kind of thing this election may come out in the coalition question. it might not matter how unequivocally trudeau rejects this. it's what voters *want* to hear. and, they want to hear it so much that it might prove almost impossible to get through to them on the point.
ipolitics.ca/2015/08/20/details-details-promising-whats-up-to-the-provinces-to-deliver/
there's been absolutely no ambiguity, and it's been entirely clear from the start.
some voters like to project their fantasies on to candidates. that's something we've seen before.
for example, consider obama & the iraq war. barack obama was always crystal clear: he opposed the iraq war because he thought it was bad strategy. he thought they should have attacked pakistan, instead. he never suggested he was anti-war or any kind of dove on the anti-war spectrum. and, yet, masses of people pulled that out of the clouds somehow and interpreted "we should have bombed pakistan instead of iraq" as some kind of adherence to gandhian principles of non-violence.
that's not obama's fault. Drone Strike Tuesdays are obama's fault. but, he was perfectly clear that he was going to be an absolute war monger.
the truth is that voters just made stuff up. they heard what they wanted to hear, not what was actually said. and they'll do that. repeatedly. and predictably.
an example of that kind of thing this election may come out in the coalition question. it might not matter how unequivocally trudeau rejects this. it's what voters *want* to hear. and, they want to hear it so much that it might prove almost impossible to get through to them on the point.
ipolitics.ca/2015/08/20/details-details-promising-whats-up-to-the-provinces-to-deliver/
at
11:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Mallius62
If you say children, do you mean multinational corporations?
Then yeah...Harper loves them.
Jessica Murray
it's specifically when they say *dependent* children that they mean multinational corporations.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-parents-aug21-1.3197844
Cyrus Manz
NEWSFLASH
ONTARIO TEACHER UNIONS have just announced that they will be on strike across the province starting on the start of the school year in a couple of weeks from now.
So now whatever help Ontario parents get from the federal government will have to be spent on RAISED salaries for their teachers.
Think about it!
Jessica Murray
you gotta pay teachers. otherwise, you end up with conservative voters.
if you're dead set on not printing money, we could always cancel some military contracts.
more seriously, the ontario government takes a class war approach to this that's designed to keep the fight up so they're rewinning the same battles rather than breaking new ground. it's unavoidable. and, from their perspective, they have to be pro-active. so, they'll start all kinds of fights and then back off and then pick it back up.
the traditional conservative dream of class harmony through strict obedience to social hierarchy is a pipe dream in a modern economy. this is a perpetual struggle that can never be won, but can only be fought into perpetuity.
if your interests are on the side of the state, you just have to accept there's going to be conflict and you're going to lose the fight, sometimes. which is why you have to support being pro-active in throwing wrenches into things to consistently give the state a better bargaining position, or move the battle into an area that's already been decided. and, if your interests are with the teachers, then you've just got to grab a sign and get at it.
If you say children, do you mean multinational corporations?
Then yeah...Harper loves them.
Jessica Murray
it's specifically when they say *dependent* children that they mean multinational corporations.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-parents-aug21-1.3197844
Cyrus Manz
NEWSFLASH
ONTARIO TEACHER UNIONS have just announced that they will be on strike across the province starting on the start of the school year in a couple of weeks from now.
So now whatever help Ontario parents get from the federal government will have to be spent on RAISED salaries for their teachers.
Think about it!
Jessica Murray
you gotta pay teachers. otherwise, you end up with conservative voters.
if you're dead set on not printing money, we could always cancel some military contracts.
more seriously, the ontario government takes a class war approach to this that's designed to keep the fight up so they're rewinning the same battles rather than breaking new ground. it's unavoidable. and, from their perspective, they have to be pro-active. so, they'll start all kinds of fights and then back off and then pick it back up.
the traditional conservative dream of class harmony through strict obedience to social hierarchy is a pipe dream in a modern economy. this is a perpetual struggle that can never be won, but can only be fought into perpetuity.
if your interests are on the side of the state, you just have to accept there's going to be conflict and you're going to lose the fight, sometimes. which is why you have to support being pro-active in throwing wrenches into things to consistently give the state a better bargaining position, or move the battle into an area that's already been decided. and, if your interests are with the teachers, then you've just got to grab a sign and get at it.
at
10:35
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Thursday, August 20, 2015
i think what's more relevant is his citing of tony blair as a model to emulate - because blair largely adopted thatcherism. and would probably be found guilty of war crimes, too, i might add, should he be tried.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-defends-praise-for-margaret-thatcher-s-winds-of-liberty-and-liberalism-1.3196265
Jessica Murray
@Björga the reason i pointed this out is that it doesn't mention tony blair. some off-handed comment about thatcher is mindless gotcha politics. but, his elevation of blair to a role model to emulate is pretty real.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-defends-praise-for-margaret-thatcher-s-winds-of-liberty-and-liberalism-1.3196265
Jessica Murray
@Björga the reason i pointed this out is that it doesn't mention tony blair. some off-handed comment about thatcher is mindless gotcha politics. but, his elevation of blair to a role model to emulate is pretty real.
at
11:19
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
that's great as an election promise and everything for voters that are sort of clueless on the topic, but every study ever done has indicated that putting more cops on the street doesn't reduce crime, it just puts more people in jail. it's the "disincentivize" canard based on homo economicus that has been thoroughly debunked over and over again.
it's kind of sad that i'm sitting here criticizing the ndp for not understanding crime prevention, and not focusing on root causes. but, i understand that people have warped perceptions, and there's an election going on. what i want to hear - and what more educated members of the affected communities are going to want to hear - is that in addition to the pointless policing increase, there will be funding for crime *prevention* in the form of social programs.
a few years ago, i'd take that for granted. nowadays, i think that needs to be articulated, so i'm not left thinking that they're pushing the same stupid, failed policies that don't work.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-promises-250m-for-2-500-new-police-officers-1.3196461
it's kind of sad that i'm sitting here criticizing the ndp for not understanding crime prevention, and not focusing on root causes. but, i understand that people have warped perceptions, and there's an election going on. what i want to hear - and what more educated members of the affected communities are going to want to hear - is that in addition to the pointless policing increase, there will be funding for crime *prevention* in the form of social programs.
a few years ago, i'd take that for granted. nowadays, i think that needs to be articulated, so i'm not left thinking that they're pushing the same stupid, failed policies that don't work.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-promises-250m-for-2-500-new-police-officers-1.3196461
at
10:56
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
mulcair is on record more than once clarifying that his plan for the ndp is to emulate the labour party under tony blair.
what's worse is that he's purged the party of it's better mps, which has been the only real hope of the ndp since the liberals walloped them over nafta. they legitimately had quality mps, relative to the limitations of the system. but, they're pretty much all standing down this election, or retired quietly. on top of that, he's been merciless in stamping anything out that deviates from the party line. they removed "socialist" from the party in 2013, but these are the same crappy tactics you continually get from the authoritarian left - party line politics that is intolerant of dissent or free thought, centralized power, cult of leadership....it's actually feeling worse than a cave to capital, it's starting to get a little creepy.
it's to the point where i'm wavering between voting for a bourgeois liberal that happens to be mildly critical of free trade and launching an online campaign to suppress voting. i'm starting to feel that the only thing that's going to get through to the system is non-voting on a serious, large scale. if they were to wake up on election day and see a 25% turnout, it might be the most effective tool at this point.
www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/08/19/cana-a19.html
what's worse is that he's purged the party of it's better mps, which has been the only real hope of the ndp since the liberals walloped them over nafta. they legitimately had quality mps, relative to the limitations of the system. but, they're pretty much all standing down this election, or retired quietly. on top of that, he's been merciless in stamping anything out that deviates from the party line. they removed "socialist" from the party in 2013, but these are the same crappy tactics you continually get from the authoritarian left - party line politics that is intolerant of dissent or free thought, centralized power, cult of leadership....it's actually feeling worse than a cave to capital, it's starting to get a little creepy.
it's to the point where i'm wavering between voting for a bourgeois liberal that happens to be mildly critical of free trade and launching an online campaign to suppress voting. i'm starting to feel that the only thing that's going to get through to the system is non-voting on a serious, large scale. if they were to wake up on election day and see a 25% turnout, it might be the most effective tool at this point.
www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/08/19/cana-a19.html
at
10:38
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
oh, yeah. then there was the getting caught spying on indians thing, too. brilliant, guys. you really outdid yourselves.
with all this incompetency, it's almost like the president forgot to clear all of the republicans out of the state department or something.
wait..
with all this incompetency, it's almost like the president forgot to clear all of the republicans out of the state department or something.
wait..
at
00:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
it's kind of like laws against political donations. ideally, corporations could pay the politicians all they want, and people just wouldn't vote for them. really, in order for a democracy to be functional it kind of has to be true. if you have to go around policing who gets paid by who so they don't sucker people into voting for them, you don't really have a democracy. you have a bureaucracy.
it's hard to read these stories. but this really shouldn't be illegal. rather, people should know better. and, perhaps they might know better if the education system wasn't so deplorable.
it's hard to read these stories. but this really shouldn't be illegal. rather, people should know better. and, perhaps they might know better if the education system wasn't so deplorable.
at
23:35
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'm sorry to say it, but the only zombie apocalypse i'm worried about right now is an ndp majority. the candidates they're running....they're just....
let's just say that they're not really up to par.
it's less that i'm concerned about them ruining the country or something. it's more that they seem to provide almost no potential for any kind of pushback. it's this mass of backbenchers that will produce almost no private members legislation, and just do what the party instructs them to.
and, it's sort of amazing, actually, because the ndp have up to this point been known for the quality of their mps in contrast to the quantity of them. they never elected a lot of people. but, you knew when one got elected it was a good one. because the hill to climb was that much steeper.
i'm really attached to voting for a local mp that's going to stand up and make independent choices, rather than a rubber stamp for the politburo in ottawa. it's kind of distressing, even.
if the party executive spun it around a little and got them out, it might swing some voters like myself a little more convincingly. but, instead, they seem to understand the deficit of talent they're working with, and have them scripted to the absolute core.
they may have stripped the socialism out of their platform, but they seem increasingly centralized, increasingly focused on a cult of leadership and increasingly harsh on dissent.
so, it kind of seems like a zombie apocalypse, in terms of what we're actually going to get: mindless, strict observation of the party line.
let's just say that they're not really up to par.
it's less that i'm concerned about them ruining the country or something. it's more that they seem to provide almost no potential for any kind of pushback. it's this mass of backbenchers that will produce almost no private members legislation, and just do what the party instructs them to.
and, it's sort of amazing, actually, because the ndp have up to this point been known for the quality of their mps in contrast to the quantity of them. they never elected a lot of people. but, you knew when one got elected it was a good one. because the hill to climb was that much steeper.
i'm really attached to voting for a local mp that's going to stand up and make independent choices, rather than a rubber stamp for the politburo in ottawa. it's kind of distressing, even.
if the party executive spun it around a little and got them out, it might swing some voters like myself a little more convincingly. but, instead, they seem to understand the deficit of talent they're working with, and have them scripted to the absolute core.
they may have stripped the socialism out of their platform, but they seem increasingly centralized, increasingly focused on a cult of leadership and increasingly harsh on dissent.
so, it kind of seems like a zombie apocalypse, in terms of what we're actually going to get: mindless, strict observation of the party line.
at
19:22
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i swear, my body has loosened up by a factor of 80%, if such things can be measured, which of course they can't. but whatever stress buildup existed is fading away. and, that should actually help me focus a bit better.
it should also help me kick the cigarettes. it seemed pointless when i didn't know how much longer i'd be alive...
i bought one more pack for the next day or two. i need to put the election shit down and get through the remaining tracks for this. that last track is bugging me, because it just sounds kind of odd. i may end up replacing it after all. and, the next few should be pretty quick to pass over.
it should also help me kick the cigarettes. it seemed pointless when i didn't know how much longer i'd be alive...
i bought one more pack for the next day or two. i need to put the election shit down and get through the remaining tracks for this. that last track is bugging me, because it just sounds kind of odd. i may end up replacing it after all. and, the next few should be pretty quick to pass over.
at
17:28
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
my odsp was extended until 2020.
i can stop worrying about that, now.
by 2020, i am exceedingly confident that i will complete my discography and be moving into phase 2.
i can stop worrying about that, now.
by 2020, i am exceedingly confident that i will complete my discography and be moving into phase 2.
at
16:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
checks
hi.
just letting you know that my disability extension was approved, so i have checks ready to give paul for the rest of the year, whenever he's home to take them.
j
just letting you know that my disability extension was approved, so i have checks ready to give paul for the rest of the year, whenever he's home to take them.
j
at
13:23
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
my ndp candidate seems to be an anti-science hippie with few views of her own that will just occupy the seat, zombie like, and vote as she's told. total backbencher.
my liberal candidate seems to be some kind of business person that is critical of nafta and calling for it to be renegotiated - which is not likely to happen. but a bit of contrariness and independent thought is a bit more appealing to me. he seems to be pro-active in cross-border issues. trade is one of the big issues that has turned me off the liberals. this guy looks like he's a rogue liberal that's a bit more in the style of the old liberals i had somewhat of a fondness for. he may end up a little outside the caucus, but maybe he can shake it up a little.
the green candidate is quoted in papers as a liberal party activist as recently as late 2013. i'm guessing he's going to sound like a mcguinty liberal, but there's basically no information as of yet.
i don't want to vote for a zombie. and, if the green candidate and liberal candidate end up being indistinguishable, it seems foolish to vote for the one with the lesser chance of winning.
i may end up voting for the damned liberals. we'll have to see how the ndp candidate defines herself, but i'm really not expecting much besides memos from head office.
my liberal candidate seems to be some kind of business person that is critical of nafta and calling for it to be renegotiated - which is not likely to happen. but a bit of contrariness and independent thought is a bit more appealing to me. he seems to be pro-active in cross-border issues. trade is one of the big issues that has turned me off the liberals. this guy looks like he's a rogue liberal that's a bit more in the style of the old liberals i had somewhat of a fondness for. he may end up a little outside the caucus, but maybe he can shake it up a little.
the green candidate is quoted in papers as a liberal party activist as recently as late 2013. i'm guessing he's going to sound like a mcguinty liberal, but there's basically no information as of yet.
i don't want to vote for a zombie. and, if the green candidate and liberal candidate end up being indistinguishable, it seems foolish to vote for the one with the lesser chance of winning.
i may end up voting for the damned liberals. we'll have to see how the ndp candidate defines herself, but i'm really not expecting much besides memos from head office.
at
04:58
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i believe trudeau's position is actually that he'll support it if it's no longer widely opposed. which is almost comically liberal. mulcair's position is that he'll support it if it passes the environmental review. but, see, it's unclear to me why it is that they would think - in contradiction to all polls - that criticizing mulcair for possibly being *against* the pipeline would be good politics. you'd think they'd criticize him for being in favour of it, if they were trying to win votes - whether it's true or not (and it mostly is).
but, see, there's been this constant string of hints for years that these elections are...they're not inconsequential, so much as that they're really directed at a layer of power that's largely obscured, and of unclear national origin.
there's a sort of cognitive dissonance around it. on the one hand, we're all very naive, aren't we? on the other, what's the use in peddling evidenceless conspiracy theories? but it's the absolute truth: you'll see these weird campaign announcements and attacks from time to time that just make you scratch your head, until you realize "oh. right. that's not meant to influence voters. that's meant to influence that unstated ethereal force of unclear national origin."
it's just this unclear force that seems to be of great importance.
like, diefenbaker getting into a lot of trouble with kennedy-johnson administration, and then disappearing.
or there was the time that reagan accused trudeau of being a soviet spy, and then trudeau disappeared.
and the time that chretien refused to go to war, and canada got mad cow, sars and stephen harper (i'm undecided on which is more dangerous to our health).
it's just been there. this force. in the background. for many years. and the actors seem entirely aware of it. but, there's very few ways in which the public can quantify or understand it
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/brian-gallant-criticizes-tom-mulcair-s-energy-east-pipeline-stance-1.3197057
but, see, there's been this constant string of hints for years that these elections are...they're not inconsequential, so much as that they're really directed at a layer of power that's largely obscured, and of unclear national origin.
there's a sort of cognitive dissonance around it. on the one hand, we're all very naive, aren't we? on the other, what's the use in peddling evidenceless conspiracy theories? but it's the absolute truth: you'll see these weird campaign announcements and attacks from time to time that just make you scratch your head, until you realize "oh. right. that's not meant to influence voters. that's meant to influence that unstated ethereal force of unclear national origin."
it's just this unclear force that seems to be of great importance.
like, diefenbaker getting into a lot of trouble with kennedy-johnson administration, and then disappearing.
or there was the time that reagan accused trudeau of being a soviet spy, and then trudeau disappeared.
and the time that chretien refused to go to war, and canada got mad cow, sars and stephen harper (i'm undecided on which is more dangerous to our health).
it's just been there. this force. in the background. for many years. and the actors seem entirely aware of it. but, there's very few ways in which the public can quantify or understand it
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/brian-gallant-criticizes-tom-mulcair-s-energy-east-pipeline-stance-1.3197057
at
02:37
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)