great.
national security adviser? they should put her on healthcare.
i think that it's obvious that this is a media position. so long as she doesn't plagiarize her hair, i think she'll be ok.
but, it's just as obvious that you're not going to get a job in this administration unless you make it a priority to look like a pornographic actress. this isn't even about presentation. you are required to look trashy.
well, maybe it's not coincidental.
there are going to be sex scandals in this administration. that is obvious. perhaps more so than anything else.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/report-trump-national-security-pick-monica-crowley-plagiarized-her-ph-d-dissertation/
Monday, January 9, 2017
i may even argue that eventual re-nationalization is inevitable.
i don't care much for contracts or private property. i'd just pass a law that says it's ours now. so sorry, charlie.
but, there's ways to compensate them. you could buy the contracts out, for example.
you can do it now and try to save the government, or you can wait and do it later when people are that much more pissed off about it. it's going to happen, eventually.
i don't care much for contracts or private property. i'd just pass a law that says it's ours now. so sorry, charlie.
but, there's ways to compensate them. you could buy the contracts out, for example.
you can do it now and try to save the government, or you can wait and do it later when people are that much more pissed off about it. it's going to happen, eventually.
"There is relatively little the government can do to lower rates through
more lasting, structural means, mostly because the Liberals have tied up
so much of the system in 20-year contracts"
i'm in favour of forced nationalization, myself.
the article fails to mention that the province had a monopoly on energy generation until the conservatives dismantled it in the 90s. while the liberals could have done things differently, and demand would be a lot higher if we were using electric cars by now, it was the privatization under harris that is the actual cause of the problem.
if the problem is privatization then the solution is nationalization.
nor is this out of bounds. there's a new generation coming up, and they want nothing to do with the status quo. what they want is an explanation as to why we let them privatize our resources.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-does-electricity-cost-so-much-in-ontario/article33453270/
i'm in favour of forced nationalization, myself.
the article fails to mention that the province had a monopoly on energy generation until the conservatives dismantled it in the 90s. while the liberals could have done things differently, and demand would be a lot higher if we were using electric cars by now, it was the privatization under harris that is the actual cause of the problem.
if the problem is privatization then the solution is nationalization.
nor is this out of bounds. there's a new generation coming up, and they want nothing to do with the status quo. what they want is an explanation as to why we let them privatize our resources.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-does-electricity-cost-so-much-in-ontario/article33453270/
the media has a hate on for dion, but he's popular in his riding and
seems to legitimately enjoy being an mp. i don't recall a single media
source even mentioning him for cabinet, and then he lands one of the
most important roles. whether the media likes it or not, he's well
respected in the party and likely to continue to play a prominent role.
sending him to france may make the dipshits at ctv news happy, but i
can't imagine the party even contemplating it.
i'm hoping they turf jim carr.
you'll notice that a lot of the speculation is around women. this is a real concern, in adjusting to trump instead of clinton, although i'm not sure how best to approach it. i would also suspect that they're going to need to avoid sending certain types of minorities to washington for the next couple of years. it's realpolitik. and, i'm sure everybody can agree that it's better than getting ignored. that might mean that harjit sajjan could be in for a new role.
freeland will do well wherever you put her. but, i actually think that the best way to approach a reanalysis of nafta is to send somebody a little more left-leaning. i don't think that the uncritically pro-trade rhetoric is accurate when applied to either trudeau or the liberals; remember that freeland is on the right wing of the party. if we're getting a chance to open this up, i'd rather they send somebody with a more skeptical approach towards trade to do it. but, is there anybody still around or are they all gone, now?
http://ipolitics.ca/2017/01/09/freelands-the-one-to-watch-in-trudeau-cabinet-shuffle/
i'm hoping they turf jim carr.
you'll notice that a lot of the speculation is around women. this is a real concern, in adjusting to trump instead of clinton, although i'm not sure how best to approach it. i would also suspect that they're going to need to avoid sending certain types of minorities to washington for the next couple of years. it's realpolitik. and, i'm sure everybody can agree that it's better than getting ignored. that might mean that harjit sajjan could be in for a new role.
freeland will do well wherever you put her. but, i actually think that the best way to approach a reanalysis of nafta is to send somebody a little more left-leaning. i don't think that the uncritically pro-trade rhetoric is accurate when applied to either trudeau or the liberals; remember that freeland is on the right wing of the party. if we're getting a chance to open this up, i'd rather they send somebody with a more skeptical approach towards trade to do it. but, is there anybody still around or are they all gone, now?
http://ipolitics.ca/2017/01/09/freelands-the-one-to-watch-in-trudeau-cabinet-shuffle/
ok, good.
this is the only major liberal paper in the country - and they're not always all so liberal. but, we need this kind of thing from the media to give our side a bit of backbone.
i mean, sometimes you wonder where the media's allegiances lie, in this country. all they seem to care about is attacking the liberal party....
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/01/09/time-for-a-new-narrative-on-nafta.html
this is the only major liberal paper in the country - and they're not always all so liberal. but, we need this kind of thing from the media to give our side a bit of backbone.
i mean, sometimes you wonder where the media's allegiances lie, in this country. all they seem to care about is attacking the liberal party....
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/01/09/time-for-a-new-narrative-on-nafta.html
if we offer to pull out in exchange for concessions - we "make a deal" - that will probably give trump the leverage he needs for congress to pull out of the deal with mexico, or at least give him authority to renegotiate bilaterally, which is what he wants.
they don't listen to the kangaroo courts, anyways. it's strictly a tool of imperial control.
they don't listen to the kangaroo courts, anyways. it's strictly a tool of imperial control.
this is objective fact, by the way: corruption in mexico is off the charts and has been forever. various interests, mostly corporate, did not want to deal with mexican lawsuits. so, they set up an isds instead.
but, it turns out that all of the corruption in mexico hasn't hurt these corporate interests much, after all. rather, the rules have primarily been used to circumvent canadian law because the regulations are more strict and more in the public good. canada is the most sued country in the world. we've lost trillions.
if we didn't see that coming, we were stupid. and we should be actively fighting to get out of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Mexico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Canada
but, it turns out that all of the corruption in mexico hasn't hurt these corporate interests much, after all. rather, the rules have primarily been used to circumvent canadian law because the regulations are more strict and more in the public good. canada is the most sued country in the world. we've lost trillions.
if we didn't see that coming, we were stupid. and we should be actively fighting to get out of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Mexico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Canada
eliminating chapter 11 would be a massive populist victory for trudeau. don't let the media tell you otherwise.
has this been successful for canada? is it something we want?
again: the reason we're stuck in chapter 11 is because the mexican judiciary is corrupt. it's completely fucking batshit insane that we ever even considered this. we should jump at an opportunity out of it.
has this been successful for canada? is it something we want?
again: the reason we're stuck in chapter 11 is because the mexican judiciary is corrupt. it's completely fucking batshit insane that we ever even considered this. we should jump at an opportunity out of it.
well, one more thing.
the media coverage in canada - clueless as always - is giving donald trump a helping hand, here, in projecting the issue as off the table. if you just read the major newspapers, you're left to conclude that the americans have infinite leverage and we'll do whatever they want to keep the agreement.
it's bullshit. in their unwavering conservative bias, they're harming the country. again.
the actual reality is that nafta has never been popular here. the conservatives managed to split the vote in '88; in a direct plebiscite, it would have failed terribly. like, not even close. it would have been like 65-35 against free trade. but, we split the vote and it passed with a 40-30-30 split.
there are plenty of canadians that would love to see it go, including a substantial number of liberal voters and liberal party members.
i would call on the media to reflect this, in order to give canada a better negotiating position.
the media coverage in canada - clueless as always - is giving donald trump a helping hand, here, in projecting the issue as off the table. if you just read the major newspapers, you're left to conclude that the americans have infinite leverage and we'll do whatever they want to keep the agreement.
it's bullshit. in their unwavering conservative bias, they're harming the country. again.
the actual reality is that nafta has never been popular here. the conservatives managed to split the vote in '88; in a direct plebiscite, it would have failed terribly. like, not even close. it would have been like 65-35 against free trade. but, we split the vote and it passed with a 40-30-30 split.
there are plenty of canadians that would love to see it go, including a substantial number of liberal voters and liberal party members.
i would call on the media to reflect this, in order to give canada a better negotiating position.
that said, i will again point out that i do not expect donald trump to ask the senate to repeal nafta.
in the context of the us-canada relationship, nafta did not offer very many tangible differences on tariffs or trade. what it did was give foreign nationals power to circumvent our legal system, because mexico's judiciary is corrupt. and, the fact that we agreed to this is insane.
i know that this isn't why trump wants to tear it up (but, remember: this is a congressional responsibility, and the congress has bipartisan support for nafta). but it's something we should take advantage of.
i might even suggest that canada should offer to make a deal with the administration to unilaterally pull out, in exchange for concessions. trump could avoid congress, that way. it might be the only way it can get done.
in the context of the us-canada relationship, nafta did not offer very many tangible differences on tariffs or trade. what it did was give foreign nationals power to circumvent our legal system, because mexico's judiciary is corrupt. and, the fact that we agreed to this is insane.
i know that this isn't why trump wants to tear it up (but, remember: this is a congressional responsibility, and the congress has bipartisan support for nafta). but it's something we should take advantage of.
i might even suggest that canada should offer to make a deal with the administration to unilaterally pull out, in exchange for concessions. trump could avoid congress, that way. it might be the only way it can get done.
i'm going to say this one last time: if trump repeals nafta, a bilateral free trade agreement negotiated in the late 80s will kick into place. a nafta repeal will consequently have very little effect on cross-border trade. what it will do is remove chapter 11, which is a massive net positive to canada.
it is in the canadian national interest to encourage this repeal.
it is in the canadian national interest to encourage this repeal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)