what a sick, twisted, immature buffoon.
it's the kind of thing you'd expect from a twelve year-old.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-sniper-shot-iraq-1.4179825
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
gah.
i forgot to fill in my oeptc form with my taxes. i actually kind of vaguely recall not filling it in, and wondering where the form was. it may have been absent from the package. that's a monthly tax credit i get for rent. it cuts my rent down by about $35. combined with the ostc (a sales tax credit), it means i get about $60/month in provincial credits. in my mind, this pays for most of my estrogen prescription. before i increased my dosage, it actually paid for it outright.
i edited the return online; it took a few seconds, and i should have a reassessment within a few weeks.
there's actually an upside to this: they're going to give me the sales tax part of it in a lump sum in mid-july. that's going to be $296. for this month, that will work out a little better, as i have to get $290 to loan sharks on the first. so, that will cancel out. it's also a gst month, which will make up the difference.
it's just empty accounting; i'm expecting that check from my nana, soon. but, this means i won't have to juggle it for a month or two.
the downside is that i'll be getting $25/month less. but, i shouldn't notice that until next year.
they might also correct the issue before the deposit goes through on the....oh, it's actually on the 7th. hrmph. probably not, then.
i forgot to fill in my oeptc form with my taxes. i actually kind of vaguely recall not filling it in, and wondering where the form was. it may have been absent from the package. that's a monthly tax credit i get for rent. it cuts my rent down by about $35. combined with the ostc (a sales tax credit), it means i get about $60/month in provincial credits. in my mind, this pays for most of my estrogen prescription. before i increased my dosage, it actually paid for it outright.
i edited the return online; it took a few seconds, and i should have a reassessment within a few weeks.
there's actually an upside to this: they're going to give me the sales tax part of it in a lump sum in mid-july. that's going to be $296. for this month, that will work out a little better, as i have to get $290 to loan sharks on the first. so, that will cancel out. it's also a gst month, which will make up the difference.
it's just empty accounting; i'm expecting that check from my nana, soon. but, this means i won't have to juggle it for a month or two.
the downside is that i'll be getting $25/month less. but, i shouldn't notice that until next year.
they might also correct the issue before the deposit goes through on the....oh, it's actually on the 7th. hrmph. probably not, then.
i don't go to pride. ever. it's a co-opted, corporatist, queer-washing waste of time.
first of all, i'd propose banning politicians. even the queer ones. sorry.
next up, i'd go after the sponsors. and, i still probably wouldn't want to go, even after that.
broadly speaking, i don't think that queer people need to compromise on their principles in order to feign inclusiveness towards groups that they know are hostile to them. when that happens, the idea loses itself. if pride is just an event where anybody that wants to be proud of something can show up, it loses it's meaning as a specifically queer event. that is called co-option.
when politicians and religious groups speak at pride, that is co-option.
the queer movement has every right to single out oppressive groups, like christians and muslims (and jews, too, although they're the lesser evil, by far), and confront them on co-opting something that is not meant for them.
unless they want me to show up at the mosque and start making out with multiple dudes up at the front, while buddy is going on about some easily debunked nonsense? i'd do it...
first of all, i'd propose banning politicians. even the queer ones. sorry.
next up, i'd go after the sponsors. and, i still probably wouldn't want to go, even after that.
broadly speaking, i don't think that queer people need to compromise on their principles in order to feign inclusiveness towards groups that they know are hostile to them. when that happens, the idea loses itself. if pride is just an event where anybody that wants to be proud of something can show up, it loses it's meaning as a specifically queer event. that is called co-option.
when politicians and religious groups speak at pride, that is co-option.
the queer movement has every right to single out oppressive groups, like christians and muslims (and jews, too, although they're the lesser evil, by far), and confront them on co-opting something that is not meant for them.
unless they want me to show up at the mosque and start making out with multiple dudes up at the front, while buddy is going on about some easily debunked nonsense? i'd do it...
on the question of jews and human sacrifice, though, you should watch this documentary.
it suggests that the practice was endemic to the region (the carthaginians were originally from modern day lebanon), rather than any specific ethnic group, and that the story in the bible may have been a parable to try and change existing behaviours.
what is the bible? it's a justification for the existence of the jewish elite. it's meant to help primitive people come to terms with basic issues of social order. and, there is evidence that child sacrifice was actually a thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK-I53nESw4
it suggests that the practice was endemic to the region (the carthaginians were originally from modern day lebanon), rather than any specific ethnic group, and that the story in the bible may have been a parable to try and change existing behaviours.
what is the bible? it's a justification for the existence of the jewish elite. it's meant to help primitive people come to terms with basic issues of social order. and, there is evidence that child sacrifice was actually a thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK-I53nESw4
of course, there's always the jewish media conspiracy theory. there's one for everything. never fails.
it's kind of true, though. think about it, muslims: the jews have got you celebrating the saving of their race, and making it the center of your calendar.
http://submission.org/Abrahim_His_Son.html
it's kind of true, though. think about it, muslims: the jews have got you celebrating the saving of their race, and making it the center of your calendar.
http://submission.org/Abrahim_His_Son.html
the american media is strangely silent on this. it's telling.
but, what the aclu is doing, here, is upholding it's own strawman; the administration denied from the start that it was a muslim ban to begin with, and that's the crux of the ruling: the administration's actions were never intended to be a muslim ban, and can be upheld on those terms (while clarifying that a muslim ban would be unconstitutional, and the reasons why, and how to ensure that this doesn't happen).
i very rarely disagree with the aclu, or it's canadian equivalent (the ccla). i'm not even disagreeing with them, here, really. but, i'm calling them out on a dishonest presentation. this was not about civil liberties, it was about politics, and they should re-examine their mandate in the wake of their loss.
it's not the aclu, exactly, that i'm pointing fingers at, either, but the broader neo-liberal identity politics crew that jumped on this as a wedge issue and got a bunch of circuit judges on their side by gaming the media. they began by accusing the administration of all kinds of things that were obviously untrue. on the basis of these false accusations, they got injunctions they never should have gotten (but, when you yell fire in a crowded court room, that court is more likely to put down a temporary stop until the issue can be dealt with more rigorously). then, when it gets to a real hearing, they claim they've won when the court upholds that their frivolous accusations are unconstitutional - even as it upholds what the administration was actually trying to do. then, they try and spin it as a political victory, even though the administration got exactly what it actually wanted.
if you go back a few months, you'll see i analyzed this correctly at the time.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/clear-victory-president-trump-muslim-ban-20-hardly
but, what the aclu is doing, here, is upholding it's own strawman; the administration denied from the start that it was a muslim ban to begin with, and that's the crux of the ruling: the administration's actions were never intended to be a muslim ban, and can be upheld on those terms (while clarifying that a muslim ban would be unconstitutional, and the reasons why, and how to ensure that this doesn't happen).
i very rarely disagree with the aclu, or it's canadian equivalent (the ccla). i'm not even disagreeing with them, here, really. but, i'm calling them out on a dishonest presentation. this was not about civil liberties, it was about politics, and they should re-examine their mandate in the wake of their loss.
it's not the aclu, exactly, that i'm pointing fingers at, either, but the broader neo-liberal identity politics crew that jumped on this as a wedge issue and got a bunch of circuit judges on their side by gaming the media. they began by accusing the administration of all kinds of things that were obviously untrue. on the basis of these false accusations, they got injunctions they never should have gotten (but, when you yell fire in a crowded court room, that court is more likely to put down a temporary stop until the issue can be dealt with more rigorously). then, when it gets to a real hearing, they claim they've won when the court upholds that their frivolous accusations are unconstitutional - even as it upholds what the administration was actually trying to do. then, they try and spin it as a political victory, even though the administration got exactly what it actually wanted.
if you go back a few months, you'll see i analyzed this correctly at the time.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/clear-victory-president-trump-muslim-ban-20-hardly
i mean, if you think voting for a guy that wears eid socks to the pride parade is going to do anything to advance queer issues, you need to pull your head out of your ass.
do you know what eid al-adha is? it's the other eid, granted. but, look it up. it's 2017, and people are still celebrating this?
it's mass insanity is what it is. and, any concept of progressive politics that is worth advocating should be looking to stamp this out, not uphold it or normalize it.
if somebody came to you and told you that god told him to sacrifice his son, would you throw a feast or call the police? i'd put the sick, twisted fucker in jail. and, i'd denounce anybody that suggested otherwise.
out of all the stupid religious nonsense out there, this is the dumbest and, frankly, the most offensive.
queer rights are judicial issues. and, this governmnt hasn't done anything for queer rights that it wasn't ordered to do by the courts. you're out to fucking lunch if you think otherwise.
do you know what eid al-adha is? it's the other eid, granted. but, look it up. it's 2017, and people are still celebrating this?
it's mass insanity is what it is. and, any concept of progressive politics that is worth advocating should be looking to stamp this out, not uphold it or normalize it.
if somebody came to you and told you that god told him to sacrifice his son, would you throw a feast or call the police? i'd put the sick, twisted fucker in jail. and, i'd denounce anybody that suggested otherwise.
out of all the stupid religious nonsense out there, this is the dumbest and, frankly, the most offensive.
queer rights are judicial issues. and, this governmnt hasn't done anything for queer rights that it wasn't ordered to do by the courts. you're out to fucking lunch if you think otherwise.
i bet trudeau would walk out on the country if he got offered an acting job in hollywood. or maybe a tv spot.
that's what he always really wanted.
and, that's basically his job: he's a pretty-boy paid front for corporate lobbyists. he's reagan on the surface, but without the baggage of broken altruism, and instead with the cold cynicism of a clintonian worldview.
i'm just saying that he would probably leave if you offered him a big enough check, and a glossy enough photographer, to follow him around california and take sexy enough shots.
i'm not hinting at anything.
not giving anybody any ideas...
but, i look forward to running against him from the left, and mercilessly tearing him down, as i do.
if i get my way, he will lose in 2019. and i don't even care if that means andrew scheer wins. there's no meaningful difference on any issue i care about that the courts won't act as the only meaningful arbiter of protection on, anyways. there really isn't.
that's what he always really wanted.
and, that's basically his job: he's a pretty-boy paid front for corporate lobbyists. he's reagan on the surface, but without the baggage of broken altruism, and instead with the cold cynicism of a clintonian worldview.
i'm just saying that he would probably leave if you offered him a big enough check, and a glossy enough photographer, to follow him around california and take sexy enough shots.
i'm not hinting at anything.
not giving anybody any ideas...
but, i look forward to running against him from the left, and mercilessly tearing him down, as i do.
if i get my way, he will lose in 2019. and i don't even care if that means andrew scheer wins. there's no meaningful difference on any issue i care about that the courts won't act as the only meaningful arbiter of protection on, anyways. there really isn't.
another corporatist policy that puts the liberals to the right of the conservatives. the conservatives never took ridiculous positions like this.
this is daily, now.
i look forward to splitting the left.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/spam-computers-law-trudeau-1.4179066
this is daily, now.
i look forward to splitting the left.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/spam-computers-law-trudeau-1.4179066
so, the 6400 is actually the best ram the board in the vista machine can take. ok.
that leaves me with amazon as my only option, as even hp no longer carries the part. at least it's cheap.
i also need to get a new battery for this machine.
updated total:
phone (amazon): $105
2 gb laptop ram (amazon): $2x15
battery (amazon): $27
< 140 gb ide hds (found, not confirmed) (kijiji): $2x10
1 tb laptop sshds (best buy): $2x90
==================
$362
so, i'm committing to spending a total of $147 to fix this laptop. cheaper than a new buy, for sure.
it's time to sleep.
that leaves me with amazon as my only option, as even hp no longer carries the part. at least it's cheap.
i also need to get a new battery for this machine.
updated total:
phone (amazon): $105
2 gb laptop ram (amazon): $2x15
battery (amazon): $27
< 140 gb ide hds (found, not confirmed) (kijiji): $2x10
1 tb laptop sshds (best buy): $2x90
==================
$362
so, i'm committing to spending a total of $147 to fix this laptop. cheaper than a new buy, for sure.
it's time to sleep.
i have three hp/compaq laptops. two of them were given to me. i bought the other one refurbished on a whim, mostly for school. my heavy laptop use was fully circumstantial. they were here, so i used them.
but, i've learned a good lesson, right?
when will i need to be mobile, as an individual? the answer is that i might need to be mobile some time in the distant future, if i ever end up moving to waterloo. waterloo, ontario. there's a good math school there. i'll be old if i ever end up there...
it's so distant.
right now, today, i have no reason to be mobile. if i need to, the vista laptop that i bought refurbished for school will be mobile. and, i'm buying a phone.
what i need, right now, today, is an access point that will let me leave open lots of tabs indefinitely and blow away ram on youtube.
what i need is a cheap desktop with a ton of ram.
but, i've learned a good lesson, right?
when will i need to be mobile, as an individual? the answer is that i might need to be mobile some time in the distant future, if i ever end up moving to waterloo. waterloo, ontario. there's a good math school there. i'll be old if i ever end up there...
it's so distant.
right now, today, i have no reason to be mobile. if i need to, the vista laptop that i bought refurbished for school will be mobile. and, i'm buying a phone.
what i need, right now, today, is an access point that will let me leave open lots of tabs indefinitely and blow away ram on youtube.
what i need is a cheap desktop with a ton of ram.
i'll almost certainly go to a store and build it myself.
but, this is far closer to what i actually want.
and, let this sink in:
- quad core 3.5
- tb hd
- 12 gb ram
- $500
a laptop with those specs would be over $1000, and have a quarter of the lifespan. it would be stupid of me to throw it away. it really would.
plus, the desktop has no wireless in it.
i didn't ask for that sum. she generated it on her own. and, i told her it was more than i need. but, she'll be happy to see what i'm doing with it: buying phones, buying bicycles, buying furniture, buying clothes, fixing guitars, etc.
she's getting older and she has a lot of money and she wanted to throw some at me. i'm fortunate....well, let's not get carried away, but i could be a lot worse off. and, i'm not being dishonest.
ok.
back to rebuilding the vista machine.
http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product/acer-acer-aspire-tc-desktop-pc-amd-a10-7800-1tb-hdd-12gb-ram-amd-radeon-r7-graphics-windows-10-atc-280-eb11/10587600.aspx?
but, this is far closer to what i actually want.
and, let this sink in:
- quad core 3.5
- tb hd
- 12 gb ram
- $500
a laptop with those specs would be over $1000, and have a quarter of the lifespan. it would be stupid of me to throw it away. it really would.
plus, the desktop has no wireless in it.
i didn't ask for that sum. she generated it on her own. and, i told her it was more than i need. but, she'll be happy to see what i'm doing with it: buying phones, buying bicycles, buying furniture, buying clothes, fixing guitars, etc.
she's getting older and she has a lot of money and she wanted to throw some at me. i'm fortunate....well, let's not get carried away, but i could be a lot worse off. and, i'm not being dishonest.
ok.
back to rebuilding the vista machine.
http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product/acer-acer-aspire-tc-desktop-pc-amd-a10-7800-1tb-hdd-12gb-ram-amd-radeon-r7-graphics-windows-10-atc-280-eb11/10587600.aspx?
Monday, June 26, 2017
it's obvious.
if i buy a laptop,
1) i'm going to be stuck with all kinds of parts i don't want, at the expense of parts i do want.
2) when it breaks, i'll have to replace the whole thing again.
it's just an access point.
i can probably get a quadcore pc with freedos and 16 gb of ram for like $400.
i don't want an expensive laptop. it will just break in a few years. they're designed to. that would be foolish of me.
i need to make sure i'm actually right. but, as of right now, i'm planning on building a desktop, not buying a laptop...
if i buy a laptop,
1) i'm going to be stuck with all kinds of parts i don't want, at the expense of parts i do want.
2) when it breaks, i'll have to replace the whole thing again.
it's just an access point.
i can probably get a quadcore pc with freedos and 16 gb of ram for like $400.
i don't want an expensive laptop. it will just break in a few years. they're designed to. that would be foolish of me.
i need to make sure i'm actually right. but, as of right now, i'm planning on building a desktop, not buying a laptop...
i may have introduced a short in the wireless compartment that took the video out. i actually think that this may have been what happened with the other machine, but this one came back with a reseat. although, i'm also interested in pointing out that i'm perhaps getting a suspicious level of activity in these wireless compartments, aren't i? once i get my phone setup, i may take the wireless out of that machine. and, i'm considering building the new one without wireless at all. certainly, i'll need to make sure to check it actually has an rj-45 in it, at least - that's something i hadn't thought of. i know that some of the higher end models no longer ship with physical ethernet connections.
it seems like ibm is allowing users to design their own laptops. that's what i actually want. you can take out the webcam, too - and your locked down bios, and your recovery partition, and your windows 10...
it might even cost less when i'm done.
but, i've got the f2 page up. what i wanted was the product information so i could see what the maximum ram configuration is. i have one samsung chip in it, pc2-6400. should i just double that, or can i upgrade both of them?
it seems like ibm is allowing users to design their own laptops. that's what i actually want. you can take out the webcam, too - and your locked down bios, and your recovery partition, and your windows 10...
it might even cost less when i'm done.
but, i've got the f2 page up. what i wanted was the product information so i could see what the maximum ram configuration is. i have one samsung chip in it, pc2-6400. should i just double that, or can i upgrade both of them?
well, then.
i went to check the model number on the vista machine by booting into the bios and the screen is blank. it's not outputting to the monitor i'm using, either. what i should get is an error that the hard drive is broken; that's what i got last week.
this is the laptop i was using for the last six weeks, with no discernible problems. i would like to turn it into an effects processor. but, if it won't turn on...
the immediate diagnosis is video. but, that doesn't make any sense.
i'm not going to buy parts for a machine that won't turn on. but, i don't want to throw it out, either.
let me think about this.
i went to check the model number on the vista machine by booting into the bios and the screen is blank. it's not outputting to the monitor i'm using, either. what i should get is an error that the hard drive is broken; that's what i got last week.
this is the laptop i was using for the last six weeks, with no discernible problems. i would like to turn it into an effects processor. but, if it won't turn on...
the immediate diagnosis is video. but, that doesn't make any sense.
i'm not going to buy parts for a machine that won't turn on. but, i don't want to throw it out, either.
let me think about this.
gah.
the 1 tb seagate is going to cost me $80 + border fees from amazon. the 500 gb was $74 + border fees, or $79 in the store. i figured that was interchangeable.
i missed this before because i was looking at the wd; best buy will ship it directly to me in canada for $88. but, then, best buy is claiming a 5 year warranty on the drive, and amazon is claiming a 2 year-warranty. is that worth the $8? why is it even different?
they're actually different products.
amazon is selling a "barracuda", which is a regular hdd. best buy is selling the "firecuda", which is the sshd.
so, do i want an hdd or an sshd?
an 8 gb cache is certainly big enough for ether application...
for $20? i'm trying to be fiscally resonsible. but, i have cash to waste. i'm going to try this.
and, i found the comparable product on amazon, which will cost $94 + border fees. that $6 difference is the usps holding fee.
yeah.
ok.
best buy it is.
so, my current total is:
phone (amazon): $98
ide hds (found, not confirmed) (kijiji): $2x10
laptop sshds: $2x89
==================
$296
next up is actually the ram. finally.
the 1 tb seagate is going to cost me $80 + border fees from amazon. the 500 gb was $74 + border fees, or $79 in the store. i figured that was interchangeable.
i missed this before because i was looking at the wd; best buy will ship it directly to me in canada for $88. but, then, best buy is claiming a 5 year warranty on the drive, and amazon is claiming a 2 year-warranty. is that worth the $8? why is it even different?
they're actually different products.
amazon is selling a "barracuda", which is a regular hdd. best buy is selling the "firecuda", which is the sshd.
so, do i want an hdd or an sshd?
an 8 gb cache is certainly big enough for ether application...
for $20? i'm trying to be fiscally resonsible. but, i have cash to waste. i'm going to try this.
and, i found the comparable product on amazon, which will cost $94 + border fees. that $6 difference is the usps holding fee.
yeah.
ok.
best buy it is.
so, my current total is:
phone (amazon): $98
ide hds (found, not confirmed) (kijiji): $2x10
laptop sshds: $2x89
==================
$296
next up is actually the ram. finally.
ok, i see what's going on. and, i hope this repeats itself, actually, as i'll get a lot of good deals, that way.
did you catch that my phone was $65? it's waterproof, too. ip67. 2 gb ram. quadcore is near the bottom end, but it'll be fine for me, i'm sure. but, it had some bad reviews, so it's not selling. and, people seem to have picked up the idea that it's a kids phone because it's shock resistant. i hope they feel really grown up when they replace their galaxy because they've dropped it in the pool - or perhaps because their kid has dropped it in the pool. but, the point is that it's a status thing. this is a highly functional, low status device. score. i mean, who said all the contradictions in capitalism were at the benefit of capital? is this even some crude approximation of superproduction?
seagate got some bad press recently due to higher failure rates in a kind of a crock study (they were using refurbished drives that they bought because they were cheap and were consequently expecting a higher failure rate...), so the price has fallen. again: score.
these are actually sshds. i was looking at the ssds, and the price just isn't there, yet, for what i'm doing with these particular machines. i may get one for the new machine. but, i don't see any use in putting an ssd drive in either of these machines; one is for editing, and the other is going to eventually be a guitar effects processor, but is also going to work as a backup.
the sshds happen to be the cheapest thing in front of me. so, i'll let you know how they work. i don't game. but, i want to figure out the exact specs before i comment further.
did you catch that my phone was $65? it's waterproof, too. ip67. 2 gb ram. quadcore is near the bottom end, but it'll be fine for me, i'm sure. but, it had some bad reviews, so it's not selling. and, people seem to have picked up the idea that it's a kids phone because it's shock resistant. i hope they feel really grown up when they replace their galaxy because they've dropped it in the pool - or perhaps because their kid has dropped it in the pool. but, the point is that it's a status thing. this is a highly functional, low status device. score. i mean, who said all the contradictions in capitalism were at the benefit of capital? is this even some crude approximation of superproduction?
seagate got some bad press recently due to higher failure rates in a kind of a crock study (they were using refurbished drives that they bought because they were cheap and were consequently expecting a higher failure rate...), so the price has fallen. again: score.
these are actually sshds. i was looking at the ssds, and the price just isn't there, yet, for what i'm doing with these particular machines. i may get one for the new machine. but, i don't see any use in putting an ssd drive in either of these machines; one is for editing, and the other is going to eventually be a guitar effects processor, but is also going to work as a backup.
the sshds happen to be the cheapest thing in front of me. so, i'll let you know how they work. i don't game. but, i want to figure out the exact specs before i comment further.
on second thought, i can get a 1 tb drive over amazon for basically the same price as a 500 gb drive, but the difference in the store is still $30. the best deal is the 1 tb over amazon; it's the same price as the 500 gb in the store.
i'm making a choice not to buy from anybody besides amazon. this is from amazon. it should be a new drive in a box. i will immediately return it if it isn't.
i'm making a choice not to buy from anybody besides amazon. this is from amazon. it should be a new drive in a box. i will immediately return it if it isn't.
so, after customs and conversion, buying laptop drives from amazon is about the same as buying it from a best buy, here. the difference is that i get to return it to the store if it's busted.
and, that's with free shipping.
500 gb drives are running around $45 on amazon. i'm iffy about buying from these resellers, who should be operating through ebay and not amazon. i don't think of amazon the way i think of ebay. or, at least i didn't before today. so, i could take it down a dollar or two, but there's horror stories in the reviews about people getting refurbished hard drives when the listing says the thing is new. why fuck with that for $1.50?
45*1.33(exchange)*1.13(tax) =
67.63 + 5*1.33 (holding charge for ups) =
74.28
if i have to take a dedicated trip, you can add another $10 for border fees. let's split the difference. so, that's $79.28. it's still cheap, but that $45 list price is pretty misleading.
the price at best buy for a 500 gb wd laptop drive is $70. adding taxes, 70*1.13 = $79.10.
but, i get a lot more by being able to hold the store accountable. so, i'll do that here, too.
i don't know where to buy new ram in windsor. that's part two for the vista laptop...
and, that's with free shipping.
500 gb drives are running around $45 on amazon. i'm iffy about buying from these resellers, who should be operating through ebay and not amazon. i don't think of amazon the way i think of ebay. or, at least i didn't before today. so, i could take it down a dollar or two, but there's horror stories in the reviews about people getting refurbished hard drives when the listing says the thing is new. why fuck with that for $1.50?
45*1.33(exchange)*1.13(tax) =
67.63 + 5*1.33 (holding charge for ups) =
74.28
if i have to take a dedicated trip, you can add another $10 for border fees. let's split the difference. so, that's $79.28. it's still cheap, but that $45 list price is pretty misleading.
the price at best buy for a 500 gb wd laptop drive is $70. adding taxes, 70*1.13 = $79.10.
but, i get a lot more by being able to hold the store accountable. so, i'll do that here, too.
i don't know where to buy new ram in windsor. that's part two for the vista laptop...
yeah.
i liked the idea of buying something out of the packaging, but, even so, it's a crapshoot. i'll do that over kijiji...
if i can get a couple for $5-10 and they last a few years, i'll figure out what to do when i get there.
otherwise, that old machine is nearly maxed. it has the 1 gb max. it's running a pIII-500, which is not maxed, but i don't see much value in going through the hassle of taking a working chip out of a 20 year-old board. that would be kind of daft.
so, that's decided. and, on to fixing up the vista laptop....
i liked the idea of buying something out of the packaging, but, even so, it's a crapshoot. i'll do that over kijiji...
if i can get a couple for $5-10 and they last a few years, i'll figure out what to do when i get there.
otherwise, that old machine is nearly maxed. it has the 1 gb max. it's running a pIII-500, which is not maxed, but i don't see much value in going through the hassle of taking a working chip out of a 20 year-old board. that would be kind of daft.
so, that's decided. and, on to fixing up the vista laptop....
when you're a nerd, there's always something to learn...
i'm going to have to ship a lot of this stuff to the ups store in detroit, which is steps from the bus home. they'll charge me $5/package to hold it, but it's still a dramatic difference.
consider the phone. i have to wait until the check gets here to order it. but, it's $65 if i ship it to detroit and $195 if i ship it to windsor. if i can pick it up on the way home, some morning, the only extra fees in front of me are that $5 holding charge and customs on the way in. that's still less than $80, meaning i'm saving over $100 usd, even if i have to make a specific trip.
but, that means i want to ship everything in at the same time and make one bug run, if i can. so, i'm sorting through as many things as i can on amazon, looking for deals...
$13 for a 250 gb pata hard drive is pretty cheap, right? well, i decided to be a little more discerning about brands and sellers and instead opted for a $19.99 option that is selling unsold inventory, that is drives that are still shrink-wrapped, and even has a three-year seller warranty, probably because they're just trying to get rid of them, anyways. sorting through the comments, people are angry that they're buying drives that were manufactured in 2006. i'm kind of laughing about it. but, something jumps up in the comments of a 120 gb drive that i was scoping out as a backup:
these are 160 gb drives, not 120 gb drives. so, they're not good for use for old computers with a 137 gb limit.
what?
having jumped from a 20 gb hard drive i bought in the 90s to a 4x250 sata setup in the mid-00s, this isn't something that ever entered my radar. is my board even going to read a 250 gb drive?
well, i did some reading. i need ata-6. do i have ata-6?
well, here's my old board, which is still working flawlessly, all these years later:
http://archive.arstechnica.com/reviews/3q99/asus_p3b-f/p3b-f-1.html
(note that it's y2k certified)
it's ata-33. what does that mean? it means ata-4. do i upgrade this in the bios, or is it physical? it's physical. what does that mean?
i'm running xp sp3. that's ok. but, if i want a 250 gb drive, i'll need to get a controller card, which is more expensive than the drive. but, wait - i also need chipset support, and this old thing does not have it. it's a 440BX (seattle). i would need an 8xx series chipset.
so, scratch that. i'll need to find something under 137 gb instead....
keep in mind, here, that i'm replacing a 20 gb drive, and i never saw a need to increase space on it. the 250 gb approach was because it was cheap and it was unused. it's no real loss. but i don't want to spend too much on this, either.
i may be better off sorting through kijiji. i'll take another run through to see....
i'm going to have to ship a lot of this stuff to the ups store in detroit, which is steps from the bus home. they'll charge me $5/package to hold it, but it's still a dramatic difference.
consider the phone. i have to wait until the check gets here to order it. but, it's $65 if i ship it to detroit and $195 if i ship it to windsor. if i can pick it up on the way home, some morning, the only extra fees in front of me are that $5 holding charge and customs on the way in. that's still less than $80, meaning i'm saving over $100 usd, even if i have to make a specific trip.
but, that means i want to ship everything in at the same time and make one bug run, if i can. so, i'm sorting through as many things as i can on amazon, looking for deals...
$13 for a 250 gb pata hard drive is pretty cheap, right? well, i decided to be a little more discerning about brands and sellers and instead opted for a $19.99 option that is selling unsold inventory, that is drives that are still shrink-wrapped, and even has a three-year seller warranty, probably because they're just trying to get rid of them, anyways. sorting through the comments, people are angry that they're buying drives that were manufactured in 2006. i'm kind of laughing about it. but, something jumps up in the comments of a 120 gb drive that i was scoping out as a backup:
these are 160 gb drives, not 120 gb drives. so, they're not good for use for old computers with a 137 gb limit.
what?
having jumped from a 20 gb hard drive i bought in the 90s to a 4x250 sata setup in the mid-00s, this isn't something that ever entered my radar. is my board even going to read a 250 gb drive?
well, i did some reading. i need ata-6. do i have ata-6?
well, here's my old board, which is still working flawlessly, all these years later:
http://archive.arstechnica.com/reviews/3q99/asus_p3b-f/p3b-f-1.html
(note that it's y2k certified)
it's ata-33. what does that mean? it means ata-4. do i upgrade this in the bios, or is it physical? it's physical. what does that mean?
In order to properly access the full capacity of an ATA interface hard drive larger than 137GB, your system must meet the system requirements described below. There are three general methods of support:
1) Operating System Solutions for Windows XP and Windows 2000
2) Ultra ATA/133 PCI Controller Card for Windows XP, 2000, Me, 98SE and NT 4.x
3) Intel Chipset Solutions for Windows Me, 98SE and NT 4.x (partial)
i'm running xp sp3. that's ok. but, if i want a 250 gb drive, i'll need to get a controller card, which is more expensive than the drive. but, wait - i also need chipset support, and this old thing does not have it. it's a 440BX (seattle). i would need an 8xx series chipset.
so, scratch that. i'll need to find something under 137 gb instead....
keep in mind, here, that i'm replacing a 20 gb drive, and i never saw a need to increase space on it. the 250 gb approach was because it was cheap and it was unused. it's no real loss. but i don't want to spend too much on this, either.
i may be better off sorting through kijiji. i'll take another run through to see....
“Unlike coral, these species are mobile and can move away from noises
and other disturbances,” the regulations say. “Results from
environmental effects monitoring programs from Newfoundland and Labrador
offshore oil and gas production have shown no significant adverse
effects.”
right.
so, if i set up a drilling operation in your backyard, it's your responsibility to get up and move?
i think this government needs to take a course in introductory law.
expect the court to block this. and, blame the state for wasting everybody's time, when it does. they should know better than this.
that is a sophomoric, immature and ridiculous argument.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/canada-to-allow-oil-and-gas-exploration-in-protected-area/83482/
right.
so, if i set up a drilling operation in your backyard, it's your responsibility to get up and move?
i think this government needs to take a course in introductory law.
expect the court to block this. and, blame the state for wasting everybody's time, when it does. they should know better than this.
that is a sophomoric, immature and ridiculous argument.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/canada-to-allow-oil-and-gas-exploration-in-protected-area/83482/
i'll stick with coffee.
why don't i snort coke? it seems to confuse people. i've certainly been offered it enough times. people seem to intuitively grasp that i should like coke. and, yet, i don't touch it. ever.
i guess there was a time when i was an aspiring math student, and it just didn't strike me as a smart life choice. that's not really applicable any more. there's the addiction factor, and it's enough to give me pause, but it's not really at the crux of it.
don't get me wrong: i've seen people destroy their finances on coke. i've sat with people over night to try and keep them off it, only to find out they went back five minutes after i left. and, it makes people clique-y, too. cokeheads seem to think there are two types of people in the world: cokeheads and non-cokeheads. and, they don't want to be friends with non-cokeheads. that self-isolation is a part of the spiral of destruction that sets in. they push all the people that can help them away.
but, i realize that it doesn't hit everybody the same way.
how it were to hit me would likely be dictated by finances. i mean, i get this way with mere alcohol: if i budget myself for $20, and i go through it before the end of the night, i'm always always at the bank machine. but, i cannot think of a time in my life where i've woken up and gone to the liquor store after a night of drinking, either. so, my tendency is to binge as hard as i can over night, and then wake up and walk away from it in the morning. i've never had trouble doing that with any other substance, and don't think i would with coke. the concern is more about how much i'm spending in a given night.
ignoring the reality that i can't know what i'm snorting, and that it would be very dangerous to snort clorox or something, it might seem safe enough for me to try a hit here and there given that i'm usually poor and won't have access to that potential $200 blow night. but, then what?
i mean, it's a five minute buzz. if you're only going to take a hit or two, why not just run around in a circle until you get tired and fall over?
if i spend $20 on beer for the night, i'm drunk. all night. if i spend $20 on coke, i'm stoned for 20 minutes and just want more coke.
that's the actual reason i don't do coke: it's a rip-off. for what it does to you, in comparison to beer or pot or even coffee, a line of blow should cost something like $0.25.
...and, i've said this before: if i ever end up in a situation where i can drop $200 on blow for the night, maybe i'll try it. for now, i'll stick to the lower cost and higher yield options.
that said, i like the idea of very strong coffee. i've said this before: i would take shots of espresso late nights at the bar, if they'd only sell them to me. people snort because it's more intense for a shorter period; i'd rather sacrifice the intensity for a longer experience.
https://thetab.com/uk/2016/06/20/i-spent-saturday-night-getting-high-sniffing-cocoa-3438
why don't i snort coke? it seems to confuse people. i've certainly been offered it enough times. people seem to intuitively grasp that i should like coke. and, yet, i don't touch it. ever.
i guess there was a time when i was an aspiring math student, and it just didn't strike me as a smart life choice. that's not really applicable any more. there's the addiction factor, and it's enough to give me pause, but it's not really at the crux of it.
don't get me wrong: i've seen people destroy their finances on coke. i've sat with people over night to try and keep them off it, only to find out they went back five minutes after i left. and, it makes people clique-y, too. cokeheads seem to think there are two types of people in the world: cokeheads and non-cokeheads. and, they don't want to be friends with non-cokeheads. that self-isolation is a part of the spiral of destruction that sets in. they push all the people that can help them away.
but, i realize that it doesn't hit everybody the same way.
how it were to hit me would likely be dictated by finances. i mean, i get this way with mere alcohol: if i budget myself for $20, and i go through it before the end of the night, i'm always always at the bank machine. but, i cannot think of a time in my life where i've woken up and gone to the liquor store after a night of drinking, either. so, my tendency is to binge as hard as i can over night, and then wake up and walk away from it in the morning. i've never had trouble doing that with any other substance, and don't think i would with coke. the concern is more about how much i'm spending in a given night.
ignoring the reality that i can't know what i'm snorting, and that it would be very dangerous to snort clorox or something, it might seem safe enough for me to try a hit here and there given that i'm usually poor and won't have access to that potential $200 blow night. but, then what?
i mean, it's a five minute buzz. if you're only going to take a hit or two, why not just run around in a circle until you get tired and fall over?
if i spend $20 on beer for the night, i'm drunk. all night. if i spend $20 on coke, i'm stoned for 20 minutes and just want more coke.
that's the actual reason i don't do coke: it's a rip-off. for what it does to you, in comparison to beer or pot or even coffee, a line of blow should cost something like $0.25.
...and, i've said this before: if i ever end up in a situation where i can drop $200 on blow for the night, maybe i'll try it. for now, i'll stick to the lower cost and higher yield options.
that said, i like the idea of very strong coffee. i've said this before: i would take shots of espresso late nights at the bar, if they'd only sell them to me. people snort because it's more intense for a shorter period; i'd rather sacrifice the intensity for a longer experience.
https://thetab.com/uk/2016/06/20/i-spent-saturday-night-getting-high-sniffing-cocoa-3438
Sunday, June 25, 2017
yeah.
so, given that i've never used a phone before, i have no intuitive grasp of this. really. i would have expected 1 gb of ram to be slow, all around. that was much faster than i thought...
i don't expect myself to play any games or do a lot of multitasking. i'm not going to migrate from the latop, for the simple reason that i type so much. i'd expect to maybe use the map feature if i'm out. and, i'll be happy enough to downgrade the os if it's just slowing the phone down.
i think that that 1 gb phone was plenty fast for me...
it's just a metric, right? lets me set some goalposts.
and, i know i can repartition a swap drive, if i need to.
k.
1 gb looks good enough...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EzWFFD9Pbk
so, given that i've never used a phone before, i have no intuitive grasp of this. really. i would have expected 1 gb of ram to be slow, all around. that was much faster than i thought...
i don't expect myself to play any games or do a lot of multitasking. i'm not going to migrate from the latop, for the simple reason that i type so much. i'd expect to maybe use the map feature if i'm out. and, i'll be happy enough to downgrade the os if it's just slowing the phone down.
i think that that 1 gb phone was plenty fast for me...
it's just a metric, right? lets me set some goalposts.
and, i know i can repartition a swap drive, if i need to.
k.
1 gb looks good enough...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EzWFFD9Pbk
ok.
this is what i'm looking for - and it seems to be obscure.
it's actually a good link because it both explains how to do it and has a response from somebody pointing out that the card will eventually die from write access. while this is true, it is also rather alarmist - the hard drive will eventually die from access, anyways. on top of that, if you have something like 1 gb of ram and 8 gb of internal storage, you can split the swap partition off repeatedly as the drive slowly dies, moving more and more of your internal storage to sd. in the end, you should even be able to boot entirely from sd. but, you'll probably just get a new phone, as it will be five years later and the phone you would have spent $500 on is now $100.
plus, i'd be hacking a $100 phone and not a $500 one.
hrmmmn.
i'm really just trying to budget.
and, i need to be clear: i'm going to wipe this thing down anyways.
https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/65781/repartitioning-internal-memory-of-android-device
this is what i'm looking for - and it seems to be obscure.
it's actually a good link because it both explains how to do it and has a response from somebody pointing out that the card will eventually die from write access. while this is true, it is also rather alarmist - the hard drive will eventually die from access, anyways. on top of that, if you have something like 1 gb of ram and 8 gb of internal storage, you can split the swap partition off repeatedly as the drive slowly dies, moving more and more of your internal storage to sd. in the end, you should even be able to boot entirely from sd. but, you'll probably just get a new phone, as it will be five years later and the phone you would have spent $500 on is now $100.
plus, i'd be hacking a $100 phone and not a $500 one.
hrmmmn.
i'm really just trying to budget.
and, i need to be clear: i'm going to wipe this thing down anyways.
https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/65781/repartitioning-internal-memory-of-android-device
this article claims that hard drives are slower than ram, and that's true in your pc, but in your phone the hard drive is basically the same thing as the ram.
you should be able to do this in your phone, and it would be much faster than creating a swap file on an sd card.
https://www.linux.com/news/all-about-linux-swap-space
you should be able to do this in your phone, and it would be much faster than creating a swap file on an sd card.
https://www.linux.com/news/all-about-linux-swap-space
there's an app floating around that will let you use an sd card as a swap partition, but given that your internal drive is also flash memory, why wouldn't you just increase the size of your swap partition on the internal drive? or am i missing something? that's not a "readyboost", it's just a virtual page. meh.
i mean, it could be useful if you're in a pinch. but, it's not a replacement for real ram.
i mean, it could be useful if you're in a pinch. but, it's not a replacement for real ram.
i was really looking to keep it under $50. i'm not joking. but, the circumstances are a little different because i'm being sent such a sum....
i'm not buying anything with 512 mb of ram. it's 2017. the pc i bought in 1998 had 512 mb of ram. i think, anyways. that's just laughable.
i need to research how much ram a phone really needs to run video in a stable manner. but, given what i know about running youtube over html5, i'm going to guess around 2 gb should be about right.
another question: can i get something cheaper, buy ram separately and upgrade?
i'm not buying anything with 512 mb of ram. it's 2017. the pc i bought in 1998 had 512 mb of ram. i think, anyways. that's just laughable.
i need to research how much ram a phone really needs to run video in a stable manner. but, given what i know about running youtube over html5, i'm going to guess around 2 gb should be about right.
another question: can i get something cheaper, buy ram separately and upgrade?
it's kind of crazy that i'm just now looking at finally buying a smart phone, isn't it?
i know i want an unlocked android phone. i'm not going to be all that picky about it, though. i 'm more concerned about trying to hit a $50 price tag...
what i have right now is a voicemail over voip. you leave a message, i call you back. i was doing this over a pay phone until a few months ago, when google voice finally expanded to canada. now, i can make outgoing calls through gmail. i don't want my laptop ringing, so i haven't set up an incoming system into gmail (although i could...).
the reason i don't have a phone is that i don't want to pay a monthly service fee. so, if i'm getting an unlocked phone, i'll need to find a way to connect it over voip. the mailbox i'm using is $0.99/month. but, google voice is even better than that. the catch is that i need an existing number to set it up with. i should hopefully be able to use the voip mailbox to do that, thereby allowing me free phone access in the presence of a wifi network. but, i may ask my grandmother to use her number, if i have to. i can be sure that she doesn't want a google voice number :)
this is a relatively new option. as mentioned, google voice has only been available in canada for a few months. but, it's the last piece of the puzzle i was looking for. i mean, i've been waiting for this forever; i've been sort of avoiding it because i don't need it, but i've also been scheming this up for a good five or six years. the really key piece of technology i needed was roaming wifi, which started becoming more common around 2015. so, as much as i'm behind the loop on getting a cell phone, i'm also bleeding edge on how i'm going to actually use it.
the way that most people use their phones is that they're connected to the towers at all times. cell users will eventually move beyond their towers and into the territory of new towers. this is called 'roaming', and cell users know this is expensive.
i'm going to be using the phone entirely over wifi. when i'm at home, i'll connect to the wifi in my router. but, when i'm out and about i'll be looking to connect to wifis wherever i can - that is, i'll be roaming over wifi. and i need that technology to work in order to have a functioning cell phone.
it's really the same thing as roaming between towers, except that i'm now roaming between access points. and, i'm lucky, because i live in a city that has free wifi in the downtown core, which is where i spend most of my time.
there's also the issue of crossing the border. canadian cell providers simply don't provide access in detroit. it's stupid, but it's true. i've talked to people that can't get access from the bus station, which is literally steps from the border. but, with a roaming wifi connection, i can get around that by tapping into the wifi at the renaissance centre. nobody needs to know where i'm from or where i'm going.
the way this will work as i'm walking through detroit is that i'll stay connected by jumping from access point to access point. and, the more fully that the city gets covered, the more complete coverage i'll end up with. that level of coverage probably already exists in manhatten and los angeles.
so, this is actually a long time in the making: free roaming internet phone. and, the cell providers can fuck off if they don't like it.
i know i want an unlocked android phone. i'm not going to be all that picky about it, though. i 'm more concerned about trying to hit a $50 price tag...
what i have right now is a voicemail over voip. you leave a message, i call you back. i was doing this over a pay phone until a few months ago, when google voice finally expanded to canada. now, i can make outgoing calls through gmail. i don't want my laptop ringing, so i haven't set up an incoming system into gmail (although i could...).
the reason i don't have a phone is that i don't want to pay a monthly service fee. so, if i'm getting an unlocked phone, i'll need to find a way to connect it over voip. the mailbox i'm using is $0.99/month. but, google voice is even better than that. the catch is that i need an existing number to set it up with. i should hopefully be able to use the voip mailbox to do that, thereby allowing me free phone access in the presence of a wifi network. but, i may ask my grandmother to use her number, if i have to. i can be sure that she doesn't want a google voice number :)
this is a relatively new option. as mentioned, google voice has only been available in canada for a few months. but, it's the last piece of the puzzle i was looking for. i mean, i've been waiting for this forever; i've been sort of avoiding it because i don't need it, but i've also been scheming this up for a good five or six years. the really key piece of technology i needed was roaming wifi, which started becoming more common around 2015. so, as much as i'm behind the loop on getting a cell phone, i'm also bleeding edge on how i'm going to actually use it.
the way that most people use their phones is that they're connected to the towers at all times. cell users will eventually move beyond their towers and into the territory of new towers. this is called 'roaming', and cell users know this is expensive.
i'm going to be using the phone entirely over wifi. when i'm at home, i'll connect to the wifi in my router. but, when i'm out and about i'll be looking to connect to wifis wherever i can - that is, i'll be roaming over wifi. and i need that technology to work in order to have a functioning cell phone.
it's really the same thing as roaming between towers, except that i'm now roaming between access points. and, i'm lucky, because i live in a city that has free wifi in the downtown core, which is where i spend most of my time.
there's also the issue of crossing the border. canadian cell providers simply don't provide access in detroit. it's stupid, but it's true. i've talked to people that can't get access from the bus station, which is literally steps from the border. but, with a roaming wifi connection, i can get around that by tapping into the wifi at the renaissance centre. nobody needs to know where i'm from or where i'm going.
the way this will work as i'm walking through detroit is that i'll stay connected by jumping from access point to access point. and, the more fully that the city gets covered, the more complete coverage i'll end up with. that level of coverage probably already exists in manhatten and los angeles.
so, this is actually a long time in the making: free roaming internet phone. and, the cell providers can fuck off if they don't like it.
i saw this coming miles away...
the democrats are trying to position themselves as the saviours of obamacare. like everything else, what they're doing is restricting the spectrum: you can have obamacare (the heritage institute plan is on the left in this restricted spectrum) or you can have a free market (which is the right). that's the spectrum.
but, it's a shell game, anyways, because the democrats brought in obamacare in order to sabotage single-payer in the first place, in collusion with the republicans, who are in the employ of crony capitalists that don't want a free market, anyways.
the reality is that healthcare in the united states is a bipartisan consensus around the aca, and it's not going to be modified by anybody for decades.
the democrats are the face of obamacare and will be for years into the future. it's not some accident. if you want single payer, you'll need to put a different party in office.
the democrats are trying to position themselves as the saviours of obamacare. like everything else, what they're doing is restricting the spectrum: you can have obamacare (the heritage institute plan is on the left in this restricted spectrum) or you can have a free market (which is the right). that's the spectrum.
but, it's a shell game, anyways, because the democrats brought in obamacare in order to sabotage single-payer in the first place, in collusion with the republicans, who are in the employ of crony capitalists that don't want a free market, anyways.
the reality is that healthcare in the united states is a bipartisan consensus around the aca, and it's not going to be modified by anybody for decades.
the democrats are the face of obamacare and will be for years into the future. it's not some accident. if you want single payer, you'll need to put a different party in office.
i talk a lot about religion as a tool of control, wielded by the elite to keep a compliant population in line. this holds true whether under feudalism, capitalism or whatever other kind of top-down hierarchical arrangement that the elite has put in place in any specific geographical area.
...but, there are times when that control is altruistic. really.
this is what syria needs right now: to heal.
we can get back to debunking the bullshit tomorrow.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-assad-idUSKBN19G06K
...but, there are times when that control is altruistic. really.
this is what syria needs right now: to heal.
we can get back to debunking the bullshit tomorrow.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-assad-idUSKBN19G06K
i need to post a correction.
in my banner, i have an obama-trump face meld. but, obama and clinton did have their differences, and it seems like trump is putting in place the changes clinton would have proposed, rather than carrying on with obama's legacy.
this is consequently the more correct face meld, and i will be updating my media to reflect it.
in my banner, i have an obama-trump face meld. but, obama and clinton did have their differences, and it seems like trump is putting in place the changes clinton would have proposed, rather than carrying on with obama's legacy.
this is consequently the more correct face meld, and i will be updating my media to reflect it.
Saturday, June 24, 2017
May 24, 2016 11:09 am
T Fletcher • a year ago
Jill Stein and the Greens have a fantastic shot at getting my vote depending on how things unfold.
And remember that the Movement is much more about transforming your everyday lives and your communities than it is about voting for president.
RRuin T Fletcher • a year ago
The President nominates the justices on the Supreme Court. If you don't think that will impact your communities than you're fooling yourself. This is not an intellectual exercise. It has real consequences. All a vote for Jill Stein will do is increase the possibility of a President Trump and a right wing Supreme Court. Then let us see if you still think the vote for President has no impact.
deathtokoalas RRuin • a year ago
i'm not convinced that clinton's picks will be less right-wing than trump's. i mean, we're talking about somebody that rejected gay marriage to the very last moment, wants a constitutional restriction on access to abortion, has supported trade deals with secret tribunals, supports mass deportation and has stood up for corporate hegemony at every possible opportunity. if you let clinton shape the supreme court, she will put it on a rightward path that will not be reversible for another generation.
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal?tsk=adminpreview
May 24, 2016 1:01 pm
RRuin • a year ago
Jill Stein has no more serious qualifications to be POTUS than Donald Trump. The Presidency is NOT an entry level position. Sure, disgruntled Bernie followers can vote for Stein and help elect Donald Trump. No, this isn't about a lesser of two evils either. This is about a bigot, Trump, running against Hillary Clinton who is one of the most experienced and qualified candidates to run for the Presidency. It's all swell to give these academic holier than thou lectures about our democracy. But this is the real world where a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. That is reality.If nothing else remember the future of the Supreme Court is up for grabs. Think long and hard before casting a protest vote.
Carls Pen RRuin • a year ago
You're right, just look what happened in the 2000 election and see how well that worked out. If the people in this country would take the time to really understand our history they might stop making the same stupid mistakes over and over again.
loebner Carls Pen • a year ago
let's explain for those to young
Ralph Nader ran as a liberal third party candidate vs Gore and Bush, thus ensuring Bush's victory.
Nader's followers kept saying "there's no difference between Gore and Bush."
Fools
deathtokoalas loebner • a year ago
i still don't think there would have been any difference between gore and bush except in public perception. so, when gore invaded iraq, he wouldn't have generated the same kind of protests.
loebner deathtokoalas • a year ago
No, no, no dtk. There is a world of difference between Gore and Bush. We *know* that Bush invaded Iraq. We don't *know* that Gore would have invaded. Why did Bush invade? Oil. You are aware, I presume, that the only ministry protected was oil? And that VP Cheney was CEO of Hallibuton. Gore would not have had the oil interests pushing for invasion.
And of course Bush is lauded for his concern for the environment. (sarcasm)
deathtokoalas loebner • a year ago
well, we know that gore supported the sanctions under the clinton regime, and no doubt thought that the price of hundreds of thousands of dead children was worth it. your argument that gore was less beholden to oil interests is simply not upheld by any evidence.
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal?tsk=adminpreview
May 24, 2016 5:09 pm
Tariq Shakoor • a year ago
I think Jill Stein's invitation to Bernie supporters (I am one) is a significant one and has immense future possibilities for a viable third party in this country. I'm all for it---just not in this particular election cycle. Why? Because the one thing this otherwise excellent article did not touch on was the surrendering of the Supreme Court and at least one or two appointments in the next few years. If Trump wins this election, we already know what he will do---"appoint a judge like Scalia." Okay? You can't be more clear than that. Hillary for all her warts and issues will never make such a disastrous appointment. Why? She has a constituency that would literally drag her ass out of the White House if she did make that type of appointment. She may be a lot of things---but, stupid is not one of them. The Supreme Court appointments are not small factor to consider when you look at all the possible issues the left holds dear all of a sudden become DOA. So, I do not hold the same opinion that both Trump and Hillary would be equally bad for this country---that is only true in some areas---not all, and especially the social programs that we support. Roe v. Wade, LGBT rights, Obamacare/Single Payer Healthcare, Voting Rights, Social Security, Public Education, Consumer rights, wage equality for women, and so much more. It's easy to say she is a war hawk and should not serve----but, do you actually think Trump is going to be able to be the isolationist he wants to be without losing massive support from his base and the GOP establishment? No, if they want war--there will be a war, and he won't be able to stop them. So, let's look beyond the issue that they both will be on the same page about ultimately. I feel our support for all the other programs are more important and more realistic to bring us together.
Plato Tariq Shakoor • a year ago
Honduras death squads? Haiti, invasion and repression? Libya, wealthiest country in Africa bombed to the stone age and Hillary Clinton gloating that ISIS with U.S. support tortured and murdered the president? Funding, arming and importing terrorists to Syria? From destroying Yugoslavia to the extermination of the native population of Palestine, Hillary Clinton never saw a bloodbath she didn't love.
MPEG1982 Plato • a year ago
You didn't actually address Tariq's point. Several Republicans appointed to the bench could be a serious disaster for this country, arguably more so than any war. Look at the impact of decisions like Citizen's United.
Clinton has done some horrid things, but at least she won't hand over the Supreme Court.
deathtokoalas MPEG1982 • a year ago
but, it simply doesn't make sense to vote for clinton if you're trying to keep the right off the bench.
if it's trump v. clinton, the issue is already decided: the right keeps the court for another generation.
this boat has sailed.
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal?tsk=adminpreview
May 24, 2016 7:06 pm
sorry, just to be clear: sanctions are an act of war. they imply the intent for war. and, in context, they were preparation for an eventual invasion. the fact that gore actively and belligerently supported the sanctions, the no-fly zone and everything else indicates pretty clearly that he was on the side of invasion and would have either done it on his watch or set it up nicely for the next president to do it.
the fact that he was out of the senate at the time robs us of absolute proof. but, we know who was in the senate, and how she voted. gore's logic may have differed mildly from bush', but he would not have made a different decision than clinton did.
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal?tsk=adminpreview
May 24, 2016 7:16 pm
and, i'm going to post a sobering link to some comments gore made in 2002.
"So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster." - al gore on the iraq war, 2002
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/02/gore-f20.html
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal?tsk=adminpreview
june 12, 2016 9:09 pm
Tippi • a year ago
Or he could just become a Democrat - an actual one, not just someone who thought running as an independent wouldn't him get enough attention.
deathtokoalas Tippi • a year ago
i'd rather see him split the democrats in half. two-party spectrums are really one-party oligarchies. a third party is necessary to save the country's democratic institutions from lapsing into a nepotistic cesspool, to be sold to the highest bidder.
ipolitics.ca/2016/06/11/clinton-owes-sanders-a-dignified-exit/
june 13, 2016 4:44 am
this is a canadian site, so i can speak in more plain terms that will be better understood.
obama v clinton was like ignatieff v rae. they had different hair. they were otherwise identical candidates that represented identical interests. they were clearly of the same party.
trying to get sanders and clinton to work together is more like trying to build a coalition between the liberals and the ndp. they may both hate trump. but, there's major hurdles to overcome. and, at the end of the day, it's something that ultimately simply just doesn't make sense.
there ought to be a lot of haggling between now and july, but i frankly don't think that clinton is even going to grant him an audience beyond some initial pleasantries. he's not going to get a thing from her. so, i'm hoping that sanders marches his supporters to stein - because it's now too late for him to get on the ballot in most states.
i mean, if you want to argue that you should vote liberal to stop harper, you're going to get quite a bit of sympathy. but, you're going to get quite a bit of push back, too. worse, the reality is that the american spectrum has become so skewed that clinton is really running well to the right of harper - she's so far to the right that she wouldn't even get nominated in this country. she's got kagan and kristol and kissinger endorsing her. so, there *has* to be some pull back to a more sane place on the spectrum.
in the end, trump might win. but, it's blatantly obvious to many, now, that there's no use in continuing to support the democrats in their current incarnation. if they can't be steered in a different direction, the party needs to collapse.
ipolitics.ca/2016/06/11/clinton-owes-sanders-a-dignified-exit/
june 28, 2016
hillary needs to make the choice about what side of the spectrum she wants to run on and then run on it aggressively.
if she decides to run as a conservative, and does it with conviction, then she can win some of these red states that everybody thinks are not in play - but she will probably destroy the democratic party's ability to appeal to the left for a generation or longer. is that already accomplished, anyways? i don't think she'll split the left in any meaningful way, because she'll cut too far into the right; if she loses 10% on her left, she'll gain 15% on the center-right. shouldn't tennessee be in play? kentucky? arkansas? that was her husband's map...
if she decides to run on the left, she'll have to concede some space on the right but with the aim of preventing a split. she'd be looking to emulate the obama map.
if i was working on her campaign, i would be a nihilist. i would be solely interested in power and reject ideology as simplistic modernist naivete. so, i would see these options as equally acceptable and judge them solely on their likelihood of success.
i would conclude she should run on the right, in an attempt to take advantage of conservative disillusionment with trump. she can offer a more credible conservative vision than he can. that's a big vacuum with a big reward. while she may lose support on her left, it is so unlikely to migrate to trump that it is not worth worrying about.
if she tries to hug the center, she will be unanimously rejected and lose.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/285110-polls-show-tight-clinton-trump-race-in-2016-battlegrounds
july 23, 2016 5:49 pm
Doug N Toni LeAnn Williams • a year ago
Carter caused huge inflation and unemployment. I agree with Bob that Republicans probably made a deal but I doubt Reagan was personally involved. After the huge inflation and unemployment Carter caused I'm glad the Republicans got him out.
deathtokoalas Doug N • a year ago
the inflation was a consequence of the oil embargo. it had nothing to do with carter, except in the sense that he was an ally of israel. the person you should be blaming is henry kissinger.
rick0857 deathtokoalas • a year ago
If that picture is your true picture YOU are not even OLD ENOUGH to know who jimmah Karter is, let alone comment on the history of the time. IF you know anything about it at all about that time, it was spoon fed to you by some MARXIST LEFTIST SCHOOL HOUSE/INDOCTRINATION CENTER with a definite leftward slant!
deathtokoalas rick0857 • 10 months ago
i actually don't have much of a rebuttal to this, other than to point out that the schools i've attended have been right-leaning, and i've sought marxist analyses on my own initiative.
what i'm presenting, though, is a very centrist keynesian/liberal analysis, and not a marxist one.
Martha Bartha deathtokoalas • a year ago
Proper names should be Capitalized.
deathtokoalas Martha Bartha • 10 months ago
but, i'm an anti-capitalist.
Martha Bartha deathtokoalas • 10 months ago
Oh OK. Is that a thing?
deathtokoalas Martha Bartha • 10 months ago
i don't know if it's a thing. i know i've been an anti-capitalist, alphabetical egalitarian and general grammar anti-authoritarian since the 90s. one could say it's a running gag, at least.
Doug N deathtokoalas • a year ago
What did Henry Kissinger have to do with it or being an ally of Israel? I guess you'd blame being an ally of Israel on the terrorist attacks too. Nothing to do with Islam and Arab oil producers.
deathtokoalas Doug N • 10 months ago
assigning blame in complex situations is often foolhardy, and this is a good example of this. as i'm sure you know, however, the embargo was a consequence of us support for israeli policies. it does consequently follow that the architect of this us support shoulders a great deal of the responsibility for the embargo.
Doug N deathtokoalas • 10 months ago
You have a point about the reason not being Carter but I'll blame it on the ones who made it, the oil Muslims as there is nothing wrong with Israel being who and what it is.
deathtokoalas Doug N • 10 months ago
you'll notice that i'm assigning the majority of the blame to kissinger, not to the israeli state. i will agree that you can't fault israel for aggressively pursuing it's self-interest.
Doug N deathtokoalas • 10 months ago
However you assign blame I don't see wrong in US policy with Israel. I see wrong with the Islamic countries unprovoked continuous actions of attempted genocide and smearing of Israel. I don't see Kissinger at fault for good policy that benefits both countries.
deathtokoalas Doug N • 10 months ago
this is a moral argument, not a logical one. kissinger should have been able to see the consequences of his policies, and bears responsibility for them.
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/07/new-dnc-email-leak-is-the-final-nail-in-the-party.html
august 12, 2016 11:08 am
you can't understand this in a vacuum. first, the green party in canada was up until this point a very unstable coalition of conservatives, right-libertarians, primitivists and environmentalists. may herself is a "progressive conservative", which nowadays is a junior leadership branch of the liberal party. she claims bds is a distraction without acknowledging that the fact that she's pro-life is a hugely unnecessary issue on the canadian left and is massively restricting their ability to gain voters. i'd be rich if you gave me a quarter for every leftist i've met that has pointed to her pro-life stance as a reason they can't vote for her. on top of that, they tend to run these market fundamentalists that are clueless about the green party platform and think the answer is more property rights - ideas that are strongly on the libertarian right. the party has no choice but to collapse in one direction or another to grow.
as it turns out, the canadian left is currently in extreme flux. after running a campaign on balanced budgets, and then being triangulated by the center-right liberals as a consequence of it, the dominant soft-left party (the ndp) is in a freefall that it might not recover from. a year ago, a lot of people were suggesting that the liberal party was dead. but, the ndp seems to have stepped in front of the bullet. this influx of green party members is coming from leftists that are fed up with the ndp and looking for a new left that is tied less to union activism and more to environmental sustainability.
in order for these leftists to take over the party, they will need to push the libertarians out of it. there's no other way this can work. may is not one of them, but she will have to go with them.
but, what does bds have to do with the environment? quite a bit, actually. and i'd like to see this point raised more often....
why do we have to support israel, again, despite the human rights atrocities? the reason is that we need a reliable ally in the middle east. is israel a reliable ally? probably not. but, the perception is that it is. so, as long as we need that reliable ally, we're stuck turning the other way as they commit this genocide in slow motion.
but, why do we need this military base in the middle east? the reason is the reliance on middle eastern oil. if we can remove our reliance on imported energy, we no longer need that ally in the middle east - and we can react accordingly. pushing for a green shift to renewables is consequently the most realistic thing that we can do, as citizens, to stand in solidarity and help stop the slaughter.
it follows that opposition to bds is the same thing as support for the fossil fuel industry, and that the greens should at least not be opposing it.
forward.com/opinion/347396/why-canadas-green-party-leader-might-resign-over-bds/
august 17, 2016 10:11 pm
it was always intended to be a way to get people back and forth from the hockey arena, and little else.
https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2016/01/18/lets-be-honest-detroits-m-1-rail-is-shaping-up-to-be-a-streetcar-that-leaves-much-to-be-desired
sept 5, 2016 12:30 am
unworkable and simplistic?
i don't like this minister one bit...
rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/brent-patterson/2016/09/lasting-ramifications-tsilhqotin-decision-on-fish-farms-pipel
sept 5, 2016 1:38 am
she's right.
instead of telling her to shut up, you should just ignore her. that may mean getting up and walking away.
rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2016/09/unlearning-anti-black-racism-101-stop-canadiansplaining
dec 1, 2016 9:22 am
indeed. this article gives a lot away. the ndp are falling all over themselves to be indiscernible from the conservatives, and now the conservatives are realizing that they're running against themselves. i suppose this is a victory for capital. but, it's a sad day for alberta, and a sad day for dippers.
the way out of this is that you refrain from voting next time, let the conservatives back in and rebuild. that sends the message to the ndp that they can't hold their base if they're going to govern like conservatives.
Ian Coutts deathtokoalas • 7 months ago
Yeah. Doing something now that people have wanted done for years is the same as doing something bad, and having done nothing for years is the same as having done something good. Yeah. I follow that logic.
Please continue being sad. It's all you're capable of.
deathtokoalas Ian Coutts • 7 months ago
this is something that *conservatives* have wanted done for years, and leftists have fought at every turn - and will continue to fight against, whether these corporate dippers are on our side, or not.
Ian Coutts deathtokoalas • 7 months ago
"corporate dippers". Now that's a phrase I hadn't heard before. Sort of like socialist capitalists, and leftist rightists, and vegan meat-eaters. You're so smart you're an idiot.
deathtokoalas Ian Coutts • 7 months ago
obviously, the point is that the ndp are not socialists at all but crony capitalists like the rest of them. i'm sorry if you haven't caught on, yet.
Carpediem Ian Coutts • 7 months ago
No, they are the ones/Dippers that once they actually have to govern start showing they recognize the validity of business interests for the health of the society they are responsible for now. These are the ones the purity ponies find traitors and sell-outs nce they actually have to govern for all and not just speak to their own. Remember, context and perspective can be oh so relative and subjective, and that is what this is in my view.
\I've actually encountered the term before, and that seems to be what it comes down to. We see a stronger strain of it in the USA within the Democratic base as well, especially when you look at those within the Dem base who were Sanders core supporters (and I am defining this solely by his support within that party base, not the outsiders he also brought into his campaign from it) versus the rest of the party, but the dynamics are much the same.
Scotian
deathtokoalas Carpediem • 7 months ago
i'm not going to argue with you. i don't disagree with your analysis. sure: they got in power and started acting like corporatist swine. it's just not what i vote for when i vote ndp. if i wanted a party that "recognize(s) the validity of business interests for the health of the society", i would vote for the capitalist parties. and, my sole intent is pointing out that the ndp is exactly that: a capitalist party.
ipolitics.ca/2016/11/30/trudeau-notley-and-trans-mountain-in-your-face-mr-kenney/
dec 25, 2016 11:29 am
i think the key characteristic that differentiates reagan from trump is an ability to project a trustworthiness of character. trump's ideas about unpredictability have a basis in cold war game theory, but they rely on true unpredictability, not feigned terms of an already determined deal. where the russians could legitimately not predict reagan's intent with his arms buildup, they and the chinese should both be able to see through trump's arrangements - because trump's game is in actuality both rational and predictable.
so, i wouldn't hold much to reagan as a comparison.
i'd hold closer to nixon, myself.
Inigo deathtokoalas • 6 months ago
You think Trump will weaponize the IRS like Nixon and Barry did?
deathtokoalas Inigo • 6 months ago
i haven't had a discussion with an anti-tax nut in a while, actually. i meant more broadly than that, but i'm not suspecting that trump wants to talk to the irs much more than he has to, by law.
Inigo deathtokoalas • 6 months ago
Pro-tip: You're not supposed to drink the bong-water.
deathtokoalas Inigo • 6 months ago
not even on christmas? you gotta put the kids to sleep somehow, right, might as well have a taste....
www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-wallace-people-underestimated-reagan-they-might-be-doing-the-same-with-trump/
jan 3, 2017 8:51 am
personally, i think he should have been forced to spend the holidays working as a door-to-door shoveler for spare change. if i have to live in the winter, i demand that everybody else in the country does, too!
i'm consistent on this point, as well. i expect that everybody else in the world should experience every single one of my problems, and i have nothing but contempt and rage for those that have the nerve to avoid them.
when i see inequality in the world, and there is so much of it, i ALWAYS demand that the people with more accept less. the obvious solution to inequality is that we must all be miserable and poor. that's equality: forcing the rich to become poor.
signed,
average dipshit canadian taxpayer.
ipolitics.ca/2017/01/02/trudeau-vacationing-in-bahamas-pmo-says/
jan 3, 2017 8:54 am
(deleted)
deathtokoalas Guest • 6 months ago
actually, i think there's a long list of reasons to criticize trudeau: the pipeline approvals, the inaction on repealing c-51, the inaction on aboriginal issues. but, this? this is just fucking stupid.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas Guest • 6 months ago
no. this is fucking stupid.
ipolitics.ca/2017/01/02/trudeau-vacationing-in-bahamas-pmo-says/
jan 6, 2017 5:10 am
whether you agree with this particular charge or not, levant is long overdue to face some consequences for his dishonesty. i hope they ruin him.
ipolitics.ca/2017/01/05/levant-faces-libel-claim-for-comparing-activists-to-nazis/
jan 9, 2017 5:08 pm
the media has a hate on for dion, but he's popular in his riding and seems to legitimately enjoy being an mp. i don't recall a single media source even mentioning him for cabinet, and then he lands one of the most important roles. whether the media likes it or not, he's well respected in the party and likely to continue to play a prominent role. sending him to france may make the dipshits at ctv news happy, but i can't imagine the party even contemplating it.
i'm hoping they turf jim carr.
you'll notice that a lot of the speculation is around women. this is a real concern, in adjusting to trump instead of clinton, although i'm not sure how best to approach it. i would also suspect that they're going to need to avoid sending certain types of minorities to washington for the next couple of years. it's realpolitik. and, i'm sure everybody can agree that it's better than getting ignored. that might mean that harjit sajjan could be in for a new role.
freeland will do well wherever you put her. but, i actually think that the best way to approach a reanalysis of nafta is to send somebody a little more left-leaning. i don't think that the uncritically pro-trade rhetoric is accurate when applied to either trudeau or the liberals; remember that freeland is on the right wing of the party. if we're getting a chance to open this up, i'd rather they send somebody with a more skeptical approach towards trade to do it. but, is there anybody still around or are they all gone, now?
jplondon deathtokoalas • 5 months ago
'the (major) speculation around women' in this article mentions primarily one woman, and touts her for one of the top-two positions in cabinet (global affairs, the other being finance).
the article includes mention of ms hajdu; speculation elsewhere and in this article itself taps her for a promotion based on a compassionate and masterful handling of the file and excellent communications skills.
it further mentions two others, ms's monsef and mihychuk. ms monsef's difficulties communicating and engaging opposing points of view are well-known and simply cannot be ignored. in your scenario, ms mihychuk, whatever her difficulties (and i've not read of any), should be safe. like mr carr, the minister is from winnipeg, and dropping him would make her position iron-clad..
be careful what you wish for.
deathtokoalas jplondon • 5 months ago
actually, i would have greatly preferred for them to have dropped carr (who is the classic anti-labour industry representative) in favour of mihychuk, as she was the closest thing to a labour representative. the glaring lack of labour representation was one of the most obvious weaknesses of this government when it was sworn in. merely putting her in cabinet was never going to be enough; taking her out of cabinet sends the message that the government does not have the interests of working people in mind, and will continue to act solely in the interests of capital.
ipolitics.ca/2017/01/09/freelands-the-one-to-watch-in-trudeau-cabinet-shuffle/
jan 11, 2017 5:24 pm
see, the irony is that this is where the rhetoric is actually accurate: we can't choose between economic growth and labour rights. they're intricately tied together; if we ignore labour rights, we will not get meaningful growth.
https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/01/10/Trudeau-New-Man-China/
jan 29, 2017 10:27 pm
Jay Ross • 5 months ago
Ahhhh, I see how this is going to go. A damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
Silence implies agreement and complicity. Are all of us to remain silent at what is happening? Are we to remain silent while at least five Muslims are killed at their place of worship? In this country?!! In order to not ruffle the Orange ones feathers?!! I don't think so.
Trudeau made a statement yesterday that only the thinnest of skins could take the wrong way. He announced that Canada is a safe refuge for those fleeing war and terror. It's a stand he's taken ever since he started bringing Syrian refugees into this country.
I'm sure you've heard this saying Stephen. It's one that bears repeating during these times...
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
deathtokoalas Jay Ross • 5 months ago
are you going to quote edmund burke's views on human rights, or the french revolution, while you're at it?
i'm not getting involved with this...
ipolitics.ca/2017/01/29/trudeau-must-speak-for-canada/
feb 24, 2017 5:18 pm
Frank_inBC • 4 months ago
So much for walking a middle path or taking a centrist position, instead Trudeau moved further to the Right than Harper.
I bet even Harper didn't look at Site C, all the LNG plants and pipelines and think he could approve all of them.
bklsz#flp Frank_inBC • 4 months ago
....and that's good !
Frank_inBC bklsz#flp • 4 months ago
Good for you at least. I don't understand why Trudeau's polling numbers aren't higher at the expense of the Conservatives.
bklsz#flp Frank_inBC • 4 months ago
Well Frankie, sorry to clue you in on reality, but Junior garnered less that 40% of the popular vote in the last election and the Conservatives got a little over 32%. The dippers are back in their traditional third place with less than 20%
There are a lot more Conservatives around than you may like and by 2020 perhaps enough to retire the Liberals (with their mishandling of the economy) for another term or to.
That's my hope ]:-)
Frank_inBC bklsz#flp • 4 months ago
I think you missed my point, perhaps I worded it wrong. You are happy with at least some of Trudeau's policies so it stands to reason there are lots of other Conservatives who are too. Yet I don't see that showing up in polling.
In BC a lot of Conservative voters have gradually moved to the Liberals provincially and a bit less so federally.
deathtokoalas Frank_inBC • 4 months ago
the hard conservative base - about 30% of the population - doesn't care about mining, it votes on social issues like immigration and abortion. and, the liberals themselves seem incapable of grasping this.
bklsz#flp Frank_inBC • 4 months ago
The one and only thing I'm pleased about is the approval of Transmountain which contributes to the economic growth of the Canadian economy.
Everything else he's done just extracts wealth from the unborn thru deficits.
I'm focus entirely on what Junior is doing with for the nation and leaving poll trends for another day. Naval gazing by following polling numbers are for others.
Frank_inBC bklsz#flp • 4 months ago
Well he also approved Christy Clark's LNG dreams and other pipelines so although you might not be happy overall I would think at least some other Conservatives would be.
bklsz#flp Frank_inBC • 4 months ago
Thanks for pointing out the LNG approvals, it slipped my mind.
I'm a Conservative and indeed pleased with approval of these privately funded infrastructure projects.
deathtokoalas bklsz#flp • 4 months ago
yeah, but, you're going to vote on right-wing social issues at the end of the day, like you always do.
ipolitics.ca/2017/02/23/hes-a-liar-why-the-left-coast-may-be-writing-off-justin-trudeau/
feb 24, 2017 8:17 pm
Irene Wright • 4 months ago
Some of us are old enough to remember Tommy Douglas's excellent story
"Mouseland". In this story the mice voted regularly for either the Black Cats or the White Cats (representing for us the Liberals and the Conservatives) and always suffered as a result. One day a little mouse stood up in front of the other mice and said that they, being mice, should vote for a mouse. The cats, after all were just doing what cats do (reducing mouse hole sizes so that cats could get their paw in, and requiring the mice to run at a slower speed, etc.), I'll not tell you the end, but I'm sure you can find a version on the internet. For me, the Conservatives talk and act like conservatives while the Liberals talk like New Democrats and act like Conservatives when in power. There is an alternative. You can probably guess the one I prefer.
deathtokoalas Irene Wright • 4 months ago
but, what if the ndp are cats nowadays, too? orange tabby cats...
ipolitics.ca/2017/02/23/hes-a-liar-why-the-left-coast-may-be-writing-off-justin-trudeau/
june 12, 2017 10:50 pm
blair & casey seem to be consistent in their public intention to get c-45 bogged down in committee. now, there is a rumour that trudeau is going to prorogue parliament before it gets out of committee...
but, i have nothing negative to say about c-46. i understand what long time users are saying, but long time users are surely cognizant of the dangers of being lenient on short term users. the same thing is true of alcohol, of course. and, what happens on a dui? unless it's paired to something else, and if it's reasonably close to the limit, what happens is that you have to do some community service. shit, somebody's gotta pick up the garbage in your neighbourhood, right?
but, i think the real crux of the situation is that the fears are being overblown. here's the truth of it: the cops don't pull you over unless you're swerving, and if you're swerving you should get pulled over. i know, i know - all you old willie nelsons are claiming you're fine to drive your pickup after a pinner, but if you think that's true then you have the burden of proof to drive competently enough to not get stopped. and, you mostly *won't* get stopped, either. but, a clear-thinking person wants the cops to have the power to get that giggling 19 year-old off the road before he hurts somebody.
https://www.hilltimes.com/2017/05/23/house-to-debate-seismic-shift-federal-policy-canadian-society-impaired-driving-marijuana-bills-coming-days/107849
T Fletcher • a year ago
Jill Stein and the Greens have a fantastic shot at getting my vote depending on how things unfold.
And remember that the Movement is much more about transforming your everyday lives and your communities than it is about voting for president.
RRuin T Fletcher • a year ago
The President nominates the justices on the Supreme Court. If you don't think that will impact your communities than you're fooling yourself. This is not an intellectual exercise. It has real consequences. All a vote for Jill Stein will do is increase the possibility of a President Trump and a right wing Supreme Court. Then let us see if you still think the vote for President has no impact.
deathtokoalas RRuin • a year ago
i'm not convinced that clinton's picks will be less right-wing than trump's. i mean, we're talking about somebody that rejected gay marriage to the very last moment, wants a constitutional restriction on access to abortion, has supported trade deals with secret tribunals, supports mass deportation and has stood up for corporate hegemony at every possible opportunity. if you let clinton shape the supreme court, she will put it on a rightward path that will not be reversible for another generation.
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal?tsk=adminpreview
May 24, 2016 1:01 pm
RRuin • a year ago
Jill Stein has no more serious qualifications to be POTUS than Donald Trump. The Presidency is NOT an entry level position. Sure, disgruntled Bernie followers can vote for Stein and help elect Donald Trump. No, this isn't about a lesser of two evils either. This is about a bigot, Trump, running against Hillary Clinton who is one of the most experienced and qualified candidates to run for the Presidency. It's all swell to give these academic holier than thou lectures about our democracy. But this is the real world where a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. That is reality.If nothing else remember the future of the Supreme Court is up for grabs. Think long and hard before casting a protest vote.
Carls Pen RRuin • a year ago
You're right, just look what happened in the 2000 election and see how well that worked out. If the people in this country would take the time to really understand our history they might stop making the same stupid mistakes over and over again.
loebner Carls Pen • a year ago
let's explain for those to young
Ralph Nader ran as a liberal third party candidate vs Gore and Bush, thus ensuring Bush's victory.
Nader's followers kept saying "there's no difference between Gore and Bush."
Fools
deathtokoalas loebner • a year ago
i still don't think there would have been any difference between gore and bush except in public perception. so, when gore invaded iraq, he wouldn't have generated the same kind of protests.
loebner deathtokoalas • a year ago
No, no, no dtk. There is a world of difference between Gore and Bush. We *know* that Bush invaded Iraq. We don't *know* that Gore would have invaded. Why did Bush invade? Oil. You are aware, I presume, that the only ministry protected was oil? And that VP Cheney was CEO of Hallibuton. Gore would not have had the oil interests pushing for invasion.
And of course Bush is lauded for his concern for the environment. (sarcasm)
deathtokoalas loebner • a year ago
well, we know that gore supported the sanctions under the clinton regime, and no doubt thought that the price of hundreds of thousands of dead children was worth it. your argument that gore was less beholden to oil interests is simply not upheld by any evidence.
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal?tsk=adminpreview
May 24, 2016 5:09 pm
Tariq Shakoor • a year ago
I think Jill Stein's invitation to Bernie supporters (I am one) is a significant one and has immense future possibilities for a viable third party in this country. I'm all for it---just not in this particular election cycle. Why? Because the one thing this otherwise excellent article did not touch on was the surrendering of the Supreme Court and at least one or two appointments in the next few years. If Trump wins this election, we already know what he will do---"appoint a judge like Scalia." Okay? You can't be more clear than that. Hillary for all her warts and issues will never make such a disastrous appointment. Why? She has a constituency that would literally drag her ass out of the White House if she did make that type of appointment. She may be a lot of things---but, stupid is not one of them. The Supreme Court appointments are not small factor to consider when you look at all the possible issues the left holds dear all of a sudden become DOA. So, I do not hold the same opinion that both Trump and Hillary would be equally bad for this country---that is only true in some areas---not all, and especially the social programs that we support. Roe v. Wade, LGBT rights, Obamacare/Single Payer Healthcare, Voting Rights, Social Security, Public Education, Consumer rights, wage equality for women, and so much more. It's easy to say she is a war hawk and should not serve----but, do you actually think Trump is going to be able to be the isolationist he wants to be without losing massive support from his base and the GOP establishment? No, if they want war--there will be a war, and he won't be able to stop them. So, let's look beyond the issue that they both will be on the same page about ultimately. I feel our support for all the other programs are more important and more realistic to bring us together.
Plato Tariq Shakoor • a year ago
Honduras death squads? Haiti, invasion and repression? Libya, wealthiest country in Africa bombed to the stone age and Hillary Clinton gloating that ISIS with U.S. support tortured and murdered the president? Funding, arming and importing terrorists to Syria? From destroying Yugoslavia to the extermination of the native population of Palestine, Hillary Clinton never saw a bloodbath she didn't love.
MPEG1982 Plato • a year ago
You didn't actually address Tariq's point. Several Republicans appointed to the bench could be a serious disaster for this country, arguably more so than any war. Look at the impact of decisions like Citizen's United.
Clinton has done some horrid things, but at least she won't hand over the Supreme Court.
deathtokoalas MPEG1982 • a year ago
but, it simply doesn't make sense to vote for clinton if you're trying to keep the right off the bench.
if it's trump v. clinton, the issue is already decided: the right keeps the court for another generation.
this boat has sailed.
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal?tsk=adminpreview
May 24, 2016 7:06 pm
sorry, just to be clear: sanctions are an act of war. they imply the intent for war. and, in context, they were preparation for an eventual invasion. the fact that gore actively and belligerently supported the sanctions, the no-fly zone and everything else indicates pretty clearly that he was on the side of invasion and would have either done it on his watch or set it up nicely for the next president to do it.
the fact that he was out of the senate at the time robs us of absolute proof. but, we know who was in the senate, and how she voted. gore's logic may have differed mildly from bush', but he would not have made a different decision than clinton did.
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal?tsk=adminpreview
May 24, 2016 7:16 pm
and, i'm going to post a sobering link to some comments gore made in 2002.
"So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster." - al gore on the iraq war, 2002
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/02/gore-f20.html
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal?tsk=adminpreview
june 12, 2016 9:09 pm
Tippi • a year ago
Or he could just become a Democrat - an actual one, not just someone who thought running as an independent wouldn't him get enough attention.
deathtokoalas Tippi • a year ago
i'd rather see him split the democrats in half. two-party spectrums are really one-party oligarchies. a third party is necessary to save the country's democratic institutions from lapsing into a nepotistic cesspool, to be sold to the highest bidder.
ipolitics.ca/2016/06/11/clinton-owes-sanders-a-dignified-exit/
june 13, 2016 4:44 am
this is a canadian site, so i can speak in more plain terms that will be better understood.
obama v clinton was like ignatieff v rae. they had different hair. they were otherwise identical candidates that represented identical interests. they were clearly of the same party.
trying to get sanders and clinton to work together is more like trying to build a coalition between the liberals and the ndp. they may both hate trump. but, there's major hurdles to overcome. and, at the end of the day, it's something that ultimately simply just doesn't make sense.
there ought to be a lot of haggling between now and july, but i frankly don't think that clinton is even going to grant him an audience beyond some initial pleasantries. he's not going to get a thing from her. so, i'm hoping that sanders marches his supporters to stein - because it's now too late for him to get on the ballot in most states.
i mean, if you want to argue that you should vote liberal to stop harper, you're going to get quite a bit of sympathy. but, you're going to get quite a bit of push back, too. worse, the reality is that the american spectrum has become so skewed that clinton is really running well to the right of harper - she's so far to the right that she wouldn't even get nominated in this country. she's got kagan and kristol and kissinger endorsing her. so, there *has* to be some pull back to a more sane place on the spectrum.
in the end, trump might win. but, it's blatantly obvious to many, now, that there's no use in continuing to support the democrats in their current incarnation. if they can't be steered in a different direction, the party needs to collapse.
ipolitics.ca/2016/06/11/clinton-owes-sanders-a-dignified-exit/
june 28, 2016
hillary needs to make the choice about what side of the spectrum she wants to run on and then run on it aggressively.
if she decides to run as a conservative, and does it with conviction, then she can win some of these red states that everybody thinks are not in play - but she will probably destroy the democratic party's ability to appeal to the left for a generation or longer. is that already accomplished, anyways? i don't think she'll split the left in any meaningful way, because she'll cut too far into the right; if she loses 10% on her left, she'll gain 15% on the center-right. shouldn't tennessee be in play? kentucky? arkansas? that was her husband's map...
if she decides to run on the left, she'll have to concede some space on the right but with the aim of preventing a split. she'd be looking to emulate the obama map.
if i was working on her campaign, i would be a nihilist. i would be solely interested in power and reject ideology as simplistic modernist naivete. so, i would see these options as equally acceptable and judge them solely on their likelihood of success.
i would conclude she should run on the right, in an attempt to take advantage of conservative disillusionment with trump. she can offer a more credible conservative vision than he can. that's a big vacuum with a big reward. while she may lose support on her left, it is so unlikely to migrate to trump that it is not worth worrying about.
if she tries to hug the center, she will be unanimously rejected and lose.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/285110-polls-show-tight-clinton-trump-race-in-2016-battlegrounds
july 23, 2016 5:49 pm
Doug N Toni LeAnn Williams • a year ago
Carter caused huge inflation and unemployment. I agree with Bob that Republicans probably made a deal but I doubt Reagan was personally involved. After the huge inflation and unemployment Carter caused I'm glad the Republicans got him out.
deathtokoalas Doug N • a year ago
the inflation was a consequence of the oil embargo. it had nothing to do with carter, except in the sense that he was an ally of israel. the person you should be blaming is henry kissinger.
rick0857 deathtokoalas • a year ago
If that picture is your true picture YOU are not even OLD ENOUGH to know who jimmah Karter is, let alone comment on the history of the time. IF you know anything about it at all about that time, it was spoon fed to you by some MARXIST LEFTIST SCHOOL HOUSE/INDOCTRINATION CENTER with a definite leftward slant!
deathtokoalas rick0857 • 10 months ago
i actually don't have much of a rebuttal to this, other than to point out that the schools i've attended have been right-leaning, and i've sought marxist analyses on my own initiative.
what i'm presenting, though, is a very centrist keynesian/liberal analysis, and not a marxist one.
Martha Bartha deathtokoalas • a year ago
Proper names should be Capitalized.
deathtokoalas Martha Bartha • 10 months ago
but, i'm an anti-capitalist.
Martha Bartha deathtokoalas • 10 months ago
Oh OK. Is that a thing?
deathtokoalas Martha Bartha • 10 months ago
i don't know if it's a thing. i know i've been an anti-capitalist, alphabetical egalitarian and general grammar anti-authoritarian since the 90s. one could say it's a running gag, at least.
Doug N deathtokoalas • a year ago
What did Henry Kissinger have to do with it or being an ally of Israel? I guess you'd blame being an ally of Israel on the terrorist attacks too. Nothing to do with Islam and Arab oil producers.
deathtokoalas Doug N • 10 months ago
assigning blame in complex situations is often foolhardy, and this is a good example of this. as i'm sure you know, however, the embargo was a consequence of us support for israeli policies. it does consequently follow that the architect of this us support shoulders a great deal of the responsibility for the embargo.
Doug N deathtokoalas • 10 months ago
You have a point about the reason not being Carter but I'll blame it on the ones who made it, the oil Muslims as there is nothing wrong with Israel being who and what it is.
deathtokoalas Doug N • 10 months ago
you'll notice that i'm assigning the majority of the blame to kissinger, not to the israeli state. i will agree that you can't fault israel for aggressively pursuing it's self-interest.
Doug N deathtokoalas • 10 months ago
However you assign blame I don't see wrong in US policy with Israel. I see wrong with the Islamic countries unprovoked continuous actions of attempted genocide and smearing of Israel. I don't see Kissinger at fault for good policy that benefits both countries.
deathtokoalas Doug N • 10 months ago
this is a moral argument, not a logical one. kissinger should have been able to see the consequences of his policies, and bears responsibility for them.
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/07/new-dnc-email-leak-is-the-final-nail-in-the-party.html
august 12, 2016 11:08 am
you can't understand this in a vacuum. first, the green party in canada was up until this point a very unstable coalition of conservatives, right-libertarians, primitivists and environmentalists. may herself is a "progressive conservative", which nowadays is a junior leadership branch of the liberal party. she claims bds is a distraction without acknowledging that the fact that she's pro-life is a hugely unnecessary issue on the canadian left and is massively restricting their ability to gain voters. i'd be rich if you gave me a quarter for every leftist i've met that has pointed to her pro-life stance as a reason they can't vote for her. on top of that, they tend to run these market fundamentalists that are clueless about the green party platform and think the answer is more property rights - ideas that are strongly on the libertarian right. the party has no choice but to collapse in one direction or another to grow.
as it turns out, the canadian left is currently in extreme flux. after running a campaign on balanced budgets, and then being triangulated by the center-right liberals as a consequence of it, the dominant soft-left party (the ndp) is in a freefall that it might not recover from. a year ago, a lot of people were suggesting that the liberal party was dead. but, the ndp seems to have stepped in front of the bullet. this influx of green party members is coming from leftists that are fed up with the ndp and looking for a new left that is tied less to union activism and more to environmental sustainability.
in order for these leftists to take over the party, they will need to push the libertarians out of it. there's no other way this can work. may is not one of them, but she will have to go with them.
but, what does bds have to do with the environment? quite a bit, actually. and i'd like to see this point raised more often....
why do we have to support israel, again, despite the human rights atrocities? the reason is that we need a reliable ally in the middle east. is israel a reliable ally? probably not. but, the perception is that it is. so, as long as we need that reliable ally, we're stuck turning the other way as they commit this genocide in slow motion.
but, why do we need this military base in the middle east? the reason is the reliance on middle eastern oil. if we can remove our reliance on imported energy, we no longer need that ally in the middle east - and we can react accordingly. pushing for a green shift to renewables is consequently the most realistic thing that we can do, as citizens, to stand in solidarity and help stop the slaughter.
it follows that opposition to bds is the same thing as support for the fossil fuel industry, and that the greens should at least not be opposing it.
forward.com/opinion/347396/why-canadas-green-party-leader-might-resign-over-bds/
august 17, 2016 10:11 pm
it was always intended to be a way to get people back and forth from the hockey arena, and little else.
https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2016/01/18/lets-be-honest-detroits-m-1-rail-is-shaping-up-to-be-a-streetcar-that-leaves-much-to-be-desired
sept 5, 2016 12:30 am
unworkable and simplistic?
i don't like this minister one bit...
rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/brent-patterson/2016/09/lasting-ramifications-tsilhqotin-decision-on-fish-farms-pipel
sept 5, 2016 1:38 am
she's right.
instead of telling her to shut up, you should just ignore her. that may mean getting up and walking away.
rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2016/09/unlearning-anti-black-racism-101-stop-canadiansplaining
dec 1, 2016 9:22 am
indeed. this article gives a lot away. the ndp are falling all over themselves to be indiscernible from the conservatives, and now the conservatives are realizing that they're running against themselves. i suppose this is a victory for capital. but, it's a sad day for alberta, and a sad day for dippers.
the way out of this is that you refrain from voting next time, let the conservatives back in and rebuild. that sends the message to the ndp that they can't hold their base if they're going to govern like conservatives.
Ian Coutts deathtokoalas • 7 months ago
Yeah. Doing something now that people have wanted done for years is the same as doing something bad, and having done nothing for years is the same as having done something good. Yeah. I follow that logic.
Please continue being sad. It's all you're capable of.
deathtokoalas Ian Coutts • 7 months ago
this is something that *conservatives* have wanted done for years, and leftists have fought at every turn - and will continue to fight against, whether these corporate dippers are on our side, or not.
Ian Coutts deathtokoalas • 7 months ago
"corporate dippers". Now that's a phrase I hadn't heard before. Sort of like socialist capitalists, and leftist rightists, and vegan meat-eaters. You're so smart you're an idiot.
deathtokoalas Ian Coutts • 7 months ago
obviously, the point is that the ndp are not socialists at all but crony capitalists like the rest of them. i'm sorry if you haven't caught on, yet.
Carpediem Ian Coutts • 7 months ago
No, they are the ones/Dippers that once they actually have to govern start showing they recognize the validity of business interests for the health of the society they are responsible for now. These are the ones the purity ponies find traitors and sell-outs nce they actually have to govern for all and not just speak to their own. Remember, context and perspective can be oh so relative and subjective, and that is what this is in my view.
\I've actually encountered the term before, and that seems to be what it comes down to. We see a stronger strain of it in the USA within the Democratic base as well, especially when you look at those within the Dem base who were Sanders core supporters (and I am defining this solely by his support within that party base, not the outsiders he also brought into his campaign from it) versus the rest of the party, but the dynamics are much the same.
Scotian
deathtokoalas Carpediem • 7 months ago
i'm not going to argue with you. i don't disagree with your analysis. sure: they got in power and started acting like corporatist swine. it's just not what i vote for when i vote ndp. if i wanted a party that "recognize(s) the validity of business interests for the health of the society", i would vote for the capitalist parties. and, my sole intent is pointing out that the ndp is exactly that: a capitalist party.
ipolitics.ca/2016/11/30/trudeau-notley-and-trans-mountain-in-your-face-mr-kenney/
dec 25, 2016 11:29 am
i think the key characteristic that differentiates reagan from trump is an ability to project a trustworthiness of character. trump's ideas about unpredictability have a basis in cold war game theory, but they rely on true unpredictability, not feigned terms of an already determined deal. where the russians could legitimately not predict reagan's intent with his arms buildup, they and the chinese should both be able to see through trump's arrangements - because trump's game is in actuality both rational and predictable.
so, i wouldn't hold much to reagan as a comparison.
i'd hold closer to nixon, myself.
Inigo deathtokoalas • 6 months ago
You think Trump will weaponize the IRS like Nixon and Barry did?
deathtokoalas Inigo • 6 months ago
i haven't had a discussion with an anti-tax nut in a while, actually. i meant more broadly than that, but i'm not suspecting that trump wants to talk to the irs much more than he has to, by law.
Inigo deathtokoalas • 6 months ago
Pro-tip: You're not supposed to drink the bong-water.
deathtokoalas Inigo • 6 months ago
not even on christmas? you gotta put the kids to sleep somehow, right, might as well have a taste....
www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-wallace-people-underestimated-reagan-they-might-be-doing-the-same-with-trump/
jan 3, 2017 8:51 am
personally, i think he should have been forced to spend the holidays working as a door-to-door shoveler for spare change. if i have to live in the winter, i demand that everybody else in the country does, too!
i'm consistent on this point, as well. i expect that everybody else in the world should experience every single one of my problems, and i have nothing but contempt and rage for those that have the nerve to avoid them.
when i see inequality in the world, and there is so much of it, i ALWAYS demand that the people with more accept less. the obvious solution to inequality is that we must all be miserable and poor. that's equality: forcing the rich to become poor.
signed,
average dipshit canadian taxpayer.
ipolitics.ca/2017/01/02/trudeau-vacationing-in-bahamas-pmo-says/
jan 3, 2017 8:54 am
(deleted)
deathtokoalas Guest • 6 months ago
actually, i think there's a long list of reasons to criticize trudeau: the pipeline approvals, the inaction on repealing c-51, the inaction on aboriginal issues. but, this? this is just fucking stupid.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas Guest • 6 months ago
no. this is fucking stupid.
ipolitics.ca/2017/01/02/trudeau-vacationing-in-bahamas-pmo-says/
jan 6, 2017 5:10 am
whether you agree with this particular charge or not, levant is long overdue to face some consequences for his dishonesty. i hope they ruin him.
ipolitics.ca/2017/01/05/levant-faces-libel-claim-for-comparing-activists-to-nazis/
jan 9, 2017 5:08 pm
the media has a hate on for dion, but he's popular in his riding and seems to legitimately enjoy being an mp. i don't recall a single media source even mentioning him for cabinet, and then he lands one of the most important roles. whether the media likes it or not, he's well respected in the party and likely to continue to play a prominent role. sending him to france may make the dipshits at ctv news happy, but i can't imagine the party even contemplating it.
i'm hoping they turf jim carr.
you'll notice that a lot of the speculation is around women. this is a real concern, in adjusting to trump instead of clinton, although i'm not sure how best to approach it. i would also suspect that they're going to need to avoid sending certain types of minorities to washington for the next couple of years. it's realpolitik. and, i'm sure everybody can agree that it's better than getting ignored. that might mean that harjit sajjan could be in for a new role.
freeland will do well wherever you put her. but, i actually think that the best way to approach a reanalysis of nafta is to send somebody a little more left-leaning. i don't think that the uncritically pro-trade rhetoric is accurate when applied to either trudeau or the liberals; remember that freeland is on the right wing of the party. if we're getting a chance to open this up, i'd rather they send somebody with a more skeptical approach towards trade to do it. but, is there anybody still around or are they all gone, now?
jplondon deathtokoalas • 5 months ago
'the (major) speculation around women' in this article mentions primarily one woman, and touts her for one of the top-two positions in cabinet (global affairs, the other being finance).
the article includes mention of ms hajdu; speculation elsewhere and in this article itself taps her for a promotion based on a compassionate and masterful handling of the file and excellent communications skills.
it further mentions two others, ms's monsef and mihychuk. ms monsef's difficulties communicating and engaging opposing points of view are well-known and simply cannot be ignored. in your scenario, ms mihychuk, whatever her difficulties (and i've not read of any), should be safe. like mr carr, the minister is from winnipeg, and dropping him would make her position iron-clad..
be careful what you wish for.
deathtokoalas jplondon • 5 months ago
actually, i would have greatly preferred for them to have dropped carr (who is the classic anti-labour industry representative) in favour of mihychuk, as she was the closest thing to a labour representative. the glaring lack of labour representation was one of the most obvious weaknesses of this government when it was sworn in. merely putting her in cabinet was never going to be enough; taking her out of cabinet sends the message that the government does not have the interests of working people in mind, and will continue to act solely in the interests of capital.
ipolitics.ca/2017/01/09/freelands-the-one-to-watch-in-trudeau-cabinet-shuffle/
jan 11, 2017 5:24 pm
see, the irony is that this is where the rhetoric is actually accurate: we can't choose between economic growth and labour rights. they're intricately tied together; if we ignore labour rights, we will not get meaningful growth.
https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/01/10/Trudeau-New-Man-China/
jan 29, 2017 10:27 pm
Jay Ross • 5 months ago
Ahhhh, I see how this is going to go. A damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
Silence implies agreement and complicity. Are all of us to remain silent at what is happening? Are we to remain silent while at least five Muslims are killed at their place of worship? In this country?!! In order to not ruffle the Orange ones feathers?!! I don't think so.
Trudeau made a statement yesterday that only the thinnest of skins could take the wrong way. He announced that Canada is a safe refuge for those fleeing war and terror. It's a stand he's taken ever since he started bringing Syrian refugees into this country.
I'm sure you've heard this saying Stephen. It's one that bears repeating during these times...
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
deathtokoalas Jay Ross • 5 months ago
are you going to quote edmund burke's views on human rights, or the french revolution, while you're at it?
i'm not getting involved with this...
ipolitics.ca/2017/01/29/trudeau-must-speak-for-canada/
feb 24, 2017 5:18 pm
Frank_inBC • 4 months ago
So much for walking a middle path or taking a centrist position, instead Trudeau moved further to the Right than Harper.
I bet even Harper didn't look at Site C, all the LNG plants and pipelines and think he could approve all of them.
bklsz#flp Frank_inBC • 4 months ago
....and that's good !
Frank_inBC bklsz#flp • 4 months ago
Good for you at least. I don't understand why Trudeau's polling numbers aren't higher at the expense of the Conservatives.
bklsz#flp Frank_inBC • 4 months ago
Well Frankie, sorry to clue you in on reality, but Junior garnered less that 40% of the popular vote in the last election and the Conservatives got a little over 32%. The dippers are back in their traditional third place with less than 20%
There are a lot more Conservatives around than you may like and by 2020 perhaps enough to retire the Liberals (with their mishandling of the economy) for another term or to.
That's my hope ]:-)
Frank_inBC bklsz#flp • 4 months ago
I think you missed my point, perhaps I worded it wrong. You are happy with at least some of Trudeau's policies so it stands to reason there are lots of other Conservatives who are too. Yet I don't see that showing up in polling.
In BC a lot of Conservative voters have gradually moved to the Liberals provincially and a bit less so federally.
deathtokoalas Frank_inBC • 4 months ago
the hard conservative base - about 30% of the population - doesn't care about mining, it votes on social issues like immigration and abortion. and, the liberals themselves seem incapable of grasping this.
bklsz#flp Frank_inBC • 4 months ago
The one and only thing I'm pleased about is the approval of Transmountain which contributes to the economic growth of the Canadian economy.
Everything else he's done just extracts wealth from the unborn thru deficits.
I'm focus entirely on what Junior is doing with for the nation and leaving poll trends for another day. Naval gazing by following polling numbers are for others.
Frank_inBC bklsz#flp • 4 months ago
Well he also approved Christy Clark's LNG dreams and other pipelines so although you might not be happy overall I would think at least some other Conservatives would be.
bklsz#flp Frank_inBC • 4 months ago
Thanks for pointing out the LNG approvals, it slipped my mind.
I'm a Conservative and indeed pleased with approval of these privately funded infrastructure projects.
deathtokoalas bklsz#flp • 4 months ago
yeah, but, you're going to vote on right-wing social issues at the end of the day, like you always do.
ipolitics.ca/2017/02/23/hes-a-liar-why-the-left-coast-may-be-writing-off-justin-trudeau/
feb 24, 2017 8:17 pm
Irene Wright • 4 months ago
Some of us are old enough to remember Tommy Douglas's excellent story
"Mouseland". In this story the mice voted regularly for either the Black Cats or the White Cats (representing for us the Liberals and the Conservatives) and always suffered as a result. One day a little mouse stood up in front of the other mice and said that they, being mice, should vote for a mouse. The cats, after all were just doing what cats do (reducing mouse hole sizes so that cats could get their paw in, and requiring the mice to run at a slower speed, etc.), I'll not tell you the end, but I'm sure you can find a version on the internet. For me, the Conservatives talk and act like conservatives while the Liberals talk like New Democrats and act like Conservatives when in power. There is an alternative. You can probably guess the one I prefer.
deathtokoalas Irene Wright • 4 months ago
but, what if the ndp are cats nowadays, too? orange tabby cats...
ipolitics.ca/2017/02/23/hes-a-liar-why-the-left-coast-may-be-writing-off-justin-trudeau/
june 12, 2017 10:50 pm
blair & casey seem to be consistent in their public intention to get c-45 bogged down in committee. now, there is a rumour that trudeau is going to prorogue parliament before it gets out of committee...
but, i have nothing negative to say about c-46. i understand what long time users are saying, but long time users are surely cognizant of the dangers of being lenient on short term users. the same thing is true of alcohol, of course. and, what happens on a dui? unless it's paired to something else, and if it's reasonably close to the limit, what happens is that you have to do some community service. shit, somebody's gotta pick up the garbage in your neighbourhood, right?
but, i think the real crux of the situation is that the fears are being overblown. here's the truth of it: the cops don't pull you over unless you're swerving, and if you're swerving you should get pulled over. i know, i know - all you old willie nelsons are claiming you're fine to drive your pickup after a pinner, but if you think that's true then you have the burden of proof to drive competently enough to not get stopped. and, you mostly *won't* get stopped, either. but, a clear-thinking person wants the cops to have the power to get that giggling 19 year-old off the road before he hurts somebody.
https://www.hilltimes.com/2017/05/23/house-to-debate-seismic-shift-federal-policy-canadian-society-impaired-driving-marijuana-bills-coming-days/107849
this is the post that disappeared when i accessed it.
i even got an error through google cache. but, i already had it archived elsewhere.
--
june 28, 2016
hillary needs to make the choice about what side of the spectrum she wants to run on and then run on it aggressively.
i even got an error through google cache. but, i already had it archived elsewhere.
--
june 28, 2016
hillary needs to make the choice about what side of the spectrum she wants to run on and then run on it aggressively.
if she decides to run as a conservative, and does it with
conviction, then she can win some of these red states that everybody thinks are
not in play - but she will probably destroy the democratic party's ability to
appeal to the left for a generation or longer. is that already accomplished,
anyways? i don't think she'll split the left in any meaningful way, because
she'll cut too far into the right; if she loses 10% on her left, she'll gain
15% on the center-right. shouldn't tennessee
be in play? kentucky?
arkansas?
that was her husband's map...
if she decides to run on the left, she'll have to concede
some space on the right but with the aim of preventing a split. she'd be
looking to emulate the obama map.
if i was working on her campaign, i would be a nihilist. i
would be solely interested in power and reject ideology as simplistic modernist
naivete. so, i would see these options as equally acceptable and judge them
solely on their likelihood of success.
i would conclude she should run on the right, in an attempt
to take advantage of conservative disillusionment with trump. she can offer a
more credible conservative vision than he can. that's a big vacuum with a big
reward. while she may lose support on her left, it is so unlikely to migrate to
trump that it is not worth worrying about.
if she tries to hug the center, she will be unanimously
rejected and lose.
i'm also a little worried about this page, here.
i post here far too much to be able to keep track of anything. but, i glance over and look at the number from time to time, and it seems to keep getting over 1600 and then falling back.
i haven't been paying close enough attention to hone in on anything. i'm not aware of google censoring anybody over this medium; i would be more likely to lean towards an interested hacker.
it's currently at 1524. i'm going to keep a closer eye on it.
from my point of view, it's just disappointing that anybody could be so obtuse as to think that deleting unflattering blog posts by a disabled artist in canada is worth their time. that's really a special kind of stupid, isn't it? what's the point?
am i to be expected to unthink these thoughts? is somebody afraid of my foresight? and, if so, how did they arrive at the conclusion that deleting insights that they acknowledge are valid is the way to go? that's basically book burning.
i post here far too much to be able to keep track of anything. but, i glance over and look at the number from time to time, and it seems to keep getting over 1600 and then falling back.
i haven't been paying close enough attention to hone in on anything. i'm not aware of google censoring anybody over this medium; i would be more likely to lean towards an interested hacker.
it's currently at 1524. i'm going to keep a closer eye on it.
from my point of view, it's just disappointing that anybody could be so obtuse as to think that deleting unflattering blog posts by a disabled artist in canada is worth their time. that's really a special kind of stupid, isn't it? what's the point?
am i to be expected to unthink these thoughts? is somebody afraid of my foresight? and, if so, how did they arrive at the conclusion that deleting insights that they acknowledge are valid is the way to go? that's basically book burning.
i'm just confused by the attention. i'm an isolated disabled artist in canada. i have no resources. i have no contacts. you'd think they'd have something better to do, right?
i don't even want to say it's a function of their stupidity. it's more of a function of my harmlessness. i'm an easy target. but, i'm an easy target for the precise reason that i'm an isolated disabled artist in canada.
they can't find any real leads, so they key in on me instead, and pretend i'm fronting something.
again: i am legitimately trying to archive my statements. i am being prevented from doing so. i apologize to the future.
i don't even want to say it's a function of their stupidity. it's more of a function of my harmlessness. i'm an easy target. but, i'm an easy target for the precise reason that i'm an isolated disabled artist in canada.
they can't find any real leads, so they key in on me instead, and pretend i'm fronting something.
again: i am legitimately trying to archive my statements. i am being prevented from doing so. i apologize to the future.
Philpott said the tribunal made a “factual error in the decision”
because it said there was a “refusal to provide funding” to the
community.
“That funding was never refused,” said Philpott.
i hope she loses her seat.
http://aptnnews.ca/2017/06/23/trudeau-liberals-take-human-rights-tribunal-to-court-over-first-nation-children-ruling/
“That funding was never refused,” said Philpott.
i hope she loses her seat.
http://aptnnews.ca/2017/06/23/trudeau-liberals-take-human-rights-tribunal-to-court-over-first-nation-children-ruling/
Friday, June 23, 2017
Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 3:34:17 AM
the answer is that we need to use more electricity. the policy assumed we'd be driving electric cars and running high speed rails up and down the detroit-quebec city corridor, by now.
our electricity is clean. you're not he;ping the environment by using less of it. rather, you'd be helping the environment by using more of it - and less fossil fuels.
i would support a renationalizing of the grid, and a system run at cost.
but it's backwards logic to blame the problem on the green energy act. the green energy act was massively successful - it created a large surplus of clean energy, which was going to be required to help us get off of carbon. this exists. it's in place. what has failed has been the slow adoption of electric vehicles.
...and that's been a failure, largely, at the federal level.
wynne needs to call trudeau up and get him to push some serious tax cuts for electric cars. that's the piece of policy that has been a failure. and, for obvious reasons - we just got out of ten years of petrostate politics.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/electricity-ontario-1.3538157
Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 9:30:52 AM
it was always about the price of oil. the criticism was that they tied themselves too strongly to the price of oil, thereby reducing the country's fiscal situation to the whim of global investors. so, when the price of oil comes down, you get huge deficits - and when it comes up, you get huge surpluses. you fix this by recreating a stable tax base, so the country can better deal with the volatility in oil prices.
oil was expected to stay low this year. it hasn't - it has risen. so, we're getting surpluses instead of deficits. it was largely agreed that the liberals low-balled the projections, but it was also largely agreed that the price would stay low.
this is not the point. it's a red herring. it's the situation of relying on oil prices that is the problem that needs to be resolved. and, the fact that we're in this situation cannot be spun out of - it is flat fiscal incompetence. if the government decides to hold to it, it's just carrying on the incompetence. an advanced nation requires an actual tax base.
(of course, i don't particularly care, anyways. i only care about keeping the imf vultures away. i'm just saying.)
www.cbc.ca/news/business/ottawa-federal-surplus-deficit-1.3559175
Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 6:49:51 PM
i agree with council, and would add that this is an abuse of power. he has no mandate to tax people and send it out of the city as a political gimmick. that $300,000 could and should certainly go to helping the disadvantaged in sarnia.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/sarnia-mayor-s-proposal-to-send-25k-to-fort-mcmurray-falls-flat-1.3575075
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 8:49:50 AM
Mollybloom: As if -- Canadian comments on U.S. politics matter a damn to anyone south-of-us. Nevertheless, this collective purgative does have momentary solace as we stop crapping in our own backyard.
But for gawd's sake Bernie, remember Ralph and ponder whether you guys would have got anywhere near Iraq with Gore.
Me: i am absolutely certain that gore would have bombed iraq. in fact, he'd probably have also avoided the protests.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-sanders-sound-bite-trump-1.3576362
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 9:18:36 AM
this media narrative is going to fall flat. the vast majority of sanders supporters don't see any material difference between clinton and trump, anyways - and may even lean a little closer to trump on foreign policy and trade. the really interesting question is whether jill stein can get these supporters, not if clinton can. but, the warped truth is that she'll probably win anyways, because republican support for trump is even lower.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-sanders-sound-bite-trump-1.3576362
Friday, May 13, 2016 at 2:51:59 AM
who is going to do a better job fulfilling the unstated role - an by all accounts capable woman who just happens to be the prime minister's wife, or people that have some training and legitimate interest in the topic? who will be more accountable?
it's kind of a broader issue. what is more efficient: private charity (which is what she's being expected to do...) that is accountable to nobody or public servants that are accountable in the traditional manners? i vote for public sector services over private sector charity.
...which means that she should have an office, it should be accountable to the house and it should be handed over to the next wife or husband
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sophie-gregoire-trudeau-overwhelmed-1.3580164
Friday, May 13, 2016 at 3:02:28 AM
you have to expect the conservatives to yell and scream and have a temper tantrum over this, because the process will rightly have the end result of removing their ability to win majorities with a minority of support (and, you can't compare the liberal's 40% to the conservatives' 40% due to the way the spectrum aligns - it's just yet another dishonest argument from tom mulcair). but, that's too bad - the liberals have a majority, here, and should use it to plow through the av as quick as possible, so that voters have time to understand it.
the worst thing that can happen is for this to drag on until a month before the election, as the backlash could push them out. they want to push it through quickly so that people have time to calm down and realize it's a net benefit to the stability of the country.
and, that's going to mean ignoring the temper tantrums, until the opposition tires itself out and goes to sleep.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-electoral-reform-1.3579651
Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 9:52:26 AM
PshyeahV2.0 : Didn't they already have equal rights?
Me: it's actually a contentious point. the previous government made the argument that gender identity came under sexual orientation, but that was actually obviously wrong. however, i've long argued that it should be covered under 'analogous grounds' - the issue has apparently never been tested in court. now it's explicit, anyways.
May 17, 2016 at 8:59:36 PM
these studies often lack a discussion of any kind of mechanism - it's just straight correlations with no attempts at explanation. as such, you don't actually learn anything.
what are potatoes? they're highly concentrated sugar. so one should expect that high potato consumption with low exercise would certainly lead to excess weight and high blood pressure. one would also expect that high potato consumption with high activity levels would lead to increased muscle mass, as your body converts the excess sugar into muscle.
you should neither be shocked nor particularly enlightened by any this.
www.cbc.ca/news/health/potato-consumption-hypertension-1.3586370
June 02, 2016 at 5:49:45 AM
this argument is actually particularly egregious given the circumstances, which is itself an argument to re-engineer society to abolish markets.
the general way to prevent scalping is to prevent people from exceeding their ticket quotas. but, i have no problem with sending cops out to arrest them, confiscating their tickets and distributing them on a needs basis.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/tragically-hip-scalper-outrage-1.3610489
June 06, 2016 at 2:09:20 PM
the government could get a majority in the senate with a stroke of a pen. there is absolutely no excuse for having their legislation gutted, and they should be loudly called out for incompetence should that be something that actually happens. there's an easy answer to avoid this: fill the senate with liberal senators immediately. it's just incompetence to leave the senate open, then complain that they can't pass legislation.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/philpott-assisted-dying-monday-1.3617856
June 06, 2016 at 2:32:45 PM
when, i voted for the liberals it was because i wanted them to pass legislation - not because i wanted them to create a mess in the senate that would prevent them from passing legislation. it's really a comically absurd situation; he's obstructing his own agenda. the media should really be taking him to task for it. it doesn't matter what you think of the senate; this is the worst possible outcome from any perspective.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/philpott-assisted-dying-monday-1.3617856
June 07, 2016 at 1:40:29 AM
the email scandal promises better ratings.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/sanders-clinton-nominaton-report-1.3619679
June 07, 2016 at 1:52:45 AM
if you want to put him in jail for 20 years, might i suggest contributing funds? 'cause i really don't want to pay to house, feed and entertain the guy for the second third of his life - and then repeat for the last third, because he can't find a job due to the fact that he's a convict.
listen. nobody doubts that this is a problem. but vengeance isn't an answer. deterrence doesn't work - it's just a waste of resources that could be better spent on things that actually work.
you could have a bake sale to raise money to pay for food & shelter for rapists.
www.cbc.ca/news/trending/stanford-swimmer-brock-turner-sexual-assault-father-reacts-1.3618571
June 08, 2016 at 3:02:00 AM
i'm kind of glad you posted this the way you did, so i can respond contextually in an appropriate way. you need to think of hillary like the liberals and sanders like the ndp, and then place them in a minority government - as we saw in the 60s, 70s and 00s. it worked out well in the 60s and 70s. especially the 60s. lots of people think it was our greatest parliament.....
the ndp would never just let the liberals pass whatever they want. they always demanded some influence, and when they didn't get it? they'd vote down the budget.
it's a hard game of difficult negotiations. but, it's how the parliament works.
the american punditry is going to have a hard time with this because the three-party system is foreign to most living americans. it shouldn't be, though. it happened in the 30s, when the socialist parties forced a set of concessions from fdr that is now called the new deal.
they could call a history prof and get them to explain it. or they could call a canadian. but, what we're seeing unfold in the united states right now has not happened for a century. this isn't politics as usual. this is very different. our media is uniquely positioned to understand and explain it and should take the opportunity to.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-california-primary-1.3621301
June 08, 2016 at 11:44:00 AM
"losing patience"
yeah. right. what are you going to do, hill? not get voted for?
sanders has incredible leverage, here. and, he's been pretty patient, himself. if i was him, i'd be launching an independent run right now and laying out arguments that hillary is truly no better than trump. i'd be threatening to split the democrats in half unless i got what i wanted.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/california-primary-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-1.3621007
June 15, 2016 at 3:18:43 AM
when will thomas mulcair endorse justin trudeau?
www.cbc.ca/news/world/hillary-wins-dc-primary-1.3635688
June 20, 2016 at 10:34:12 PM
the reason we have a cbs is that the red cross screwed up the blood supply. we nationalized it in response to market failure. if something happens, and it's tied to a shift in policy...
i expect the government will eventually lift the ban, but it's going to need to protect *itself* first. this is more about the history of blood services in canada than it is about homophobia. you have to understand *that* history to realize why there's push back againt anything that modifies a system that has worked well up to this point.
when the changes happen, they're going to be broader than this, too - because, as mentioned, this is symptomatic of broader, underlying systemic issues.
they should be applauded for not kneejerking, really, and holding to the script rather than being affected by political pressure.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gay-men-blood-donations-1.3643761
Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 7:10:16 AM
this has been solved, from my understanding - it's a combination of the industry on the island with the salt mines under windsor. what's happening is that the vibrations are sending sound waves through the old mines, which is literally shaking the whole ground.
i'm on the other side of oullette, and i've never heard anything over here. but if i was living around lasalle, i might be more concerned about sink holes swallowing my house....
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/windsor-hum-discussion-goes-to-washington-1.3645376
Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 5:15:25 PM
i think that the balance of evidence admits waukesha as a very limited special case. i haven't read the case, but if it limits the situation to the very limited special conditions then this is actually a positive precedent.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/waukesha-water-leamington-mayor-1.3646880
July 26, 2016 at 11:33:30 AM
yeah. he's got some 'splainin' to do, alright.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/bill-clinton-speech-hillary-clinton-democrats-1.3695087
August 02, 2016 at 9:52:00 AM
why does he keep appointing conservatives?
the election results were not ambiguous. it's kind of counter to his mandate to keep stacking all these reform bodies with conservatives.
if we wanted conservatives, we would have voted for them. we voted against them. so, why is he doing this?
Lori Cameron: Did you mean, why does he keep appointing those whom he believes are the best qualified for the given positions?
me: i'm not sure how anybody comes to the conclusion that kim campbell is best qualified for anything, besides a lecture on how to preside over the worst electoral defeat in canadian history.
a supreme court advisory is not a meritocratic position, it's a partisan position. i really don't want a conservative body determining the composition of the next supreme court, and it's frankly downright enraging to see a liberal prime minister put such a thing in motion.
ironically, i don't think that this is constitutional.
Tim Saucier: What disqualifies Kim Campbell from the job, aside from being "Conservative"?
Me: considering that we elected an overwhelming liberal majority, i think that's enough.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:24:55 AM
what, exactly, was wrong with a partisan process?
Taylor Sutherland: bias.
Me: it's a court process. bias is the whole point. i don't even...
if you remove bias, what are the ruling on? corporate expediency? objective truth?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:29:00 AM
let me try this another way.
a part of the responsibility of the prime minister is to appoint the supreme court justices. this is a political process, meaning it's a part of the prime minister's mandate. not only is this process obviously unconstitutional, but it's a rejection of one of the prime minister's core job functions: to determine the justice in such a way that reflects the popular will, which is necessarily a partisan process.
the previous election was about wiping the conservatives out of power. where did all this bipartisan or nonpartisan stuff come from? there's no mandate for this.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:30:23 AM
when you remove partisanship, you remove democracy.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:32:29 AM
i voted for a liberal prime minister. so, i want a liberal prime minister to appoint a liberal judge.
Cindy Fordyce: I want a Liberal gov't to appoint the best person who meets the qualifications to be appointed.
Politics is not an Olympic sport and should never be made so.
Me: you're incoherent. you say you want a competition over who's "the best", then you say it's not a competition. but, you can't possibly define what "the best person" who has "the best" qualifications even *is*.
all politics is bias. and all law is politics. it's basic critical legal theory.
there is no meritocracy. there's simply a party apparatus. and, you can appoint somebody that upholds your biases or somebody that upholds somebody else's.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:32:55 AM
dale mcrobie : This is unfair to unilingual Canadian! Just because one only speaks one language they should not be penalized!
Me: how do you expect a unilingual judge to hear a case in french? this is a common sense requirement.
Michael Chong: first off they do not individually sit as judges for each case,it's a group sitting. Also why not just get language translators. If ambassadors who are sitting at the UN have them why not Canada.?
Me: so, the fiscal conservatives want to hire translators instead of just appointing a bilingual judge. curious.
with something like the supreme court, i'd suggest that we don't want translators getting in the way in the interpretation of language. rulings can turn on interpretations. so, i think it's a functional requirement that the court can understand a ruling out of quebec natively, and be able to translate it independently.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:38:07 AM
could you imagine hillary clinton making george w. bush the head of a committee to determine the next supreme court nominee?
wait. don't answer that...
it's absurd.
i'm really not opposed to a committee, but i would expect him to stack the committee with liberals - because the liberals won the election and therefore get to stack the court. that's why we had an election!
the supreme court - ironically - won't let him do this, though. the constitution is pretty clear that the prime minister has to pick the justices.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:46:19 AM
i voted for the liberals. i want them to replace every judge with a liberal. i want them to replace the conservative judges with liberals. i want them to replace the liberal judges with even more liberal judges, and the extremely liberal judges with exceedingly liberal judges. i want the court to have exactly zero conservative justices on it. that's why i voted for the liberals. what's the use in having an election, when the liberals appoint conservative judges?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:52:07 AM
i mean, what's really going on here? was picking a court justice interfering with his canoe time, or what?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 12:06:16 PM
it's very weird. a lot of times he seems like he doesn't want to govern.
mr. prime minister. you're the person that's supposed to govern. that means picking supreme court justices. and, you're supposed to pick the person that most accurately uphold and reflects your partisan agenda.
i don't understand where he's coming from. some kind of dark age buddhist "wisdom", or something?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
Tuesday, August 02, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM
shouldn't this be one of his biggest legacies? something he's jumping all over? he's delegating it...does he want this job?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 05, 2016 at 3:43:25 AM
criminal negligence revolves around the concept of reasonable precaution. what is at question here is ultimately not whether he carried out an act or not, or even if he did so on purpose, but whether he took the proper precautions to ensure it didn't happen. the legal question will likely revolve around the discussion he had with the person that actual prepared the food. did he point out the allergy clearly enough on the order?
the article is poorly written - it does not provide any facts. but, if the waiter expressed the allergies with a sufficient level of force, then it falls upon the cook.
it is very difficult to see how any judge in any liberal democracy could legally fault the victim for forgetting their epipen.
a lot of how you react to this is going to depend on what kind of social contract you feel is best applied. i'm an advocate of the proudhonian social contract, but less so of the one promoted by rousseau. i do consequently think that the waiter has a moral, legal and social responsibility to ensure that he does not poison anybody, and that he should face collective punitive action by society should he not uphold that social contract.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/sherbrooke-waiter-arrested-salmon-allergic-customer-negligence-1.3707667
August 06, 2016 at 8:50:53 AM
that's no fair! why can they get rid of trump, when the democrats can't get rid of hillary? just more proof that the country is slanted to monied interests....
www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-campaign-republicans-1.3708729
August 15, 2016 at 12:27:08 AM
wait. when did the election get overturned? i thought we elected the liberals in a landslide in order to undo what the conservatives have done over the last ten years. where does the media get off in pretending the election never happened?
this was a populist issue. unlike what he's dong to the senate and supreme court, this is something he has a mandate for. he should stay the course.
if rona ambrose wants to govern, she's going to need to win an election, first.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-terrorism-1.3718743
August 15, 2016 at 12:28:58 AM
is trudeau as much of a fake as obama?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-terrorism-1.3718743
August 15, 2016 at 8:04:30 PM
frankly, i don't think the prime minister actually has a choice, here. a pattern is developing of contempt for the constitution, and for constitutional norms, that can't be tolerated. so, i hope that somebody challenges the nomination.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-supreme-court-judge-atlantic-canada-1.3721255
August 16, 2016 at 4:37:38 PM
i'm confused. what does this "terrorist attack" have to do with the constitutionality of the legislation?
if it was unconstitutional last year, surely it remains unconstitutional today.
??
i mean, unless the constitution was changed at some point when we weren't paying attention.....!?
forget the ndp. the only way anything gets done in this country is through the courts. let's get a constitutional challenge, please.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-c51-terrorism-balance-rights-security-1.3723167
August 25, 2016 at 4:16:13 PM
nobody cares about $500. please report on substantive issues.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-caucus-fall-session-1.3735744
August 30, 2016 at 9:58:54 AM
my view on this is that the opposition to the changes merely demonstrate their necessity. we need to be teaching these kids secular values over the opposition of their parents - and the more the parents yell that it offends their religious values, the more necessary it is to teach their kids secular values. this should really be made clear in the immigration process, so that people are not settling here under false pretenses
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-sex-ed-mistake-1.3740877
September 06, 2016 at 6:19:58 PM
i think the point is that canadians should spend more time pressuring their own government, and less time buying into deflecting tactics in an attempt to work up anti-chinese sentiment. i agree with that, actually. we have a lot of work to do in cleaning up our mining industry, too.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-hong-kong-cemetery-war-dead-1.3749280
September 06, 2016 at 7:01:48 PM
well, if you're going to listen to your loudness-wars compressed master through your 128 kbit mp3 and your software playback replay gain limiter, why not degrade the signal that much further by going wireless and introducing every kind of interference into the signal you can imagine, all while boosting the frequency at 100 hz so loud that all you can hear is the thud, anyways? no, listen. i'm a sound design artist. and i'm making a valid point. nobody cares about sound quality anymore.
www.cbc.ca/news/technology/apple-iphone-headphone-jack-1.3750086
September 16, 2016 at 9:17:03 AM
why? so we can vote with the americans on every issue? and, think about what might happen if we don't. we should be avoiding this....there's better ways to have influence than to baldly challenge the hegemon.
also, it would be useful to acknowledge that the rise of all of this xenophobia is a consequence of the failure of the free trade regime, rather than pretend the answer is more of the problem.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-united-nations-security-council-1.3764441
October 03, 2016 at 7:36:10 PM
his platform didn't talk about carbon pricing, it talked about an investment bank for green infrastructure. if you care about something that will be *effective* in reducing emissions, the infrastructure bank in the platform was a far superior approach. in fact, it's the primary reason i voted for the liberals.
the truth is that this isn't a serious discussion. the science is in: carbon pricing doesn't work in reducing emissions. rather, this is smoke and mirrors for political purposes.
but, i'm frankly not opposed to that, if it has the effect of keeping the conservatives out of power. i don't care if they do this or not. what i want to see is that infrastructure bank set up and put in motion in actually converting infrastructure.
put another way: i don't care who pays for this. i'm tired of stalling over budgets. i want to see shovels in the ground.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-trudeau-climate-change-1.3788825
October 07, 2016 at 1:49:05 AM
how about this, guys?
it doesn't make any difference at all. it's just politics. the government is pretending it's doing something about the problem, while the opposition is pretending that it's going to be a catastrophe.
if you have a lot of wealth and use a lot of energy then your taxes will go up (you're supposed to use less energy, not complain about your taxes). if you're poor and use minimal energy then you'll get a rebate. if you're in the middle, it will truly be revenue neutral. the right answer is that lisa's friends will probably get a check at the end of the month at the expense of trudeau's family, which will get a tax increase.
the media has a responsibility to explain this. but, they'll sell far more papers scare-mongering about tax increases. which is why it's essential that the government implements the policy immediately so the checks are already out by the next writ drop. which, of course, they're not doing.
so, that's the money question: as wealth is strongly correlated with energy use, the policy will redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom through the intermediary of taxation. those that are legitimately concerned about the poor should look at the policy more carefully and understand that it is in their benefit. beware of demagogues that try and take advantage of the ignorant and uneducated in order to scare them.
but, what about emissions? will it reduce them?
the answer is that this doesn't work as an emissions reduction plan. the rich eat the costs because they can afford it, anyways. again: it's going to offset with the middle classes. and, the poor (who don't use much energy...) will get checks in the mail from it.
i'm poor. i don't have a car. most of the food here is imported. i couldn't do much more to reduce emissions if i wanted to. but, i'm likely to get a nice check in the mail. to me, this is just money from the sky. it's not going to change my behaviour...
if i was in the middle class, it would balance out. i need to be clear: i don't expect this to drive inflation and nobody else does, either. you won't find a working economist that thinks prices are going up. it's just scare mongering, really. but, they'll spend a little more on energy and then get it back through tax cuts. how does that change behaviour if it comes out in the wash?
if i was rich, i'd spend a lot of money on energy and i wouldn't care if taxes go up because i have a lot of money, anyways. they don't change behaviour, either, then.
so, if nobody has a meaningful incentive to reduce their use, how do emissions reduce?
here's the thing, then - do you want some wealth redistribution? are you down with that? do you think it's a good idea to tax the rich a little more and give it to the poor? well, this is a good way to do that. it *will* work in accomplishing *this* task.
but, do you really want emissions to come down, too? are you concerned that we're not meeting our international obligations? well, you might want to push for a different policy, like direct investment in converting infrastructure.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-climate-change-trudeau-raitt-1.3792865
October 13, 2016 at 7:16:30 AM
hillary is at best a teenager. but, trump is a screaming toddler.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-ohio-voters-1.3801038
November 15, 2016 at 9:52:04 PM
i'd rather follow sarkozy's lead, pull out of nafta and put a carbon tariff up. there's more than one way to even the playing field.
the world needs to show some backbone in dealing with trump.
they don't make anything anymore, anyways.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trump-climate-change-1.3850223
November 24, 2016 at 3:55:23 PM
due to our universal health care system, obtaining voter id in canada is not the same kind of problem that is for some low income people in the united states. but, anything that makes it easier to vote is a step forwards and should be applauded.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896
November 24, 2016 at 3:56:50 PM
i'd actually like to see them omnibus everything harper ever did into a giant "undo" button and then set it on fire in a public ceremony.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896
November 28, 2016 at 1:59:30 PM
didn't they actually buy a drone company for delivery?
my best guess is that they just came to the startling conclusion that the most cost-effective way to deliver the product was to convert warehouses into store fronts.
i'd kinda still like to see drone mail delivery. more likely is that they're going to slowly lose market share, online.
and i'll stick with the second hand book stores, myself.
www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/amazon-offline-1.3868891
December 01, 2016 at 5:59:00 PM
it was an error to let the opposition members into committee, as they just obstructed it. they should have just immediately gone to work in pushing through the irv. there's still time to ram it through.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-electoral-reform-committee-1.3866879
December 18, 2016 at 6:29:50 AM
as a transit user, i'd just like to see consistency: if you're going to charge to get on the bus, you should charge tolls to use the highways, too. if you don't want tolls on the highways, let's remove tolls on public transit, too.
January 04, 2017 at 4:21:08 PM
it's not a very complicated problem - we simply need to socialize the ownership of the machines, and stop enslaving ourselves to capitalism. we can do that now, or we can wait a little while and do it later, or we can wait a little longer and have a revolution. that's the real choice in front of the bourgeois class, which includes both liberals and conservatives.
we should not be scrounging everywhere, looking for jobs to do. we should be enjoying the abundance that technology is providing us with, and embracing a future where working is a choice rather than an obligation.
the unemployment that automation is providing is an opportunity. it's a step forwards towards freedom. it's progress. it's a wonderful thing. we just have to leave the calvinism in the past, which is where it belongs, anyways.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-progressive-trudeau-1.3919211
Wednesday, January 04, 2017 at 4:06:42 PM
Jay Dean: I'm not sure why they say that "Many Political Leaders are still trying to figure out how Trump won".
Simple really.
He Lied over 90% of the time and the simple ate it up.
Me: he didn't actually win.
...unless you call getting about 20% of the vote amidst massive voter suppression "winning".
the answer is that his opponent was unable to rally her base, and he coasted into office by default.
it had nothing to do with anything that he did or did not do. it had everything to do with apathy around clinton.
if people elsewhere want to emulate the victory, they're going to need to find a way to take control of their opponents and install a candidate that is not just uninspiring but is ideologically opposed to the crux of their party's vision. in canada, that might mean asking trudeau to step down to make way for the return of michael ignatieff.
short of that absurdity, it won't repeat itself here.
and all the democrats need to do to reverse the results is run an actual democrat.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-progressive-trudeau-1.3919211
January 10, 2017 at 5:59:04 AM
Irv Millar: The trades now have a platform by which unqualified skilled tradespeople will be performing certified work against the law. For years there was a concerted effort in Canada to end the underground economy. Now we have these platforms that are a detriment to the economy. Lost revenue to pay for the maintenance of our democracy.
The target market appears to be Gen Y. By enabling these platforms is a predatory practise whereby the laws are usurped. Who, at a young age would think about savings, a pension, benefits when they are paying off a student debt or are a senior who has little or no pension/benefits and requires medicines. Convenience costs our whole society. Just look at all the plastic water bottles blowing around.
Me: but, see, there's a twist here: this is the reason why i wouldn't use this platform - and the reason that it will probably never exit the niche market that it currently appeals to. there's lots of reasons why i'd rather call a taxi, and lots of reasons why i'd rather book a room in a hotel.
it's much to do about nothing. there's no oncoming dystopia. it's just a fad, with a long term niche market.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-airbnb-mowsnowpros-tradepros-mindsea-1.3923447
January 10, 2017 at 6:10:36 AM
William Ben: A race to the bottom and tax avoidance there is an app for that!
This is a very slippery slope unless it can be regulated as it will cause a black market explosion of tax avoidance and dodgy uninsured workmanship.
Me: no it won't. consumers will never go for this in large enough numbers for it to exit it's niche appeal.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-airbnb-mowsnowpros-tradepros-mindsea-1.3923447
January 10, 2017 at 6:51:53 AM
Neil Gregory: The biggest problem I see here is in determining that the person you hire is qualified and licensed to do the job. Do you really want an unqualified and/or unlicensed person working on your electrical service or plumbing or messing with the structure of you house, for example? We already have more than enough problems in that area without making it easier for more unqualified people to get in on the act.
Me: no, i don't want an unqualified person working on my electrical - which is why i wouldn't hire one. the fact that i can contact some hack for half the price on my phone doesn't mean i'm ever going to want to.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-airbnb-mowsnowpros-tradepros-mindsea-1.3923447
January 10, 2017 at 9:26:13 AM
the idea that there's some kind of future in this is absolute nonsense; it's just a bourgeois layer for the elite, and will not be able to exist without a strong real economy underlying it.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-airbnb-mowsnowpros-tradepros-mindsea-1.3923447
January 10, 2017 at 9:56:09 AM
the economic error underlying the analysis here and in the comments is in treating the service economy like the manufacturing economy. in manufacturing, it's just all about minimizing costs. you can literally hire anybody, including a robot, to do the work. the savings in labour will probably not have an effect on the quality of the resulting product. but, the service economy requires a different standard. yeah, maybe you could rent somebody's leaky attic for $10, but the savings in "producing" this good are going to be reflected in the quality of the good, itself. in the long run, what we will find is that this process of uberization is actually not cost effective at all, and that large amounts of resources are being pumped into services that cannot compete with the higher quality that comes with standardization.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-airbnb-mowsnowpros-tradepros-mindsea-1.3923447
January 12, 2017 at 12:30:58 PM
this wouldn't bother me much if it was posted at a right-wing rag like the national post, but it's a very poor use of state media, which should be focused on disseminating objective facts and holding the government to account with investigative journalism, rather than perpetuating vacuous partisan bickering. why are we giving this person this kind of platform to present this kind of opinion with?
i mean, if you want to talk about getting rid of capitalism, i'm willing to listen. but, this is the normal state in which the system functions.
and, no - he didn't win on a platform of transparency. that was the guy he replaced. he won on a platform of social liberalism.
it's a slow point in the news cycle. but, i hope that the cbc moves on to more pressing issues in the upcoming weeks.
www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trudeau-bahamas-vacation-1.3931267
January 14, 2017 at 12:50:54 PM
i think that the author needs a reality check in understanding whether phasing out the tar sands is in line with public opinion across the country or not.
phasing out the tar sands *is* a populist position.
and, supporting pipelines is deeply unpopular, too. the last poll i saw had 78% of liberal voters opposed to pipeline expansions.
unfortunately, the canadian media exists in a right-wing bubble of constant old tory confirmation bias. all of the media says the same thing, so they convince themselves of it. then, the polling comes in and they don't get it, because they didn't listen to what anybody outside of their echo chamber was saying.
we saw this in the last election with the question of deficits. for years, the media pushed a message of the importance of balanced budgets. then, as a hail mary, and in the face of sagging poll numbers, the liberals went against the conventional wisdom and promised deficit spending. the numbers came in, and it was found that canadians have an overwhelming support for deficit spending. the media expressed shock, and even outrage. but, if they had taken the time to do some basic research instead of sitting on their thumbs in their echo chamber, they would have realized that we never cared about balanced budgets in the first place - we were just told that we should by the tory media establishment, who assumed we'd just repeat it because we were told it.
consult the research. please. it's not obscure. and it's very clear.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-town-halls-1.3934742
January 15, 2017 at 6:20:07 PM
the framing here is disgusting. but, it indeed demonstrates what everybody already knows: what is good for alberta, is (really) ugly for the rest of the world.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/oilsands-future-tertzakian-carbon-bitumen-1.3735773
January 16, 2017 at 7:29:02 PM
my honest opinion is that they should repeal the line in the law. it's a little draconian, don't you think?
Pat Ferraro: Sarcasm I hope? We should give them carte Blanc because well he's just so darn cute. This is your money, this is my money! We should ask and then ask again.
Me: no. i think that a total ban on air travel without request from the ethics commissioner is over-reaching the bounds of the ethics office. and, i think that addressing this point is the more concerning issue.
in the long run, i don't think that canadians are going to find the issue particularly concerning. rather, i think it's going to rub off rather poorly on the opposition. but, the liberals should take steps to address the issue, rather than let it run it's course.
i don't want to ever see another prime minister get nailed by the media for getting in a helicopter.
there is perhaps an underlying issue here that the tory media is missing in it's rush to judgement. yes: conservatives value rules and order, even when we don't like the rules or think they're silly. but, liberals see rules as subject to democratic oversight, and ultimately see them as negotiable. i'm not going to accept the authority of the "ethics office" on it's face; if i don't see a problem in the behaviour, i'm going to argue that the rules should be changed to accommodate it, rather than demand that the rules should be blindly enforced.
Mario Doucet: Why stop at one line, rewrite or just cancel all accountability or responsibility so Trudeau can do whatever he wants with our tax money, which pretty much sums up his first year in office.
Me: i hardly think that a blanket ban on air travel does much to increase accountability measures, or that many voters will frame the issue in such absurd terms. i'd be happy with an audit, myself.
to clarify: when i say that it's an overreach, what i mean is that there is no logical or otherwise causal connection between a blanket ban on air travel and financial or ethical responsibility or accountability. it's just unnecessary government interference in a personal decision that should be up to the prime minister's discretion. in the end, if voters don't like those decisions, we can vote the prime minister out. but, that's not what we're seeing in front of us. what we're seeing is the media grasping at straws, and the law giving them far too much space to grasp at them in.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/justin-trudeau-nova-scotia-ethics-concerns-1.3938433
January 28, 2017 at 12:18:09 PM
you know who was right about nafta?
pierre trudeau, jean chretien, john turner, ed broadbent....
it's scandalous how the contemporary canadian left has completely swallowed itself on this issue. they were right in the 80s and the 90s. history has proven this, clearly. they should be gloating about how right they were, and jumping at the opportunity to fix the errors of the mulroney government. instead, they've both embraced the legacy of the progressive conservative party.
if the conservatives are able to realign on this, justin trudeau and the liberals (and mulcair and the ndp) will have nobody to blame but themselves. they were right all along. all they have to do is remind people of it, and start acting like it
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-ambrose-renegotiation-caucus-friday-1.3955714
February 03, 2017 at 7:34:51 PM
this is nonsense. american law applies in us customs enclaves, including but not limited to embassies and border checkpoints.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pre-clearance-trump-ban-1.3965666
February 10, 2017 at 9:12:49 AM
Glen robert: So does this mean Trudeau thinks Canadians are not smart enough to keep a fringe party out.
Maybe next time we vote the liberals out and see this issue come back in his campaign platform.
Me: in 1979, the balance of power was briefly held by the social credit party in a minority parliament led by the conservatives under joe clark. they were widely accused of deep anti-semitism. joe clark was unable to pass a budget because he refused to adhere to their demands, forcing an election. trudeau won the subsequent election.
clark did the right thing in forcing an election instead of listening to their demands. but, there's no guarantee that that had to happen.
fwiw, the liberals won the popular vote that election but had less seats because the conservatives dominated in the west
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/electoral-reform-trudeau-leitch-1.3975354
February 10, 2017 at 9:15:51 AM
it's probably good news that he's gotten the message that he didn't make the argument for ranked ballots loudly enough. there was a broken promise, here, but i think it's important to get the point across that the broken promise was about ranked ballots.
Darby Boon: The promise was electoral reform, not ranked ballots. The phony union accounts posting in favour of ranked ballots tells us what they want. Liberals and unions sitting on the same side of the bargaining table with no one representing the people. That's how it works in Liberal Ontario with the government handing the unions millions for coming to the table.
Me: ranked ballots had been in the liberal platform since 2006. i guess you never read it, did you?
it was stephane dion that first put ranked ballots in the platform, and it was designed to appeal to green party voters.
i don't remember hearing ignatieff say anything about ranked ballots, but dion campaigned heavily on it. it's been the official liberal party position for over a decade, and i'm actually glad to hear that it is still favoured by the prime minister. i guess i don't have any option but to hope that they come back to it in the future.
i'm sorry if you were misinformed on this fact. but, it is very important that voters take the time to understand what they are voting for. and, the platform was absolutely clear: a vote for trudeau was a vote for ranked ballots.
perhaps voters that were misinformed should take the time to analyze their sources and question if they are trustworthy, moving into the future.
https://sdion.liberal.ca/en/news-nouvelles/p3-voting-system-canada/
February 21, 2017 at 6:29:22 PM
mulroney is the biggest loser of all time - and this policy is stupid. they're not running for re-election in california they should throw mexico under the bus.
no. it's true. mulroney is the biggest loser of all time, due to the 1993 election.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-mulroney-guajardo-freeland-1.3992043
February 25, 2017 at 11:29:58 AM
the conservatives will be the third party within ten years.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/millennials-manning-conference-1.3998207
February 26, 2017 at 11:36:24 AM
"populism" on the right is always just a bunch of bankers telling voters what they want to hear in order to trick them into voting for them, then stabbing them in the back at the earliest opportunity (see: trump). it's not a movement by the people, it's a tactic by the elites. it's hegemony. that said, i have little fear that canadians are going to fall for this in large numbers. the greater issue, as always, relates to the split on the left. and, i'll be blunt: i'm not so afraid of these demagogues that i'll vote for pipeline trudeau in order to stop them.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-conservatives-populism-1.3998318
February 26, 2017 at 11:56:05 AM
i moved from ottawa to windsor for similar reasons, after calculating that it was the best way to maximize use of an odsp "income". i'm living in a two bedroom basement apartment for less than the cost of a closet in ottawa. no, seriously - you can't even find a room in ottawa for what i'm paying, here. and, it's left me with significant disposal income....
at the end of the day, the prices will come down if they can't rent the units. and, if they *can* rent the units then they won't.
just realize this: for every person like me that is escaping the high rents of the wealthier cities for the luxury of greater disposable income, there's somebody that want to buy into it for reasons of status and class. we'll all vote with our wallets as to what society we want.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/high-rent-could-make-toronto-a-generational-ghost-town-1.3999022
February 26, 2017 at 12:41:59 PM
the entire premise that ivanka trump is a strong or independent woman is a joke. what she does is sell her name for use in product placement, just like her dad. she doesn't run anything. she doesn't organize anything. she was just lucky enough to be born with a name she can sell...
so, these shoes with her name on it. what did ivanka do with these shoes. she didn't design the shoes. she didn't raise the capital to bring the shoes to market. she just accepted a check from the company, in exchange for allowing them to put her name on them. then, the product gets marked up because it has a branding attached to it. that is all.
...and that's not anything that's being assigned to her. it's not "independence". it's not "strength". it's not "entrepreneurialism". it's parasitic, rentier capitalism and deserves a protest in and of itself for pointlessly raising costs and directing profits away from workers.
she's not a successful feminist executive, she's a princess with a revenue stream that she doesn't deserve. so, the premise that a feminist is being attacked, here, is preposterous.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/ivanka-trump-grabyourwallet-boycott-feminism-1.3998601
February 27, 2017 at 6:50:38 PM
awwww. the poor landlords.
awwwww.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/go-public-medical-marijuana-landlord-tenant-insurance-pulled-1.3985875
March 02, 2017 at 11:20:56 AM
see, i'd like to see them buy out the *generation*. it's not the hydro one sale that's boosting the prices, and the sad truth is that the ndp *does* know that - they're just not willing to actually take on the electricity generators.
as frustrating as this truth is, the liberals are going to remain the better option, here, until i see a serious proposal from the ndp about taking public control of the actual generation.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hydro-price-plan-kathleen-wynne-1.4006021
March 28, 2017 at 5:09:25 AM
that's because the right time to talk about men is international women's day.
this is gutter politics, neil. every word of it. all of it meant to distract from real issues.
you're just doing exactly what they want you to.
no one had taken the bait. we should be proud of ourselves for that - we saw through it, and we ignored it. and, we should just put this article away and continue not taking the bait and continue seeing through it and continue ignoring it.
leave the gender war debates for facebook.
just remember this, kids: while you're sitting here arguing about gender, the government is laying pipelines across the country.
www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/gender-based-analysis-1.4043312
April 01, 2017 at 11:17:19 AM
banks are dime a dozen and mostly the same. so, if you switch to a different bank that hires here, the increased work volume will recreate those jobs.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/cibc-ceo-outsourcing-india-1.4050248
April 04, 2017 at 2:24:00 PM
these seats weren't in play.
when turnout is very low, conservatives always do unexpectedly well. and, yes, everybody should have expected low turnout. but, should they have expected such extremely low turnout? that's what they need to analyze, and none of us have that data accessible to us.
i mean, they're going to get the breakdown and determine whether turnout amongst millennial east asians with a university degree was lower than expected, at a statistically significant level. grenier surely isn't claiming he worked that out.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-byelections-2017-1.4054337
April 07, 2017 at 2:39:01 PM
Marshall Black: I seriously question the origin of the chemical weapons attack coming from assad. Why jeopardize his position, especially when he is under microscope.
He is either really stupid, which I highly doubt.... or he is not behind the chemical attacks.
Me: assad was always a powerless figurehead. but, the russians have been making the strategic decisions there for years. so, it's not even about assad's intelligence, or even putin's intelligence. the actual question you have to ask yourself is if the russian military would launch a sarin attack, given the other tools it has at it's disposal - and this is so absurd as to not bother contemplating. but, according to the article, that's what is next.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-u-s-response-syria-attack-1.4060817
April 07, 2017 at 3:16:00 PM
so, instead of concluding that this claim of a chemical attack is nearly impossible because the russians are operating the military in syria, they're suggesting the russians are complicit in the chemical attack. how much further down the rabbit hole are we going with this?
www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-u-s-response-syria-attack-1.4060817
April 07, 2017 at 3:25:35 PM
so, apparently we're supposed to sympathize with the "army of islam" (cited in the article...) in their fight against secularism, and see trump's reckless attack as "raising expectations" in our solidarity with their cause.
what planet was this article written on?
www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-syria-attacks-stoffel-1.4060525
April 07, 2017 at 3:27:37 PM
hopefully, the russians react by escalating their campaign to wipe out groups like the army of islam. and, history will have to scold us for picking the wrong side.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-syria-attacks-stoffel-1.4060525
April 09, 2017 at 12:53:19 AM
this is propaganda.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/syria-russia-civil-war-1.4052376
April 09, 2017 at 12:55:34 AM
the idea that russia is going to be removed from syria is delusional. but, i suppose we should not have expected different in the "post-truth" reality, although it's truly pathetic to see how quickly the media swallowed itself.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/syria-russia-civil-war-1.4052376
April 09, 2017 at 11:46:17 PM
this monarchist propaganda is tiring.
the reality is that the british imperialists used us as cannon fodder, to protect their own troops from being in the worst positions. our lives were worthless to them. this is why our casualties were so high.
in better times, the cbc has properly explained this to younger viewers. today, it wants to push shallow jingoism to rev kids up for war.
there is no celebration, here - nothing to be proud of, nothing to elevate. the war was senseless. and, the only thing good thing that came out of it was the resistance movement in quebec, and later on in winnipeg.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vimy-anniversary-trudeau-borden-comparison-1.4062553
April 23, 2017 at 11:51:40 AM
if this manifests itself in dessert bars, you could see it replace the after work margarita, and it would be a positive twist for public health. admit it: you know somebody that would jump at the opportunity to get a spiked piece of delicious cake after work.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-legalization-marijuana-edibles-1.4079341
May 13, 2017 at 2:10:17 AM
we have no reason to station troops in latvia and should immediately withdraw.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/russia-latvia-exercise-1.4111285
May 13, 2017 at 4:06:54 PM
we used to just print money for infrastructure projects.
i was initially under the impression that this was the purpose of the bank.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/the-house-sohi-infrastructure-bank-1.4113681
May 18, 2017 at 4:56:27 PM
johnny Wilkes: Why are taxpayers constantly asked to support artists and art? If there is a demand for it, people will pay for it. If there isn't, then why should taxpayers be forced to subsidize it?
me: because history teaches us that the market is almost never able to pick out good art from bad art. artists generally have a very difficult time in market economies, and need ways to escape the tyranny of market forces in order to be creative.
unfortunately, though, your premise is wrong. ideally, the state would step in and shield important artists from market forces, allowing them the freedom to be artists. in reality, these arts grants are largely just another type of corporate welfare.
www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/canadian-music-videos-much-fact-1.4120454
May 18, 2017 at 6:15:39 PM
the premise of the state providing funding for artists is a positive one, but the government has this whole thing backwards. what the state should be doing is stepping in to help serious artists that are producing historically valuable art, but cannot find a market in the present - as so much historically valuable art in fact cannot. what the state does, instead, is act as a kind of taxpayer-funded venture capital to help get profitable entertainers a foot into existing markets. this is something that should be done by record labels, not by taxpayers.
and, see, i wouldn't even have a problem funding pop "artists" if real artists were equally funded, but they simply aren't. all of the money goes to incubating these poorly talented but potentially profitable entertainers, instead - with the focus being on putting the most resources into the entertainers that have the highest potential for large profits. that functionally takes money away from real arts funding. and, it's backwards, because it's not where state funds are required.
the artists that really need the funds are the ones with no commercial potential at all! that's what the artist grants are supposed to be about: giving actually important artists the ability to create art without being subject to the whims of the market.
so, sure: let's have more money for artists. i'm all for that. but, let's drop the corporate welfare disguised as arts grants, too.
Matt Helm: hard to know what art will be later seen as "historically valuable."
Me: that's a cop-out. it really isn't.
but i can be concrete: funding a silver mt zion and do make say think is funding art. but, funding cadence weapon and shawn mendes is just corporate welfare.
www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/canadian-music-videos-much-fact-1.4120454
June 14, 2017 at 7:47:22 PM
Tim Bitz: "the Trudeau government's representative in the Senate"
Is this code for "Liberal senator", since Trudeau made a huge deal out of not referring to Liberal appointed senators as Liberal Senators?
Me: peter harder is a progressive/conservative, actually - as is much of trudeau's intelligentsia.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-harder-point-order-infrastructure-bank-1.4161101
June 14, 2017 at 8:07:50 PM
if they can't pass a budget, shouldn't that trigger an election?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-budget-alcohol-duty-senate-1.4160211
June 14, 2017 at 8:18:51 PM
if they can't pass a budget, shouldn't that trigger an election?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-harder-point-order-infrastructure-bank-1.4161101
June 20, 2017 at 10:32:37 AM
just sell it in the spice rack at the grocery store. no taxes on groceries, right?
i'm serious: the only way this is going to work is if they sell it in existing stores. there's no reason to create a new store. you can sell it in grocery stores, corner stores, pharmacies, the lcbo, the beer store, smoke shops, head shops - whatever. but, the store has to already exist, or the overhead will be impossible.
forget taxes. dealers don't have to pay rent. they don't have to pay salaries. they don't have to pay benefits.
the infrastructure of an existing store is imperative.
but, you put the herb in the herb section. obviously.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/provincial-marijuana-sales-retail-1.4167735
June 22, 2017 at 7:34:20 AM
how does don pittis remain employed? this is characteristic junk from him. he's reading the official unemployment rate, rather than the real one, which is still over 10%. removing workers from the market because they can't find a job doesn't mean that there's a deficit of them, it actually means that there's a tremendous surplus of them. in the current economy, you would actually expect that the pressures on wages would be downwards, which is what we're seeing.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/inflation-canada-outlook-1.4167888
the answer is that we need to use more electricity. the policy assumed we'd be driving electric cars and running high speed rails up and down the detroit-quebec city corridor, by now.
our electricity is clean. you're not he;ping the environment by using less of it. rather, you'd be helping the environment by using more of it - and less fossil fuels.
i would support a renationalizing of the grid, and a system run at cost.
but it's backwards logic to blame the problem on the green energy act. the green energy act was massively successful - it created a large surplus of clean energy, which was going to be required to help us get off of carbon. this exists. it's in place. what has failed has been the slow adoption of electric vehicles.
...and that's been a failure, largely, at the federal level.
wynne needs to call trudeau up and get him to push some serious tax cuts for electric cars. that's the piece of policy that has been a failure. and, for obvious reasons - we just got out of ten years of petrostate politics.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/electricity-ontario-1.3538157
Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 9:30:52 AM
it was always about the price of oil. the criticism was that they tied themselves too strongly to the price of oil, thereby reducing the country's fiscal situation to the whim of global investors. so, when the price of oil comes down, you get huge deficits - and when it comes up, you get huge surpluses. you fix this by recreating a stable tax base, so the country can better deal with the volatility in oil prices.
oil was expected to stay low this year. it hasn't - it has risen. so, we're getting surpluses instead of deficits. it was largely agreed that the liberals low-balled the projections, but it was also largely agreed that the price would stay low.
this is not the point. it's a red herring. it's the situation of relying on oil prices that is the problem that needs to be resolved. and, the fact that we're in this situation cannot be spun out of - it is flat fiscal incompetence. if the government decides to hold to it, it's just carrying on the incompetence. an advanced nation requires an actual tax base.
(of course, i don't particularly care, anyways. i only care about keeping the imf vultures away. i'm just saying.)
www.cbc.ca/news/business/ottawa-federal-surplus-deficit-1.3559175
Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 6:49:51 PM
i agree with council, and would add that this is an abuse of power. he has no mandate to tax people and send it out of the city as a political gimmick. that $300,000 could and should certainly go to helping the disadvantaged in sarnia.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/sarnia-mayor-s-proposal-to-send-25k-to-fort-mcmurray-falls-flat-1.3575075
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 8:49:50 AM
Mollybloom: As if -- Canadian comments on U.S. politics matter a damn to anyone south-of-us. Nevertheless, this collective purgative does have momentary solace as we stop crapping in our own backyard.
But for gawd's sake Bernie, remember Ralph and ponder whether you guys would have got anywhere near Iraq with Gore.
Me: i am absolutely certain that gore would have bombed iraq. in fact, he'd probably have also avoided the protests.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-sanders-sound-bite-trump-1.3576362
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 9:18:36 AM
this media narrative is going to fall flat. the vast majority of sanders supporters don't see any material difference between clinton and trump, anyways - and may even lean a little closer to trump on foreign policy and trade. the really interesting question is whether jill stein can get these supporters, not if clinton can. but, the warped truth is that she'll probably win anyways, because republican support for trump is even lower.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-sanders-sound-bite-trump-1.3576362
Friday, May 13, 2016 at 2:51:59 AM
who is going to do a better job fulfilling the unstated role - an by all accounts capable woman who just happens to be the prime minister's wife, or people that have some training and legitimate interest in the topic? who will be more accountable?
it's kind of a broader issue. what is more efficient: private charity (which is what she's being expected to do...) that is accountable to nobody or public servants that are accountable in the traditional manners? i vote for public sector services over private sector charity.
...which means that she should have an office, it should be accountable to the house and it should be handed over to the next wife or husband
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sophie-gregoire-trudeau-overwhelmed-1.3580164
Friday, May 13, 2016 at 3:02:28 AM
you have to expect the conservatives to yell and scream and have a temper tantrum over this, because the process will rightly have the end result of removing their ability to win majorities with a minority of support (and, you can't compare the liberal's 40% to the conservatives' 40% due to the way the spectrum aligns - it's just yet another dishonest argument from tom mulcair). but, that's too bad - the liberals have a majority, here, and should use it to plow through the av as quick as possible, so that voters have time to understand it.
the worst thing that can happen is for this to drag on until a month before the election, as the backlash could push them out. they want to push it through quickly so that people have time to calm down and realize it's a net benefit to the stability of the country.
and, that's going to mean ignoring the temper tantrums, until the opposition tires itself out and goes to sleep.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-electoral-reform-1.3579651
Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 9:52:26 AM
PshyeahV2.0 : Didn't they already have equal rights?
Me: it's actually a contentious point. the previous government made the argument that gender identity came under sexual orientation, but that was actually obviously wrong. however, i've long argued that it should be covered under 'analogous grounds' - the issue has apparently never been tested in court. now it's explicit, anyways.
May 17, 2016 at 8:59:36 PM
these studies often lack a discussion of any kind of mechanism - it's just straight correlations with no attempts at explanation. as such, you don't actually learn anything.
what are potatoes? they're highly concentrated sugar. so one should expect that high potato consumption with low exercise would certainly lead to excess weight and high blood pressure. one would also expect that high potato consumption with high activity levels would lead to increased muscle mass, as your body converts the excess sugar into muscle.
you should neither be shocked nor particularly enlightened by any this.
www.cbc.ca/news/health/potato-consumption-hypertension-1.3586370
June 02, 2016 at 5:49:45 AM
this argument is actually particularly egregious given the circumstances, which is itself an argument to re-engineer society to abolish markets.
the general way to prevent scalping is to prevent people from exceeding their ticket quotas. but, i have no problem with sending cops out to arrest them, confiscating their tickets and distributing them on a needs basis.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/tragically-hip-scalper-outrage-1.3610489
June 06, 2016 at 2:09:20 PM
the government could get a majority in the senate with a stroke of a pen. there is absolutely no excuse for having their legislation gutted, and they should be loudly called out for incompetence should that be something that actually happens. there's an easy answer to avoid this: fill the senate with liberal senators immediately. it's just incompetence to leave the senate open, then complain that they can't pass legislation.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/philpott-assisted-dying-monday-1.3617856
June 06, 2016 at 2:32:45 PM
when, i voted for the liberals it was because i wanted them to pass legislation - not because i wanted them to create a mess in the senate that would prevent them from passing legislation. it's really a comically absurd situation; he's obstructing his own agenda. the media should really be taking him to task for it. it doesn't matter what you think of the senate; this is the worst possible outcome from any perspective.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/philpott-assisted-dying-monday-1.3617856
June 07, 2016 at 1:40:29 AM
the email scandal promises better ratings.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/sanders-clinton-nominaton-report-1.3619679
June 07, 2016 at 1:52:45 AM
if you want to put him in jail for 20 years, might i suggest contributing funds? 'cause i really don't want to pay to house, feed and entertain the guy for the second third of his life - and then repeat for the last third, because he can't find a job due to the fact that he's a convict.
listen. nobody doubts that this is a problem. but vengeance isn't an answer. deterrence doesn't work - it's just a waste of resources that could be better spent on things that actually work.
you could have a bake sale to raise money to pay for food & shelter for rapists.
www.cbc.ca/news/trending/stanford-swimmer-brock-turner-sexual-assault-father-reacts-1.3618571
June 08, 2016 at 3:02:00 AM
i'm kind of glad you posted this the way you did, so i can respond contextually in an appropriate way. you need to think of hillary like the liberals and sanders like the ndp, and then place them in a minority government - as we saw in the 60s, 70s and 00s. it worked out well in the 60s and 70s. especially the 60s. lots of people think it was our greatest parliament.....
the ndp would never just let the liberals pass whatever they want. they always demanded some influence, and when they didn't get it? they'd vote down the budget.
it's a hard game of difficult negotiations. but, it's how the parliament works.
the american punditry is going to have a hard time with this because the three-party system is foreign to most living americans. it shouldn't be, though. it happened in the 30s, when the socialist parties forced a set of concessions from fdr that is now called the new deal.
they could call a history prof and get them to explain it. or they could call a canadian. but, what we're seeing unfold in the united states right now has not happened for a century. this isn't politics as usual. this is very different. our media is uniquely positioned to understand and explain it and should take the opportunity to.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-california-primary-1.3621301
June 08, 2016 at 11:44:00 AM
"losing patience"
yeah. right. what are you going to do, hill? not get voted for?
sanders has incredible leverage, here. and, he's been pretty patient, himself. if i was him, i'd be launching an independent run right now and laying out arguments that hillary is truly no better than trump. i'd be threatening to split the democrats in half unless i got what i wanted.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/california-primary-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-1.3621007
June 15, 2016 at 3:18:43 AM
when will thomas mulcair endorse justin trudeau?
www.cbc.ca/news/world/hillary-wins-dc-primary-1.3635688
June 20, 2016 at 10:34:12 PM
the reason we have a cbs is that the red cross screwed up the blood supply. we nationalized it in response to market failure. if something happens, and it's tied to a shift in policy...
i expect the government will eventually lift the ban, but it's going to need to protect *itself* first. this is more about the history of blood services in canada than it is about homophobia. you have to understand *that* history to realize why there's push back againt anything that modifies a system that has worked well up to this point.
when the changes happen, they're going to be broader than this, too - because, as mentioned, this is symptomatic of broader, underlying systemic issues.
they should be applauded for not kneejerking, really, and holding to the script rather than being affected by political pressure.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gay-men-blood-donations-1.3643761
Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 7:10:16 AM
this has been solved, from my understanding - it's a combination of the industry on the island with the salt mines under windsor. what's happening is that the vibrations are sending sound waves through the old mines, which is literally shaking the whole ground.
i'm on the other side of oullette, and i've never heard anything over here. but if i was living around lasalle, i might be more concerned about sink holes swallowing my house....
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/windsor-hum-discussion-goes-to-washington-1.3645376
Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 5:15:25 PM
i think that the balance of evidence admits waukesha as a very limited special case. i haven't read the case, but if it limits the situation to the very limited special conditions then this is actually a positive precedent.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/waukesha-water-leamington-mayor-1.3646880
July 26, 2016 at 11:33:30 AM
yeah. he's got some 'splainin' to do, alright.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/bill-clinton-speech-hillary-clinton-democrats-1.3695087
August 02, 2016 at 9:52:00 AM
why does he keep appointing conservatives?
the election results were not ambiguous. it's kind of counter to his mandate to keep stacking all these reform bodies with conservatives.
if we wanted conservatives, we would have voted for them. we voted against them. so, why is he doing this?
Lori Cameron: Did you mean, why does he keep appointing those whom he believes are the best qualified for the given positions?
me: i'm not sure how anybody comes to the conclusion that kim campbell is best qualified for anything, besides a lecture on how to preside over the worst electoral defeat in canadian history.
a supreme court advisory is not a meritocratic position, it's a partisan position. i really don't want a conservative body determining the composition of the next supreme court, and it's frankly downright enraging to see a liberal prime minister put such a thing in motion.
ironically, i don't think that this is constitutional.
Tim Saucier: What disqualifies Kim Campbell from the job, aside from being "Conservative"?
Me: considering that we elected an overwhelming liberal majority, i think that's enough.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:24:55 AM
what, exactly, was wrong with a partisan process?
Taylor Sutherland: bias.
Me: it's a court process. bias is the whole point. i don't even...
if you remove bias, what are the ruling on? corporate expediency? objective truth?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:29:00 AM
let me try this another way.
a part of the responsibility of the prime minister is to appoint the supreme court justices. this is a political process, meaning it's a part of the prime minister's mandate. not only is this process obviously unconstitutional, but it's a rejection of one of the prime minister's core job functions: to determine the justice in such a way that reflects the popular will, which is necessarily a partisan process.
the previous election was about wiping the conservatives out of power. where did all this bipartisan or nonpartisan stuff come from? there's no mandate for this.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:30:23 AM
when you remove partisanship, you remove democracy.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:32:29 AM
i voted for a liberal prime minister. so, i want a liberal prime minister to appoint a liberal judge.
Cindy Fordyce: I want a Liberal gov't to appoint the best person who meets the qualifications to be appointed.
Politics is not an Olympic sport and should never be made so.
Me: you're incoherent. you say you want a competition over who's "the best", then you say it's not a competition. but, you can't possibly define what "the best person" who has "the best" qualifications even *is*.
all politics is bias. and all law is politics. it's basic critical legal theory.
there is no meritocracy. there's simply a party apparatus. and, you can appoint somebody that upholds your biases or somebody that upholds somebody else's.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:32:55 AM
dale mcrobie : This is unfair to unilingual Canadian! Just because one only speaks one language they should not be penalized!
Me: how do you expect a unilingual judge to hear a case in french? this is a common sense requirement.
Michael Chong: first off they do not individually sit as judges for each case,it's a group sitting. Also why not just get language translators. If ambassadors who are sitting at the UN have them why not Canada.?
Me: so, the fiscal conservatives want to hire translators instead of just appointing a bilingual judge. curious.
with something like the supreme court, i'd suggest that we don't want translators getting in the way in the interpretation of language. rulings can turn on interpretations. so, i think it's a functional requirement that the court can understand a ruling out of quebec natively, and be able to translate it independently.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:38:07 AM
could you imagine hillary clinton making george w. bush the head of a committee to determine the next supreme court nominee?
wait. don't answer that...
it's absurd.
i'm really not opposed to a committee, but i would expect him to stack the committee with liberals - because the liberals won the election and therefore get to stack the court. that's why we had an election!
the supreme court - ironically - won't let him do this, though. the constitution is pretty clear that the prime minister has to pick the justices.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:46:19 AM
i voted for the liberals. i want them to replace every judge with a liberal. i want them to replace the conservative judges with liberals. i want them to replace the liberal judges with even more liberal judges, and the extremely liberal judges with exceedingly liberal judges. i want the court to have exactly zero conservative justices on it. that's why i voted for the liberals. what's the use in having an election, when the liberals appoint conservative judges?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:52:07 AM
i mean, what's really going on here? was picking a court justice interfering with his canoe time, or what?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 12:06:16 PM
it's very weird. a lot of times he seems like he doesn't want to govern.
mr. prime minister. you're the person that's supposed to govern. that means picking supreme court justices. and, you're supposed to pick the person that most accurately uphold and reflects your partisan agenda.
i don't understand where he's coming from. some kind of dark age buddhist "wisdom", or something?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
Tuesday, August 02, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM
shouldn't this be one of his biggest legacies? something he's jumping all over? he's delegating it...does he want this job?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 05, 2016 at 3:43:25 AM
criminal negligence revolves around the concept of reasonable precaution. what is at question here is ultimately not whether he carried out an act or not, or even if he did so on purpose, but whether he took the proper precautions to ensure it didn't happen. the legal question will likely revolve around the discussion he had with the person that actual prepared the food. did he point out the allergy clearly enough on the order?
the article is poorly written - it does not provide any facts. but, if the waiter expressed the allergies with a sufficient level of force, then it falls upon the cook.
it is very difficult to see how any judge in any liberal democracy could legally fault the victim for forgetting their epipen.
a lot of how you react to this is going to depend on what kind of social contract you feel is best applied. i'm an advocate of the proudhonian social contract, but less so of the one promoted by rousseau. i do consequently think that the waiter has a moral, legal and social responsibility to ensure that he does not poison anybody, and that he should face collective punitive action by society should he not uphold that social contract.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/sherbrooke-waiter-arrested-salmon-allergic-customer-negligence-1.3707667
August 06, 2016 at 8:50:53 AM
that's no fair! why can they get rid of trump, when the democrats can't get rid of hillary? just more proof that the country is slanted to monied interests....
www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-campaign-republicans-1.3708729
August 15, 2016 at 12:27:08 AM
wait. when did the election get overturned? i thought we elected the liberals in a landslide in order to undo what the conservatives have done over the last ten years. where does the media get off in pretending the election never happened?
this was a populist issue. unlike what he's dong to the senate and supreme court, this is something he has a mandate for. he should stay the course.
if rona ambrose wants to govern, she's going to need to win an election, first.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-terrorism-1.3718743
August 15, 2016 at 12:28:58 AM
is trudeau as much of a fake as obama?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-terrorism-1.3718743
August 15, 2016 at 8:04:30 PM
frankly, i don't think the prime minister actually has a choice, here. a pattern is developing of contempt for the constitution, and for constitutional norms, that can't be tolerated. so, i hope that somebody challenges the nomination.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-supreme-court-judge-atlantic-canada-1.3721255
August 16, 2016 at 4:37:38 PM
i'm confused. what does this "terrorist attack" have to do with the constitutionality of the legislation?
if it was unconstitutional last year, surely it remains unconstitutional today.
??
i mean, unless the constitution was changed at some point when we weren't paying attention.....!?
forget the ndp. the only way anything gets done in this country is through the courts. let's get a constitutional challenge, please.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-c51-terrorism-balance-rights-security-1.3723167
August 25, 2016 at 4:16:13 PM
nobody cares about $500. please report on substantive issues.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-caucus-fall-session-1.3735744
August 30, 2016 at 9:58:54 AM
my view on this is that the opposition to the changes merely demonstrate their necessity. we need to be teaching these kids secular values over the opposition of their parents - and the more the parents yell that it offends their religious values, the more necessary it is to teach their kids secular values. this should really be made clear in the immigration process, so that people are not settling here under false pretenses
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-sex-ed-mistake-1.3740877
September 06, 2016 at 6:19:58 PM
i think the point is that canadians should spend more time pressuring their own government, and less time buying into deflecting tactics in an attempt to work up anti-chinese sentiment. i agree with that, actually. we have a lot of work to do in cleaning up our mining industry, too.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-hong-kong-cemetery-war-dead-1.3749280
September 06, 2016 at 7:01:48 PM
well, if you're going to listen to your loudness-wars compressed master through your 128 kbit mp3 and your software playback replay gain limiter, why not degrade the signal that much further by going wireless and introducing every kind of interference into the signal you can imagine, all while boosting the frequency at 100 hz so loud that all you can hear is the thud, anyways? no, listen. i'm a sound design artist. and i'm making a valid point. nobody cares about sound quality anymore.
www.cbc.ca/news/technology/apple-iphone-headphone-jack-1.3750086
September 16, 2016 at 9:17:03 AM
why? so we can vote with the americans on every issue? and, think about what might happen if we don't. we should be avoiding this....there's better ways to have influence than to baldly challenge the hegemon.
also, it would be useful to acknowledge that the rise of all of this xenophobia is a consequence of the failure of the free trade regime, rather than pretend the answer is more of the problem.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-united-nations-security-council-1.3764441
October 03, 2016 at 7:36:10 PM
his platform didn't talk about carbon pricing, it talked about an investment bank for green infrastructure. if you care about something that will be *effective* in reducing emissions, the infrastructure bank in the platform was a far superior approach. in fact, it's the primary reason i voted for the liberals.
the truth is that this isn't a serious discussion. the science is in: carbon pricing doesn't work in reducing emissions. rather, this is smoke and mirrors for political purposes.
but, i'm frankly not opposed to that, if it has the effect of keeping the conservatives out of power. i don't care if they do this or not. what i want to see is that infrastructure bank set up and put in motion in actually converting infrastructure.
put another way: i don't care who pays for this. i'm tired of stalling over budgets. i want to see shovels in the ground.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-trudeau-climate-change-1.3788825
October 07, 2016 at 1:49:05 AM
how about this, guys?
it doesn't make any difference at all. it's just politics. the government is pretending it's doing something about the problem, while the opposition is pretending that it's going to be a catastrophe.
if you have a lot of wealth and use a lot of energy then your taxes will go up (you're supposed to use less energy, not complain about your taxes). if you're poor and use minimal energy then you'll get a rebate. if you're in the middle, it will truly be revenue neutral. the right answer is that lisa's friends will probably get a check at the end of the month at the expense of trudeau's family, which will get a tax increase.
the media has a responsibility to explain this. but, they'll sell far more papers scare-mongering about tax increases. which is why it's essential that the government implements the policy immediately so the checks are already out by the next writ drop. which, of course, they're not doing.
so, that's the money question: as wealth is strongly correlated with energy use, the policy will redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom through the intermediary of taxation. those that are legitimately concerned about the poor should look at the policy more carefully and understand that it is in their benefit. beware of demagogues that try and take advantage of the ignorant and uneducated in order to scare them.
but, what about emissions? will it reduce them?
the answer is that this doesn't work as an emissions reduction plan. the rich eat the costs because they can afford it, anyways. again: it's going to offset with the middle classes. and, the poor (who don't use much energy...) will get checks in the mail from it.
i'm poor. i don't have a car. most of the food here is imported. i couldn't do much more to reduce emissions if i wanted to. but, i'm likely to get a nice check in the mail. to me, this is just money from the sky. it's not going to change my behaviour...
if i was in the middle class, it would balance out. i need to be clear: i don't expect this to drive inflation and nobody else does, either. you won't find a working economist that thinks prices are going up. it's just scare mongering, really. but, they'll spend a little more on energy and then get it back through tax cuts. how does that change behaviour if it comes out in the wash?
if i was rich, i'd spend a lot of money on energy and i wouldn't care if taxes go up because i have a lot of money, anyways. they don't change behaviour, either, then.
so, if nobody has a meaningful incentive to reduce their use, how do emissions reduce?
here's the thing, then - do you want some wealth redistribution? are you down with that? do you think it's a good idea to tax the rich a little more and give it to the poor? well, this is a good way to do that. it *will* work in accomplishing *this* task.
but, do you really want emissions to come down, too? are you concerned that we're not meeting our international obligations? well, you might want to push for a different policy, like direct investment in converting infrastructure.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-climate-change-trudeau-raitt-1.3792865
October 13, 2016 at 7:16:30 AM
hillary is at best a teenager. but, trump is a screaming toddler.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-ohio-voters-1.3801038
November 15, 2016 at 9:52:04 PM
i'd rather follow sarkozy's lead, pull out of nafta and put a carbon tariff up. there's more than one way to even the playing field.
the world needs to show some backbone in dealing with trump.
they don't make anything anymore, anyways.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trump-climate-change-1.3850223
November 24, 2016 at 3:55:23 PM
due to our universal health care system, obtaining voter id in canada is not the same kind of problem that is for some low income people in the united states. but, anything that makes it easier to vote is a step forwards and should be applauded.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896
November 24, 2016 at 3:56:50 PM
i'd actually like to see them omnibus everything harper ever did into a giant "undo" button and then set it on fire in a public ceremony.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896
November 28, 2016 at 1:59:30 PM
didn't they actually buy a drone company for delivery?
my best guess is that they just came to the startling conclusion that the most cost-effective way to deliver the product was to convert warehouses into store fronts.
i'd kinda still like to see drone mail delivery. more likely is that they're going to slowly lose market share, online.
and i'll stick with the second hand book stores, myself.
www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/amazon-offline-1.3868891
December 01, 2016 at 5:59:00 PM
it was an error to let the opposition members into committee, as they just obstructed it. they should have just immediately gone to work in pushing through the irv. there's still time to ram it through.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-electoral-reform-committee-1.3866879
December 18, 2016 at 6:29:50 AM
as a transit user, i'd just like to see consistency: if you're going to charge to get on the bus, you should charge tolls to use the highways, too. if you don't want tolls on the highways, let's remove tolls on public transit, too.
January 04, 2017 at 4:21:08 PM
it's not a very complicated problem - we simply need to socialize the ownership of the machines, and stop enslaving ourselves to capitalism. we can do that now, or we can wait a little while and do it later, or we can wait a little longer and have a revolution. that's the real choice in front of the bourgeois class, which includes both liberals and conservatives.
we should not be scrounging everywhere, looking for jobs to do. we should be enjoying the abundance that technology is providing us with, and embracing a future where working is a choice rather than an obligation.
the unemployment that automation is providing is an opportunity. it's a step forwards towards freedom. it's progress. it's a wonderful thing. we just have to leave the calvinism in the past, which is where it belongs, anyways.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-progressive-trudeau-1.3919211
Wednesday, January 04, 2017 at 4:06:42 PM
Jay Dean: I'm not sure why they say that "Many Political Leaders are still trying to figure out how Trump won".
Simple really.
He Lied over 90% of the time and the simple ate it up.
Me: he didn't actually win.
...unless you call getting about 20% of the vote amidst massive voter suppression "winning".
the answer is that his opponent was unable to rally her base, and he coasted into office by default.
it had nothing to do with anything that he did or did not do. it had everything to do with apathy around clinton.
if people elsewhere want to emulate the victory, they're going to need to find a way to take control of their opponents and install a candidate that is not just uninspiring but is ideologically opposed to the crux of their party's vision. in canada, that might mean asking trudeau to step down to make way for the return of michael ignatieff.
short of that absurdity, it won't repeat itself here.
and all the democrats need to do to reverse the results is run an actual democrat.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-progressive-trudeau-1.3919211
January 10, 2017 at 5:59:04 AM
Irv Millar: The trades now have a platform by which unqualified skilled tradespeople will be performing certified work against the law. For years there was a concerted effort in Canada to end the underground economy. Now we have these platforms that are a detriment to the economy. Lost revenue to pay for the maintenance of our democracy.
The target market appears to be Gen Y. By enabling these platforms is a predatory practise whereby the laws are usurped. Who, at a young age would think about savings, a pension, benefits when they are paying off a student debt or are a senior who has little or no pension/benefits and requires medicines. Convenience costs our whole society. Just look at all the plastic water bottles blowing around.
Me: but, see, there's a twist here: this is the reason why i wouldn't use this platform - and the reason that it will probably never exit the niche market that it currently appeals to. there's lots of reasons why i'd rather call a taxi, and lots of reasons why i'd rather book a room in a hotel.
it's much to do about nothing. there's no oncoming dystopia. it's just a fad, with a long term niche market.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-airbnb-mowsnowpros-tradepros-mindsea-1.3923447
January 10, 2017 at 6:10:36 AM
William Ben: A race to the bottom and tax avoidance there is an app for that!
This is a very slippery slope unless it can be regulated as it will cause a black market explosion of tax avoidance and dodgy uninsured workmanship.
Me: no it won't. consumers will never go for this in large enough numbers for it to exit it's niche appeal.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-airbnb-mowsnowpros-tradepros-mindsea-1.3923447
January 10, 2017 at 6:51:53 AM
Neil Gregory: The biggest problem I see here is in determining that the person you hire is qualified and licensed to do the job. Do you really want an unqualified and/or unlicensed person working on your electrical service or plumbing or messing with the structure of you house, for example? We already have more than enough problems in that area without making it easier for more unqualified people to get in on the act.
Me: no, i don't want an unqualified person working on my electrical - which is why i wouldn't hire one. the fact that i can contact some hack for half the price on my phone doesn't mean i'm ever going to want to.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-airbnb-mowsnowpros-tradepros-mindsea-1.3923447
January 10, 2017 at 9:26:13 AM
the idea that there's some kind of future in this is absolute nonsense; it's just a bourgeois layer for the elite, and will not be able to exist without a strong real economy underlying it.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-airbnb-mowsnowpros-tradepros-mindsea-1.3923447
January 10, 2017 at 9:56:09 AM
the economic error underlying the analysis here and in the comments is in treating the service economy like the manufacturing economy. in manufacturing, it's just all about minimizing costs. you can literally hire anybody, including a robot, to do the work. the savings in labour will probably not have an effect on the quality of the resulting product. but, the service economy requires a different standard. yeah, maybe you could rent somebody's leaky attic for $10, but the savings in "producing" this good are going to be reflected in the quality of the good, itself. in the long run, what we will find is that this process of uberization is actually not cost effective at all, and that large amounts of resources are being pumped into services that cannot compete with the higher quality that comes with standardization.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-airbnb-mowsnowpros-tradepros-mindsea-1.3923447
January 12, 2017 at 12:30:58 PM
this wouldn't bother me much if it was posted at a right-wing rag like the national post, but it's a very poor use of state media, which should be focused on disseminating objective facts and holding the government to account with investigative journalism, rather than perpetuating vacuous partisan bickering. why are we giving this person this kind of platform to present this kind of opinion with?
i mean, if you want to talk about getting rid of capitalism, i'm willing to listen. but, this is the normal state in which the system functions.
and, no - he didn't win on a platform of transparency. that was the guy he replaced. he won on a platform of social liberalism.
it's a slow point in the news cycle. but, i hope that the cbc moves on to more pressing issues in the upcoming weeks.
www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trudeau-bahamas-vacation-1.3931267
January 14, 2017 at 12:50:54 PM
i think that the author needs a reality check in understanding whether phasing out the tar sands is in line with public opinion across the country or not.
phasing out the tar sands *is* a populist position.
and, supporting pipelines is deeply unpopular, too. the last poll i saw had 78% of liberal voters opposed to pipeline expansions.
unfortunately, the canadian media exists in a right-wing bubble of constant old tory confirmation bias. all of the media says the same thing, so they convince themselves of it. then, the polling comes in and they don't get it, because they didn't listen to what anybody outside of their echo chamber was saying.
we saw this in the last election with the question of deficits. for years, the media pushed a message of the importance of balanced budgets. then, as a hail mary, and in the face of sagging poll numbers, the liberals went against the conventional wisdom and promised deficit spending. the numbers came in, and it was found that canadians have an overwhelming support for deficit spending. the media expressed shock, and even outrage. but, if they had taken the time to do some basic research instead of sitting on their thumbs in their echo chamber, they would have realized that we never cared about balanced budgets in the first place - we were just told that we should by the tory media establishment, who assumed we'd just repeat it because we were told it.
consult the research. please. it's not obscure. and it's very clear.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-town-halls-1.3934742
January 15, 2017 at 6:20:07 PM
the framing here is disgusting. but, it indeed demonstrates what everybody already knows: what is good for alberta, is (really) ugly for the rest of the world.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/oilsands-future-tertzakian-carbon-bitumen-1.3735773
January 16, 2017 at 7:29:02 PM
my honest opinion is that they should repeal the line in the law. it's a little draconian, don't you think?
Pat Ferraro: Sarcasm I hope? We should give them carte Blanc because well he's just so darn cute. This is your money, this is my money! We should ask and then ask again.
Me: no. i think that a total ban on air travel without request from the ethics commissioner is over-reaching the bounds of the ethics office. and, i think that addressing this point is the more concerning issue.
in the long run, i don't think that canadians are going to find the issue particularly concerning. rather, i think it's going to rub off rather poorly on the opposition. but, the liberals should take steps to address the issue, rather than let it run it's course.
i don't want to ever see another prime minister get nailed by the media for getting in a helicopter.
there is perhaps an underlying issue here that the tory media is missing in it's rush to judgement. yes: conservatives value rules and order, even when we don't like the rules or think they're silly. but, liberals see rules as subject to democratic oversight, and ultimately see them as negotiable. i'm not going to accept the authority of the "ethics office" on it's face; if i don't see a problem in the behaviour, i'm going to argue that the rules should be changed to accommodate it, rather than demand that the rules should be blindly enforced.
Mario Doucet: Why stop at one line, rewrite or just cancel all accountability or responsibility so Trudeau can do whatever he wants with our tax money, which pretty much sums up his first year in office.
Me: i hardly think that a blanket ban on air travel does much to increase accountability measures, or that many voters will frame the issue in such absurd terms. i'd be happy with an audit, myself.
to clarify: when i say that it's an overreach, what i mean is that there is no logical or otherwise causal connection between a blanket ban on air travel and financial or ethical responsibility or accountability. it's just unnecessary government interference in a personal decision that should be up to the prime minister's discretion. in the end, if voters don't like those decisions, we can vote the prime minister out. but, that's not what we're seeing in front of us. what we're seeing is the media grasping at straws, and the law giving them far too much space to grasp at them in.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/justin-trudeau-nova-scotia-ethics-concerns-1.3938433
January 28, 2017 at 12:18:09 PM
you know who was right about nafta?
pierre trudeau, jean chretien, john turner, ed broadbent....
it's scandalous how the contemporary canadian left has completely swallowed itself on this issue. they were right in the 80s and the 90s. history has proven this, clearly. they should be gloating about how right they were, and jumping at the opportunity to fix the errors of the mulroney government. instead, they've both embraced the legacy of the progressive conservative party.
if the conservatives are able to realign on this, justin trudeau and the liberals (and mulcair and the ndp) will have nobody to blame but themselves. they were right all along. all they have to do is remind people of it, and start acting like it
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-ambrose-renegotiation-caucus-friday-1.3955714
February 03, 2017 at 7:34:51 PM
this is nonsense. american law applies in us customs enclaves, including but not limited to embassies and border checkpoints.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pre-clearance-trump-ban-1.3965666
February 10, 2017 at 9:12:49 AM
Glen robert: So does this mean Trudeau thinks Canadians are not smart enough to keep a fringe party out.
Maybe next time we vote the liberals out and see this issue come back in his campaign platform.
Me: in 1979, the balance of power was briefly held by the social credit party in a minority parliament led by the conservatives under joe clark. they were widely accused of deep anti-semitism. joe clark was unable to pass a budget because he refused to adhere to their demands, forcing an election. trudeau won the subsequent election.
clark did the right thing in forcing an election instead of listening to their demands. but, there's no guarantee that that had to happen.
fwiw, the liberals won the popular vote that election but had less seats because the conservatives dominated in the west
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/electoral-reform-trudeau-leitch-1.3975354
February 10, 2017 at 9:15:51 AM
it's probably good news that he's gotten the message that he didn't make the argument for ranked ballots loudly enough. there was a broken promise, here, but i think it's important to get the point across that the broken promise was about ranked ballots.
Darby Boon: The promise was electoral reform, not ranked ballots. The phony union accounts posting in favour of ranked ballots tells us what they want. Liberals and unions sitting on the same side of the bargaining table with no one representing the people. That's how it works in Liberal Ontario with the government handing the unions millions for coming to the table.
Me: ranked ballots had been in the liberal platform since 2006. i guess you never read it, did you?
it was stephane dion that first put ranked ballots in the platform, and it was designed to appeal to green party voters.
i don't remember hearing ignatieff say anything about ranked ballots, but dion campaigned heavily on it. it's been the official liberal party position for over a decade, and i'm actually glad to hear that it is still favoured by the prime minister. i guess i don't have any option but to hope that they come back to it in the future.
i'm sorry if you were misinformed on this fact. but, it is very important that voters take the time to understand what they are voting for. and, the platform was absolutely clear: a vote for trudeau was a vote for ranked ballots.
perhaps voters that were misinformed should take the time to analyze their sources and question if they are trustworthy, moving into the future.
https://sdion.liberal.ca/en/news-nouvelles/p3-voting-system-canada/
February 21, 2017 at 6:29:22 PM
mulroney is the biggest loser of all time - and this policy is stupid. they're not running for re-election in california they should throw mexico under the bus.
no. it's true. mulroney is the biggest loser of all time, due to the 1993 election.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-mulroney-guajardo-freeland-1.3992043
February 25, 2017 at 11:29:58 AM
the conservatives will be the third party within ten years.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/millennials-manning-conference-1.3998207
February 26, 2017 at 11:36:24 AM
"populism" on the right is always just a bunch of bankers telling voters what they want to hear in order to trick them into voting for them, then stabbing them in the back at the earliest opportunity (see: trump). it's not a movement by the people, it's a tactic by the elites. it's hegemony. that said, i have little fear that canadians are going to fall for this in large numbers. the greater issue, as always, relates to the split on the left. and, i'll be blunt: i'm not so afraid of these demagogues that i'll vote for pipeline trudeau in order to stop them.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-conservatives-populism-1.3998318
February 26, 2017 at 11:56:05 AM
i moved from ottawa to windsor for similar reasons, after calculating that it was the best way to maximize use of an odsp "income". i'm living in a two bedroom basement apartment for less than the cost of a closet in ottawa. no, seriously - you can't even find a room in ottawa for what i'm paying, here. and, it's left me with significant disposal income....
at the end of the day, the prices will come down if they can't rent the units. and, if they *can* rent the units then they won't.
just realize this: for every person like me that is escaping the high rents of the wealthier cities for the luxury of greater disposable income, there's somebody that want to buy into it for reasons of status and class. we'll all vote with our wallets as to what society we want.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/high-rent-could-make-toronto-a-generational-ghost-town-1.3999022
February 26, 2017 at 12:41:59 PM
the entire premise that ivanka trump is a strong or independent woman is a joke. what she does is sell her name for use in product placement, just like her dad. she doesn't run anything. she doesn't organize anything. she was just lucky enough to be born with a name she can sell...
so, these shoes with her name on it. what did ivanka do with these shoes. she didn't design the shoes. she didn't raise the capital to bring the shoes to market. she just accepted a check from the company, in exchange for allowing them to put her name on them. then, the product gets marked up because it has a branding attached to it. that is all.
...and that's not anything that's being assigned to her. it's not "independence". it's not "strength". it's not "entrepreneurialism". it's parasitic, rentier capitalism and deserves a protest in and of itself for pointlessly raising costs and directing profits away from workers.
she's not a successful feminist executive, she's a princess with a revenue stream that she doesn't deserve. so, the premise that a feminist is being attacked, here, is preposterous.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/ivanka-trump-grabyourwallet-boycott-feminism-1.3998601
February 27, 2017 at 6:50:38 PM
awwww. the poor landlords.
awwwww.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/go-public-medical-marijuana-landlord-tenant-insurance-pulled-1.3985875
March 02, 2017 at 11:20:56 AM
see, i'd like to see them buy out the *generation*. it's not the hydro one sale that's boosting the prices, and the sad truth is that the ndp *does* know that - they're just not willing to actually take on the electricity generators.
as frustrating as this truth is, the liberals are going to remain the better option, here, until i see a serious proposal from the ndp about taking public control of the actual generation.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hydro-price-plan-kathleen-wynne-1.4006021
March 28, 2017 at 5:09:25 AM
that's because the right time to talk about men is international women's day.
this is gutter politics, neil. every word of it. all of it meant to distract from real issues.
you're just doing exactly what they want you to.
no one had taken the bait. we should be proud of ourselves for that - we saw through it, and we ignored it. and, we should just put this article away and continue not taking the bait and continue seeing through it and continue ignoring it.
leave the gender war debates for facebook.
just remember this, kids: while you're sitting here arguing about gender, the government is laying pipelines across the country.
www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/gender-based-analysis-1.4043312
April 01, 2017 at 11:17:19 AM
banks are dime a dozen and mostly the same. so, if you switch to a different bank that hires here, the increased work volume will recreate those jobs.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/cibc-ceo-outsourcing-india-1.4050248
April 04, 2017 at 2:24:00 PM
these seats weren't in play.
when turnout is very low, conservatives always do unexpectedly well. and, yes, everybody should have expected low turnout. but, should they have expected such extremely low turnout? that's what they need to analyze, and none of us have that data accessible to us.
i mean, they're going to get the breakdown and determine whether turnout amongst millennial east asians with a university degree was lower than expected, at a statistically significant level. grenier surely isn't claiming he worked that out.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-byelections-2017-1.4054337
April 07, 2017 at 2:39:01 PM
Marshall Black: I seriously question the origin of the chemical weapons attack coming from assad. Why jeopardize his position, especially when he is under microscope.
He is either really stupid, which I highly doubt.... or he is not behind the chemical attacks.
Me: assad was always a powerless figurehead. but, the russians have been making the strategic decisions there for years. so, it's not even about assad's intelligence, or even putin's intelligence. the actual question you have to ask yourself is if the russian military would launch a sarin attack, given the other tools it has at it's disposal - and this is so absurd as to not bother contemplating. but, according to the article, that's what is next.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-u-s-response-syria-attack-1.4060817
April 07, 2017 at 3:16:00 PM
so, instead of concluding that this claim of a chemical attack is nearly impossible because the russians are operating the military in syria, they're suggesting the russians are complicit in the chemical attack. how much further down the rabbit hole are we going with this?
www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-u-s-response-syria-attack-1.4060817
April 07, 2017 at 3:25:35 PM
so, apparently we're supposed to sympathize with the "army of islam" (cited in the article...) in their fight against secularism, and see trump's reckless attack as "raising expectations" in our solidarity with their cause.
what planet was this article written on?
www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-syria-attacks-stoffel-1.4060525
April 07, 2017 at 3:27:37 PM
hopefully, the russians react by escalating their campaign to wipe out groups like the army of islam. and, history will have to scold us for picking the wrong side.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-syria-attacks-stoffel-1.4060525
April 09, 2017 at 12:53:19 AM
this is propaganda.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/syria-russia-civil-war-1.4052376
April 09, 2017 at 12:55:34 AM
the idea that russia is going to be removed from syria is delusional. but, i suppose we should not have expected different in the "post-truth" reality, although it's truly pathetic to see how quickly the media swallowed itself.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/syria-russia-civil-war-1.4052376
April 09, 2017 at 11:46:17 PM
this monarchist propaganda is tiring.
the reality is that the british imperialists used us as cannon fodder, to protect their own troops from being in the worst positions. our lives were worthless to them. this is why our casualties were so high.
in better times, the cbc has properly explained this to younger viewers. today, it wants to push shallow jingoism to rev kids up for war.
there is no celebration, here - nothing to be proud of, nothing to elevate. the war was senseless. and, the only thing good thing that came out of it was the resistance movement in quebec, and later on in winnipeg.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vimy-anniversary-trudeau-borden-comparison-1.4062553
April 23, 2017 at 11:51:40 AM
if this manifests itself in dessert bars, you could see it replace the after work margarita, and it would be a positive twist for public health. admit it: you know somebody that would jump at the opportunity to get a spiked piece of delicious cake after work.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-legalization-marijuana-edibles-1.4079341
May 13, 2017 at 2:10:17 AM
we have no reason to station troops in latvia and should immediately withdraw.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/russia-latvia-exercise-1.4111285
May 13, 2017 at 4:06:54 PM
we used to just print money for infrastructure projects.
i was initially under the impression that this was the purpose of the bank.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/the-house-sohi-infrastructure-bank-1.4113681
May 18, 2017 at 4:56:27 PM
johnny Wilkes: Why are taxpayers constantly asked to support artists and art? If there is a demand for it, people will pay for it. If there isn't, then why should taxpayers be forced to subsidize it?
me: because history teaches us that the market is almost never able to pick out good art from bad art. artists generally have a very difficult time in market economies, and need ways to escape the tyranny of market forces in order to be creative.
unfortunately, though, your premise is wrong. ideally, the state would step in and shield important artists from market forces, allowing them the freedom to be artists. in reality, these arts grants are largely just another type of corporate welfare.
www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/canadian-music-videos-much-fact-1.4120454
May 18, 2017 at 6:15:39 PM
the premise of the state providing funding for artists is a positive one, but the government has this whole thing backwards. what the state should be doing is stepping in to help serious artists that are producing historically valuable art, but cannot find a market in the present - as so much historically valuable art in fact cannot. what the state does, instead, is act as a kind of taxpayer-funded venture capital to help get profitable entertainers a foot into existing markets. this is something that should be done by record labels, not by taxpayers.
and, see, i wouldn't even have a problem funding pop "artists" if real artists were equally funded, but they simply aren't. all of the money goes to incubating these poorly talented but potentially profitable entertainers, instead - with the focus being on putting the most resources into the entertainers that have the highest potential for large profits. that functionally takes money away from real arts funding. and, it's backwards, because it's not where state funds are required.
the artists that really need the funds are the ones with no commercial potential at all! that's what the artist grants are supposed to be about: giving actually important artists the ability to create art without being subject to the whims of the market.
so, sure: let's have more money for artists. i'm all for that. but, let's drop the corporate welfare disguised as arts grants, too.
Matt Helm: hard to know what art will be later seen as "historically valuable."
Me: that's a cop-out. it really isn't.
but i can be concrete: funding a silver mt zion and do make say think is funding art. but, funding cadence weapon and shawn mendes is just corporate welfare.
www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/canadian-music-videos-much-fact-1.4120454
June 14, 2017 at 7:47:22 PM
Tim Bitz: "the Trudeau government's representative in the Senate"
Is this code for "Liberal senator", since Trudeau made a huge deal out of not referring to Liberal appointed senators as Liberal Senators?
Me: peter harder is a progressive/conservative, actually - as is much of trudeau's intelligentsia.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-harder-point-order-infrastructure-bank-1.4161101
June 14, 2017 at 8:07:50 PM
if they can't pass a budget, shouldn't that trigger an election?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-budget-alcohol-duty-senate-1.4160211
June 14, 2017 at 8:18:51 PM
if they can't pass a budget, shouldn't that trigger an election?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-harder-point-order-infrastructure-bank-1.4161101
June 20, 2017 at 10:32:37 AM
just sell it in the spice rack at the grocery store. no taxes on groceries, right?
i'm serious: the only way this is going to work is if they sell it in existing stores. there's no reason to create a new store. you can sell it in grocery stores, corner stores, pharmacies, the lcbo, the beer store, smoke shops, head shops - whatever. but, the store has to already exist, or the overhead will be impossible.
forget taxes. dealers don't have to pay rent. they don't have to pay salaries. they don't have to pay benefits.
the infrastructure of an existing store is imperative.
but, you put the herb in the herb section. obviously.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/provincial-marijuana-sales-retail-1.4167735
June 22, 2017 at 7:34:20 AM
how does don pittis remain employed? this is characteristic junk from him. he's reading the official unemployment rate, rather than the real one, which is still over 10%. removing workers from the market because they can't find a job doesn't mean that there's a deficit of them, it actually means that there's a tremendous surplus of them. in the current economy, you would actually expect that the pressures on wages would be downwards, which is what we're seeing.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/inflation-canada-outlook-1.4167888
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)