|
Or, Canadian Politics Megathread: No, that's not us reading the posts of some of our favourite Canadian posters, it's Paul Dewar reacting to Paul Calandra's hideous week of ridiculous House of Commons antics (PS don't miss Marc Garneau's high-quality eyeroll either). But just in case you haven't been paying attention to anything in Canada for the last year (and let's be honest, why would you?) some big things have happened/are currently happening/will happen at some time in the future:
Meet the cast: The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, and alleged kitten eater, demonstrating his party's new approach to attack ads against Justin Trudeau. The Honourable Thomas Mulcair, Leader of the Official Opposition, Leader of the New Democratic Party, and Commie-Fascist-Populist-Marxist-Stalinist-Nazi-Champion-of-Hard-Working-Families-Tony-Blair-Praising Leftie Loon, assuming his true form. , alternately Charles Atlas Before Picture, alternately post-fight Sylvester Stallone, alternately every TA you ever had, alternately the king of pot (there ain't none higher), alternately John Cusack fishing for ethnic votes, alternately a terror from Stephen Harper's nightmares (and now yours too) Justin Trudeau, Leader of the Liberal Party, Unqualified and in-WAY-over-his-head Prime-Minister-Elect, inviting you to have dinner with him and pitch him a policy idea should you happen to win his most recent fundraising contest. Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party, demonstrating how hard you should laugh when someone calls her the House of Commons's conscience. Where to read about Canadian politics: Well, aside from this thread, where someone tends to post important breaking news (usually phrased as "why are you guys talking about poutine/university classes/public transit when [INSERT IMPORTANT ISSUE HERE] is happening?"), Canada has a few major news sources. On the left-ish side of things, you have the Toronto Star and CBC website. For centre-right-ish things, you have The Globe and Mail, Macleans, and the National Post. If you are a raving lunatic who is convinced that Justin Trudeau and Barack Obama are in cahoots to steal your guns and give them to Muslim Terrorists, there's always the Sun News Network. Otherwise, keep an eye on Google News and #cdnpoli on Twitter. The iPolitics morning brief is also a good, if lengthy, summary of daily events which you may need to subscribe to get, though Kafka Esq. usually does a good job of reposting them here if there's something particularly interesting. There are some good journalists/opinion writers out there who cover Canadian politics, and their names are not Eric Grenier. Taken from Kafka Esq.'s OP from the last thread, he listed Chris Selley, Aaron Wherry, Paul Wells, Andrew Coyne, Johns Ibbitson and Ivison (I'm not convinced they're different people), and Dan Gardner, and I would add Kady O'Malley who does an excellent job livetweeting most things that happen in the House of Commons for the CBC (@kady, if you're interested) and Neil MacDonald who writes about American and international politics from a Canadian perspective, also for the CBC. Most good Canadian journalists are pretty leftist (though I'm clearly biased by my own political views), good right-wing journalists are often drowned out by shitheads like Ezra Levant or the entire National Post editorial team, but Andrew Coyne is pretty right-wing and definitely a lot more influential than anyone else on that list, considering he is basically the face of Postmedia News which is one of our largest newsmedia conglomerates. What this thread is for:
What this thread is NOT for, but it happens all the time anyway:
What this thread is REALLY not for and you should avoid at all costs:
If you are a crazy masochist you can hang out in #diefenbunker on synirc.net and talk about Canadian politics in real time. Somebody has issued a correction as of 23:08 on Jul 22, 2015 |
# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:01 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 15:33 |
|
Don't forget to mention how much we loving hate our indigenous population! http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/02/canada-un-indigenous-rights_n_5918868.html "Canada Is The Only UN Member To Reject Landmark Indigenous Rights Document" Off to a good start!
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:10 |
|
Baronjutter posted:Don't forget to mention how much we loving hate our indigenous population! I remember back in 2008 when these headlines would be "Harper and Bush only ones to reject important treaty". Now we're going it alone, thanks Obama.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:17 |
|
Man, I looooooove Tim Hortons.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:18 |
|
Baronjutter posted:Don't forget to mention how much we loving hate our indigenous population! Nah man didn't you see the olympics, we built giant statues of them and everything! If fetishizing a culture for the sake of commercialism isn't love, I don't know what is!
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:19 |
|
Honestly I don't see how any of us, specially other countries, can criticize canada on human rights, do they even know how much we've spent on our human rights museum??
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:21 |
|
I found a picture of Paul Calandra's daughter:
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:23 |
|
El Scotch posted:Man, I looooooove Tim Hortons. Since I no longer live in Toronto this thread will have to be my nostalgic Canada fix whenever I miss that absurdly sweet timmies hot chocolate. EDIT: vyelkin posted:I found a picture of Paul Calandra's daughter: This is the part of Canada that I do not miss, sick of the blame Israel/US/West for every single problem crowd. Second only to the UTSU nut jobs making fools of themselves at every Men's Rights event they can find, bringing ten times as much attention to these conferences as opposed to if everyone just ignored them. For all it's faults I don't have to deal with this poo poo in the US. xilni has issued a correction as of 17:29 on Oct 3, 2014 |
# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:24 |
|
vyelkin posted:I found a picture of Paul Calandra's daughter: She's right, why does Israel get the soft touch? Time for it to get treated in the same dispassionate manner as other oppressive Middle Eastern regimes Excluding Saudi Arabia of course, cause they're obviously good people.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:26 |
|
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:33 |
|
Kenny Logins posted:
Good call, I'll add this.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:34 |
|
Ontario News Watch has a pretty good article on the internal machinations behind the Ontario PC's latest election disaster. Part of what is neat here is how it demonstrates the way that political handlers such as the campaign manager try to manipulate the media through selective appearances and interviews to create the impression that they're good at their jobs. It also gives some insights into how the Ontario PC party has been operating since Mike Harris took it in a hard right direction in the 1990s.quote:The Magic, Disappearing PC Campaign Managers: Now You See Them, Now You Don't Also, welcome, everyone to the new Soemthing Awful Canadian Politics megathread! credit to lonelywurm
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:39 |
|
Ban white lego men from Canadian politics
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:40 |
|
My point on the possible intervention into Iraq isn't to paint a middle-of-the-road fallacy here where we have warmongering hawks on one side, and naive doves on the other and that the "answer is somewhere in the middle". My point is that I don't think its fair to criticize the Liberals on not, as that one poster suggested, unequivocally rejecting the possible use of force option that exists because "humanitarian options" are much better. First off, no humanitarian options are going to exist for the Kurds when they are straight up ethnically cleansed by ISIS. There won't be anyone to give humanitarian aid to. So, supporting the intervention with combat air strikes, intelligence support or any other type of second-line support to ensure that the one actual stable nation/state in the region (Kurdistan) actually stays afloat is quite reasonable. Mission creep is definitely a serious issue, and always has been. But to pretend that the solution to mission creep is not to do anything at all is disingenuous.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:40 |
|
Kenny Logins posted:
Didn't google and Netflix basically say "there's lots of Canadian content/users on our services" and then refuse to provide any evidence for these claims? If I'm not completely misunderstanding this then the CRTC seems to be correct in ignoring what amounts to anecdotal evidence.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:40 |
|
I noticed that there's no ban on boozechat, so let me tell you, son, I am one HUNG OVER motherfucker right now. edit: gently caress I love this thread title. edit2: content quote:Happy Friday to you. Kafka Esq. has issued a correction as of 17:47 on Oct 3, 2014 |
# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:43 |
|
Duck Rodgers posted:Didn't google and Netflix basically say "there's lots of Canadian content/users on our services" and then refuse to provide any evidence for these claims? If I'm not completely misunderstanding this then the CRTC seems to be correct in ignoring what amounts to anecdotal evidence. It is one thing to say: "we're doing this open forum, to get, you know, the voice of Canadians, so why don't you two come and say some words." "Oh, what you're saying, would you mind backing that up?" "No? Ok, well thanks anyway, but we can't really act on what you're saying. Thanks for coming." It is another to say: "Hey! You two! Come to our hearings or else! Yeah you go ahead and say you're volunteering, put on a show but everyone knows the CRTC's the swingin' dicks around here." "Oh you actually think you're helping Canadian culture in a way we didn't directly dictate? Well how you've been operating is technically by our past dictate not to actually dictate you!" "You think we can't keep things confidential? How dare you. How dare you indirectly remind people that we have and currently still sell access to a no-call list." "Give us these documents or else there will be big trouble. You think we can't make big trouble for you? Well, we'll see about that!" "So, you're real lucky, you two. We're just going to spare you this time and strike everything you said from the public record. Yeah. You should be afraid. It has nothing to do with the current government publicly refusing to have our backs, and nothing to do with your ability to fight us in court, and the average Canadians' distrust for us and concern for the relevance of our methods in 2014."
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:48 |
|
swagger like us posted:My point on the possible intervention into Iraq isn't to paint a middle-of-the-road fallacy here where we have warmongering hawks on one side, and naive doves on the other and that the "answer is somewhere in the middle". My point is that I don't think its fair to criticize the Liberals on not, as that one poster suggested, unequivocally rejecting the possible use of force option that exists because "humanitarian options" are much better. On that note, Justin just gave a speech on what Canada's role in Iraq probably should be. He can't really comment on what it definitely should be because no one in Canada outside the PMO actually knows anything about the mission. My French is embarrassing, and I was inturrupted a few times, but he seemed pretty firmly on Canada not having a combat role whatsoever. Sorry swagger! Unless I met the part where he said we should stick every able-bodied Canadian on the front lines, the Liberal strategy is to stay militarily in a support role - he mentioned transport, medical aid and training specifically - as well as humanitarian and political aid. That all seems pretty reasonable to me, and I've always thought that's where our military intervention in the middle east should end. Edit: Also, couldn't a strong argument be made that the west's lovely bombing tactics made ISIS a thing in the first place? Maybe we could just stop blowing up countries with less money than ours? egg tats has issued a correction as of 17:52 on Oct 3, 2014 |
# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:48 |
|
swagger like us posted:My point on the possible intervention into Iraq isn't to paint a middle-of-the-road fallacy here where we have warmongering hawks on one side, and naive doves on the other and that the "answer is somewhere in the middle". My point is that I don't think its fair to criticize the Liberals on not, as that one poster suggested, unequivocally rejecting the possible use of force option that exists because "humanitarian options" are much better. The concern with ISIS is not really mission creep so much as it is mission gallop. Harper has committed us to six months but all the words coming out of everyone's mouth in the US, UK, and everywhere else is that anyone fighting against ISIS should be prepared for a fight measured in months or years, not weeks, and the anglosphere press is all-but calling for a full-on reinvasion of Iraq, once a decade, like clockwork.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:52 |
|
bring back poutine chat
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:59 |
|
senae posted:On that note, Justin just gave a speech on what Canada's role in Iraq probably should be. He can't really comment on what it definitely should be because no one in Canada outside the PMO actually knows anything about the mission. Not really, the conflict has more to do with hundreds of years old tensions built from the Ottoman empire days, which then got sparked by recent ethnic conflict thanks to the USA. Our bombing tactics had nothing to do with making "ISIS a thing". ISIS just has really strong information ops and funding by certain Gulf states that enable it to get mass popularity. By "support" role I mean combat support. For example, sending advisors, intelligence support for targeting and air strikes. I don't consider air strikes a "combat role", a combat role is actual infantryman on the ground looking to hold ground. Anything else is just combat support, i.e. force multipliers to enable Kurdish and Iraqi forces to push back ISIS. Just because this was fueled by the previous Iraq conflict doesn't mean its not a worthwhile endeavour now to try and stabilize the country to give it a chance to survive against extremist genocidal islamists. The question is what role can we give, and what's the best role. I don't see why humanitarian and force options have to be mutually exclusive, in fact you would want both in any likely scenario. edit: Also reading through Trudeau's criticism, I am mostly in support of what he is saying. The PM has done a really bad job of selling this to the public, and convincing the public why CF-18s would be necessary. But, I also agree that the whole "whipping out" comments is pretty childish to just suggest that a possible Canadian contribution of military aircraft that would put men in harm's way is only being done as an ego thing is sort of making light of a serious issue. The strategic and tactical employment of air power is, despite what Trudeau thinks, not just some flippant ego stroking endeavor. Discussing air power's merits in actual terms of efficiency, usefulness, applicability etc. is all fine and good but making stupid jokes is pretty low for Trudeau here. swagger like us has issued a correction as of 18:13 on Oct 3, 2014 |
# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:04 |
|
So can we take a stance on Ebola in Canada panic yet since you know it's supposed to be creeping northward from Dallas and now Washington DC.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:25 |
|
vyelkin posted:
I think you mean Canada's Founding Party!
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:26 |
|
xilni posted:So can we take a stance on Ebola in Canada panic yet since you know it's supposed to be creeping northward from Dallas and now Washington DC. My stance is "it's stupid as gently caress to panic," seen as how Canadian health authorities have already been dealing with suspected cases a drat sight better than the idiots in Dallas dealt with an actual case. As far as I know, the case in DC is only suspected at this point anyway, and everything pretty much looks like Ebola until you get into the more advanced stages of the disease. I'm still more worried about a bad flu, to be honest with you.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:29 |
|
PT6A posted:My stance is "it's stupid as gently caress to panic," seen as how Canadian health authorities have already been dealing with suspected cases a drat sight better than the idiots in Dallas dealt with an actual case. As far as I know, the case in DC is only suspected at this point anyway, and everything pretty much looks like Ebola until you get into the more advanced stages of the disease. Yes yes, but bleeding out of your eyes and stuff
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:30 |
|
swagger like us posted:Not really, the conflict has more to do with hundreds of years old tensions built from the Ottoman empire days, which then got sparked by recent ethnic conflict thanks to the USA. Our bombing tactics had nothing to do with making "ISIS a thing". ISIS just has really strong information ops and funding by certain Gulf states that enable it to get mass popularity. So, again, what actual benefit to anyone in either Canada or Iraq does Canada's involvement in a combat (support) role provide? What exactly will be accomplished by Canada's presence other than a minor defraying of the costs of the operations between another party? And "whipping out" is an excellent rhetorical device, since there don't appear to be any significant reasons for Canada to be entering this conflict in any kind of combat related role.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:36 |
|
swagger like us posted:words We spent a decade destabilizing Iraq by dropping bombs on it, forgive me for not assuming that we can restabalize it by doing the same. Trudeau implying that Stephen Harper is only pledging our forces because of his ego is fine, because the one way he pledged our help was probably the most expensive, least helpful possible way he could have found. America is very good at bombing people, and they have a lot of planes to drop those bombs. They got this.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:43 |
|
xilni posted:Yes yes, but bleeding out of your eyes and stuff Don't worry, I think the Atlas Shrugged movie is already out of theaters.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:45 |
|
infernal machines posted:So, again, what actual benefit to anyone in either Canada or Iraq does Canada's involvement in a combat (support) role provide? What exactly will be accomplished by Canada's presence other than a minor defraying of the costs of the operations between another party? If we assume that bombing ISIS positions in Iraq is a good idea then why shouldn't Canada be involved? Even if we only play a minor role, the fact we're putting planes presumably means that some equivalent number of American or British planes can stay on the ground longer, saving those country's resources. That having been said I think the real problem here is that these military interventions always seem like a dire necessity or really good idea at the beginning, but somehow they almost always turn out terribly. Pretty much the only possible exception I can think of is, maybe, the French invasion of Mali. But in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. it seems like getting Western military forces involved in the Middle East really doesn't improve the situation. Ultimately it's a tough call but it seems like at some point as a country we just need to swear off loving around with other country's internal affairs unless we're going to help them by sending actual aid or building up the infrastructure of the country. swagger like us posted:Not really, the conflict has more to do with hundreds of years old tensions built from the Ottoman empire days, which then got sparked by recent ethnic conflict thanks to the USA. There would be no ISIS without the 2003 invasion (though it's also worth thinking about the devastating effect that 10 years of sanctions had on the Iraqi economy and people, or the Iran Iraq war that the US actively encouraged back in the 1980s). The clusterfuck in the middle east is a product of past American actions, not some timeless middle eastern ethnic blood-lust. Guess what? If you bombed, starved and then eventually invaded any country and smashed it apart as thoroughly as America smashed apart Iraq between 1991 and 2014 then similar ethnic conflicts would flourish, and probably some people in the invading country would then try to claim that these ethnic conflicts were the real cause of the fighting rather than, you know, the massive invasion. Saying that the conflict "has more to do with hundreds of years [of] old tensions" is basically just apologism for America's massive gently caress up, though perhaps you're not doing that consciously. It's also a way of subtly implying that all the problems with the middle east come from its internal culture and history, which lets you frame it as some barbarous backwater that requires foreign military intervention, which conveniently helps justify further invasions and attacks.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:46 |
|
swagger like us posted:By "support" role I mean combat support. For example, sending advisors, intelligence support for targeting and air strikes. I don't consider air strikes a "combat role", a combat role is actual infantryman on the ground looking to hold ground. Anything else is just combat support, i.e. force multipliers to enable Kurdish and Iraqi forces to push back ISIS. Air strikes not actually being a combat role seems like a fairly obtuse opinion to have, and makes it a bit tough to really take what you have to say seriously. By that logic, no one at all (other than the Kurds that don't wish to be genocided) are engaged in "combat operations". If you do something that directly ends the life of another combatant, you are in combat.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:50 |
|
The real question for me is what the hell to do once the bombing stops. Say we wipe ISIS off the face of the planet and create a power vacuum in that part of Iraq and Syria. What then? Do we just leave again and say "job done" until we get called back in to bomb the Shia militias that start ethnic cleansing Sunnis in response to ISIS atrocities? Do we depose Assad and start nation-building in Syria as well, just in case he decides to take retributive action against people in current ISIS territory? Do we continue arming the 'moderate' Syrian opposition and then act all shocked when ten years from now some splinter group that originated there flies a plane into the Empire State Building? Do we reoccupy Iraq all over again to prevent a new ISIS from emerging with funding from wealthy Saudis and Gulf state princes, because we didn't go after the people actually financing the rise of ISIS? Do we arm and support the Kurds, sparking tensions with Baghdad and Ankara? There is no loving exit strategy, once again, we're just thinking with our bombs because we have an excuse to use a bunch of expensive military hardware and perpetuate the Western military-industrial-legislative complex. America is just going to keep invading Iraq every ten years until the end of loving time, and if the Conservatives are in power when they decide to do it we'll be 100% along for the ride. We got lucky that we weren't involved last time, and this time we seem to be jumping in head first with glee that we finally get to tag along on America's righteous crusade to rid the world of the nebulous concept of Islamism.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:52 |
|
Helsing posted:That having been said I think the real problem here is that these military interventions always seem like a dire necessity or really good idea at the beginning, but somehow they almost always turn out terribly. Pretty much the only possible exception I can think of is, maybe, the French invasion of Mali. But in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. it seems like getting Western military forces involved in the Middle East really doesn't improve the situation. I think the NATO intervention improved the Libyan situation, since the war there has killed fewer people than the Syrian Civil War. It didn't become peaceful after the rebels killed Gaddafi (with French help), but the alternative was for Gaddafi to continue massacring the rebels. I think the key is to help the Kurds win their war against ISIS, since Kurdistan is one enclave of relative peace and stability in the whole mess that is Iraq and Syria.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:52 |
|
Helsing posted:If we assume that bombing ISIS positions in Iraq is a good idea then why shouldn't Canada be involved? Even if we only play a minor role, the fact we're putting planes presumably means that some equivalent number of American or British planes can stay on the ground longer, saving those country's resources. I don't believe that committing Canadian soldiers and resources should be done solely to lighten the burden on our allies' pocketbooks. In fact that seems to be a rather perverse view to take.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:59 |
|
A good OP, a good discussion, a good thread.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 19:12 |
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:I think the NATO intervention improved the Libyan situation, since the war there has killed fewer people than the Syrian Civil War. It didn't become peaceful after the rebels killed Gaddafi (with French help), but the alternative was for Gaddafi to continue massacring the rebels. I think the key is to help the Kurds win their war against ISIS, since Kurdistan is one enclave of relative peace and stability in the whole mess that is Iraq and Syria. Maybe. I honestly don't have enough knowledge of Libya to make any intelligent comments here. It seems like we basically just backed one alliance of factions to overthrow the existing regime (back by its own alliance of factions) and now the country is way less stable than before without any obvious benefits to the majority of Libyans. But like I said I'm no expert here which is why my opinions on this subject are so wishy-washy. infernal machines posted:I don't believe that committing Canadian soldiers and resources should be done solely to lighten the burden on our allies' pocketbooks. In fact that seems to be a rather perverse view to take. If you believe that bombing ISIS will make the region more stable or head off a massive humanitarian crisis then presumably that is the reason you'd want Canada to get involved, not just because you want to save America a bit of money. I agree that commiting military resources solely to make life a bit easier for America would be a bad policy but things look a bit different if you actually think that bombing ISIS would legitimately benefit the region. Personally I have no clue whether it would or not, but since the involved countries have such a bad track record here I'm reflexively sceptical.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 19:14 |
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:I think the NATO intervention improved the Libyan situation, since the war there has killed fewer people than the Syrian Civil War. It didn't become peaceful after the rebels killed Gaddafi (with French help), but the alternative was for Gaddafi to continue massacring the rebels. I think the key is to help the Kurds win their war against ISIS, since Kurdistan is one enclave of relative peace and stability in the whole mess that is Iraq and Syria. This is really the only good thing that can come out of this. Only worry is it'll start poo poo in parts of Iran and Turkey when they see what they can achieve in Iraq.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 19:16 |
|
Helsing posted:If you believe that bombing ISIS will make the region more stable or head off a massive humanitarian crisis then presumably that is the reason you'd want Canada to get involved, not just because you want to save America a bit of money. I agree that commiting military resources solely to make life a bit easier for America would be a bad policy but things look a bit different if you actually think that bombing ISIS would legitimately benefit the region. Personally I have no clue whether it would or not, but since the involved countries have such a bad track record here I'm reflexively sceptical. The thing is, even if we believe bombing ISIS targets will improve their lot somehow, doesn't it still make more sense for us to commit our resources to the aid and rebuilding side of the equation? As in, if there's not a significant gap in the "coalition" (or whatever they're calling it this time) caused by our absence, then why commit Canadian lives and Canadian dollars until we can do actual good with them?
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 19:19 |
|
Great OP. To pick a nit,vyelkin posted:Jim Prentice, formerly of federal politics, is now the Premier of Alberta and is currently running for a seat as an MPP in a byelection.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 19:24 |
|
I think it's stupid that the west is getting involved at al (though not because I don't think ISIS should be bombed, I assure you). The US should say to all the countries over there: "Hey, remember all those weapons we sold you? Time for you to use them and clean up your own poo poo for once!" ISIS does very, very much deserve to be bombed to smithereens, but we shouldn't be the ones to do it. We (this is to say, broadly, the Western countries behind this current operation) should coerce our allies in the region into doing it by themselves.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 19:29 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 15:33 |
|
pokeyman posted:Great OP. To pick a nit, Fixed, thanks. I can never keep straight which provinces do and don't have MPPs/MLAs.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2014 19:29 |