CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

«‹›2341 »

Eej: Jun 17, 2007; HEAVYARMS

The general argument was that no one had the data to actually prove it, at least until now.

# ? Nov 3, 2015 00:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 07:35

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

Isn't just scanning the land titles database for Chinese sounding names a little fluffy to use as evidence for anything?

# ? Nov 3, 2015 00:44

Kafka Esq.: Jan 1, 2005; "If you ever even think about calling me anything but 'The Crab' I will go so fucking crab on your ass you won't even see what crab'd your crab" -The Crab(TM)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-zuqCHCbbc

# ? Nov 3, 2015 00:47

Eej: Jun 17, 2007; HEAVYARMS

Ikantski posted:

Isn't just scanning the land titles database for Chinese sounding names a little fluffy to use as evidence for anything?

It's a little more than that.

http://www.slideshare.net/ayan604/o...er-a-case-study

Major points are that 52 (30%) of the properties had Homemaker/Housewife listed as a buyer of which 36 had them as the only buyer and the properties cost on average $1.3 million with a median value of $2.8 million and of the 8 properties sold to Students, 5 of 8 were sold with no mortgage and had an average value of $3.2 million and median of $2.6 million. I'm sure they could do some cross referencing with the non-anglicized names which represented the majority of purchases, with a large majority of properties valued at $3 million or higher going to them.

# ? Nov 3, 2015 00:55

McGavin: Sep 18, 2012

quote:

Ethnic Chinese comprised 73 per cent of all buyers. Five per cent of buyers were corporations, but the people behind the investment vehicles were not identified. Of 32 homes sold for more than $4 million, 94 per cent of owners were ethnic Chinese and the rest were corporations.

Even more stunning, the study shows that of all self-declared occupations among owners � on homes worth an average $3.05 million � 36 per cent were housewives or students with little income.

Nothing fishy about this at all. Oh, wait:

quote:

Tax experts have raised concerns that offshore investors are exploiting tax code loopholes to evade GST and capital gains. Housewives and students with little or no declared income can live briefly in Vancouver and flip properties tax-free, reports say, while claiming a home is a primary residence. In some of these so-called �astronaut� family arrangements, the real homebuyer lives and works in China while flowing money through relatives into Vancouver in order to store wealth.

Also, recent academic studies have shown that about 30 per cent of households in some of Vancouver�s wealthiest west side neighbourhoods, where Chinese migrant buyers are dominant, declare meagre incomes much below their annual housing costs.

# ? Nov 3, 2015 01:00

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

Shun all real estate agents.

# ? Nov 3, 2015 01:02

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

Conservative MP pulls no punches on campaign�s failure

quote:

�We lost an election because we were devastatingly off-brand,� Lake wrote.

�Our brand and unparalleled record screamed for majestic, movie trailer-style ads with .. many epic shots of our Conservative prime minister leading on the world stage or in the House of Commons. The list of powerful images and messages is almost limitless, and yet was inexplicably unused.�

Lake wasn�t done yet.

�Instead, with no less than four-and-a-half years to be ready and a vaunted war chest having been accumulated, we seem to have been completely unprepared. Our messaging was all about the other guys, and really nothing meaningful about our prime minister. Our major communications tools literally contained no substance, despite having a leader whose greatest brand strength was substance. In the final two weeks, while the Liberals ran the ads we should have been running, Conservative ads, in their tone, were easy to confuse with life insurance and pre-planned funeral ads.�

�Focus our message. Economy. Security. Economy. Repeat. Trudeau�s stated platform is to run deficits and pull out of our mission against ISIS. These are approaches that we know will be extremely unpopular with Canadians over time. We need to reinforce this and remind Canadians that four years from now, we�ll be ready to clean up Trudeau�s mess.�

Lol @ this guy.

Lol @ the sun attempting to contrive a dramatic race for interim leader of the CPC.

Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Nov 3, 2015

# ? Nov 3, 2015 01:10

Franks Happy Place: Mar 15, 2011; It is by weed alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dank of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by weed alone I set my mind in motion.

THC posted:

Shun all real estate agents.

A person needs to be self aware in order for shunning to be effective.

Same problem we have with CI, basically.

# ? Nov 3, 2015 01:11

McGavin: Sep 18, 2012

THC posted:

Conservative ads, in their tone, were easy to confuse with pre-planned funeral ads.

Fairly prescient, actually.

# ? Nov 3, 2015 01:17

Amgard: Dec 28, 2006

THC posted:

Conservative MP pulls no punches on campaign�s failure

Lol @ this guy.

Lol @ the sun attempting to contrive a dramatic race for interim leader of the CPC.

As someone who makes life insurance ads as part of my living he's pretty much spot on. They were catering to fossilized geriatrics afraid of losing their pension and their status as The Master Race of Canada (ie. Old Stock, gently caress brown people/ethnic Hans). Old people respond to fear-mongering and ideas of losing *something*, where younger crowds respond to things that drive them to act or participate.

The problem wasn't Conservative campaigning wasn't effective, and he's off the mark saying Harper's "brand" was strong. Conservative campaigning was effective with a certain group the Tories have always relied on (Boomers awaiting a peaceful anglo-saxon death) but alienating to anyone else. They also overestimated how much catering to the ethnic vote with that practice was, given much of Canada is a slow-integrator, culturally speaking, and they ran a hardline Lynton Crosby campaign of fearmongering, paranoia, and utter cultural deprecation. You might note that those three qualities are what the UK embodies literally at all times. It doesn't translate well over to minority groups not accustomed to that style of campaigning.

Harper's brand was about as strong as the muscle elasticity of my taint. Read into that as you will, goons.

Amgard fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Nov 3, 2015

# ? Nov 3, 2015 01:17

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

Apparently that guy went to Pride and when asked what his party is doing for queer people he said "We're fighting ISIS"

# ? Nov 3, 2015 01:20

Baloogan: Dec 5, 2004; Fun Shoe

That works for women, as well as men of a nervous disposition (like the posters in this thread)

# ? Nov 3, 2015 01:36

BattleMaster: Aug 14, 2000

It's crazy that Harper, a guy with no personality or likability, has a cult of personality within the Conservatives. It still blows my mind that anyone, even his cronies, think that the guy should have been even more front and center in his campaign when all he has is being a power-hungry android

# ? Nov 3, 2015 01:59

The Duggler: Feb 20, 2011; I do not hear you, I do not see you, I will not let you get into the Duggler's head with your bring-downs.

I think Harper is just the Conservative version of Jack Layton where the party dies a horrible death without him

# ? Nov 3, 2015 02:12

Amgard: Dec 28, 2006

BattleMaster posted:

It's crazy that Harper, a guy with no personality or likability, has a cult of personality within the Conservatives. It still blows my mind that anyone, even his cronies, think that the guy should have been even more front and center in his campaign when all he has is being a power-hungry android

I know this is only half-serious, but I wish more leftys in Canada would recognize how meticulous and crafted Harper's edifice of Reform Conservatism was, and how it shaped the current CPC. He flailed and gnashed against the dying of the light when it was clear that his policies not only didn't work, they couldn't work - leading to what looks to the rest of us like some kind of crypto-fascist undermining of Canadian democracy.

Harper is an unlikable, uncharismatic robot, but he always portrayed himself as an intellectual, and his accomplishment of turning the Reform party into some dangerous reactionary "western alienatation" party into exactly that but with broad appeal across Canada definitely shouldn't be overlooked. If you dismiss the machinations of your political opponents, you'll find they can outmaneuver you. I'm sure Harper is learning this lesson now.

Also, now that Harper is leaving the office, I can finally say: the Prime Minister of Canada once, in broad daylight, tickled my back.

:negative:

# ? Nov 3, 2015 02:31

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

BattleMaster posted:

It's crazy that Harper, a guy with no personality or likability, has a cult of personality within the Conservatives. It still blows my mind that anyone, even his cronies, think that the guy should have been even more front and center in his campaign when all he has is being a power-hungry android

He has a personality and is likeable to some people. Those people don't post in this thread, though.

EDIT: To expand on this a little, he's basically an olrder-middle-aged white guy that looks like a businessman with a very even demeanour. That's what some people, mostly older white people, are looking for. When I was discussing the election with my Dad, he pretty much said he couldn't take Trudeau seriously because he "looked like a kid." Then he basically said that pretty much everyone does at this point, and that getting old is really weird and sucky, so at least he had some degree of self-awareness, but to get back to the original point: Harper has an image that's crafted to appeal to a very specific demographic, and it's a demographic that votes reliably and can afford to shoot money his way.

PT6A fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Nov 3, 2015

# ? Nov 3, 2015 02:32

Amgard: Dec 28, 2006

PT6A posted:

He has a personality and is likeable to some people. Those people don't post in this thread, though.

Correct: Hal is not people. He is a poorly-coded rhetorical kill-bot.

# ? Nov 3, 2015 02:33

BattleMaster: Aug 14, 2000

Amgard posted:

I know this is only half-serious, but I wish more leftys in Canada would recognize how meticulous and crafted Harper's edifice of Reform Conservatism was, and how it shaped the current CPC. He flailed and gnashed against the dying of the light when it was clear that his policies not only didn't work, they couldn't work - leading to what looks to the rest of us like some kind of crypto-fascist undermining of Canadian democracy.

Harper is an unlikable, uncharismatic robot, but he always portrayed himself as an intellectual, and his accomplishment of turning the Reform party into some dangerous reactionary "western alienatation" party into exactly that but with broad appeal across Canada definitely shouldn't be overlooked. If you dismiss the machinations of your political opponents, you'll find they can outmaneuver you. I'm sure Harper is learning this lesson now.

Also, now that Harper is leaving the office, I can finally say: the Prime Minister of Canada once, in broad daylight, tickled my back.

Harper was an incredibly effective politician and understood a lot of what it takes to win in politics, I won't deny that in the slightest. I just think that putting the man himself front and center in the campaign wouldn't be a great idea, and would only have been an improvement over what happened because the campaign they did do went full-throttle with the insane stuff that he had kept a lid on for over a decade.

# ? Nov 3, 2015 03:25

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Also, he didn't scare men by being attractive enough that they became irrationally afraid their wives wanted to gently caress him. Which, beyond all reason, actually seemed to be an issue with Trudeau.

# ? Nov 3, 2015 04:13

PittTheElder: Feb 13, 2012; Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

Amgard posted:

Also, now that Harper is leaving the office, I can finally say: the Prime Minister of Canada once, in broad daylight, tickled my back.

You cannot stop there.

# ? Nov 3, 2015 04:31

Suspicious: Apr 30, 2005; You know he's the villain, because he's got shifty eyes.

Amgard is actually a cat.

# ? Nov 3, 2015 04:32

Jordan7hm: Feb 17, 2011; Lipstick Apathy

PT6A posted:

Also, he didn't scare men by being attractive enough that they became irrationally afraid their wives wanted to gently caress him. Which, beyond all reason, actually seemed to be an issue with Trudeau.

Trudeau is basically Lennon, no marriage is safe.

# ? Nov 3, 2015 04:38

Dreylad: Jun 19, 2001

Suspicious posted:

Amgard is actually a cat.

Same.

# ? Nov 3, 2015 04:38

The Dark One: Aug 19, 2005; I'm your friend and I'm not going to just stand by and let you do this!

BattleMaster posted:

It's crazy that Harper, a guy with no personality or likability, has a cult of personality within the Conservatives. It still blows my mind that anyone, even his cronies, think that the guy should have been even more front and center in his campaign when all he has is being a power-hungry android

Harper's brand was that he could channel their inferiority complex about the Laurentian Elite even as they chummed it up with Canada's business magnates. Keeping the sense of the persecuted underdog even as they captured the endorsement of virtually every media publication. That sense of precariousness, that the lefties could ruin anything in a second if their guard was let down. It was a great way to keep the troops disciplined.

# ? Nov 3, 2015 04:38

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

BattleMaster posted:

Harper was an incredibly effective politician and understood a lot of what it takes to win in politics, I won't deny that in the slightest. I just think that putting the man himself front and center in the campaign wouldn't be a great idea, and would only have been an improvement over what happened because the campaign they did do went full-throttle with the insane stuff that he had kept a lid on for over a decade.

There's also the fact that a big part of the Conservatives' problem was Harper's personal unpopularity with everyone except the Conservative base. I think they were smart to not focus on him at all during the election. If they had been constantly running ads putting Harper front and centre I expect they could have lost even more seats.

# ? Nov 3, 2015 04:41

Amgard: Dec 28, 2006

PittTheElder posted:

You cannot stop there.

Back in '07 or so, Harper visited my podunk village of 5000 back in yonder New Brunswick. My sister and I, both politically opinionated, wanted to be ironic and go see the man, who was talking at our local community tetatnus-hazard. Also they served bacon-wrapped scallops so this was good.

Thoroughly creeped out by how dumb the rhetoric was, we still ended up getting caught in the lineup for pictures. I'm playing it up as this hilarious thing I can laugh about with my friends later, my sister is just going "gross" at every turn. We get to Harper, he asks my name. He shakes my hand and proceeds to transition, with great agility, from a handshake to back-pat - the defacto position one assumes for a photo-op with people you do not care for nor wish to ever see again.

Okay, so photo with the Prime Minister is at least a memorable event, and while he had somewhat of an oily voice in person, how his handshake was firm, warm and startlingly moist. This, while it didn't impress me, did intimidate me to stillness. So picture is being taken, and right - I swear to motherfucking God - the moment that click and flash went off, I felt it.

Years later I still kind of convince myself it was an errant breeze or a shiver because of some kind of anxiety or disgust. But I always knew what it was, even when I couldn't admit it. Three fingers. By my best guess, he led with the middle finger before the index and ring followed up the stimulation. Right from my left shoulder blade to about the middle of my back, Harper tickled me. Why? Maybe he thought a gentle, ministerial tickle would make me smile brighter for the camera. Maybe he had a spontaneous twitch in his fingers at a bad time. Or maybe his intentions were more sinister, a man so hungry for power he would openly and eagerly pursue my boy treasures?

However I suspect it really was just a silly finger wag that was ill-timed, ill-placed, and just a little too forceful that it became invasive. I don't blame Harper for the slip of the finger, and I don't read into it. He seems awkward in close proximity with humans, and perhaps it was with the best of intentions. At first I didn't really think about it, but as the night dragged on I became more and more....confused, I guess? I'll never understand it. And aside from my sister, who saw the distress on my face, no one really believes me when I recount this story.

Amgard fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Nov 3, 2015

# ? Nov 3, 2015 04:44

Jordan7hm: Feb 17, 2011; Lipstick Apathy

You do the back pat because it demonstrates dominance. Given it moved you to silence it seems to have worked.

That's a really weird story though man. I'm guessing you misinterpreted generic hand movement to be something else, but maybe Harper is a weirdo who gets off from tickling men / teenage boys while being photographed. (insert joke about Baird here)

# ? Nov 3, 2015 04:50

Amgard: Dec 28, 2006

Jordan7hm posted:

You do the back pat because it demonstrates dominance. Given it moved you to silence it seems to have worked.

Given I was 17 and not a Prime minister or even employed, it seems superfluous tbh

# ? Nov 3, 2015 04:52

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Amgard posted:

Given I was 17 and not a Prime minister or even employed, it seems superfluous tbh

Maybe he's a molestor! A chiiiilld molestor!!!

EDIT: To paraphrase an amazing example of CanCon, of course.

PT6A fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Nov 3, 2015

# ? Nov 3, 2015 04:57

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Hey SJW fuckfaces. Want to know why the cards are stacked against Prime Minister Pretty Boy?

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/harpers-small-government-agenda-prevails-whether-he-wins-or-loses/

quote:

The Harper agenda prevails, whether he wins or loses
By putting shrewd politics ahead of sound economics, the Prime Minister has guaranteed Canada will have austerity for years to come

Stephen Gordon
December 9, 2014

This is taken from page five of Paul Wells�s 2006 book Right Side Up; the context is a speech that Stephen Harper gave to a Canadian Alliance (remember them?) policy conference in 2001. He would soon go on to announce his candidacy for the CA leadership, and the rest is, well, history:

And what was the policy end to which Harper was urging conservatives? He offered only hints. He cited research suggesting that a nation�s government is simply wasting money if it spends more than 30 per cent of a nation�s gross domestic product. �Canada is 50 cents on the dollar above that level.� That is, Canada�s various levels of governments were spending closer to 45 per cent of GDP.

This is the kind of statement that news reporters never write about. It�s full of numbers; it�s abstract; it�s theoretical. But if Harper�s words had any meaning, the implication of what he was saying was breathtaking. Total federal spending in 2001 was about $120 billion. So Harper was calling, at least in theory, for $40 billion in cuts to government spending.

This passage is key to understanding a significant part of what Harper�s agenda has been, what it will be, and what he hopes will be the baseline with which future governments will be obliged to work.

There are a lot of things to disagree with in Harper�s assessment. For one thing, the 30 per cent threshold isn�t based on much in the way of research. I noted here that share of GDP is not a useful indicator for government size: heavy-handed regulations are cheap to implement. The tax mix is usually more important than amount of tax revenues generated. (See here for how a large tax take can be consistent with strong economic growth.) The goal of a smaller government-spending-to-GDP ratio is one driven by politics, not economics.

Politics, not economics, has also determined the strategy for achieving this goal. If you asked an economist for the best way of reducing revenues, she�d probably prepare a list with the taxes that are the most harmful to the economy at the top, and the taxes that are the least harmful at the bottom. The GST would rank at or near the bottom of that list. (Here is a representative reaction to the Conservatives� 2005 campaign promise to reduce the GST; here is an explanation for why economists think the GST is a good idea.) In economic terms, reducing the GST was probably the worst possible option available to the Conservatives.

But as far as politics goes, it was an inspired choice. It helped win the election, and�perhaps even more importantly�reducing the GST has made it that much harder for any future government to reverse the trend to lower spending. If the Liberals and the NDP were to ask an economist to provide a list of ways of generating the most revenues at the least economic cost, increasing the GST would be at or near the top of the list. But those two GST points are not going to come back to fill federal coffers in the foreseeable future. Both the Liberals and the NDP have campaigned at some point on anti-GST platforms, and history has not been kind to provincial governments that have raised the HST without an electoral mandate to do so. (The NDP�s proposal to increase corporate tax rates is the doppelg�nger of the Conservatives� GST cut. In economic terms, an increase in corporate taxes is probably the worst possible choice for generating revenues, but it�s a potential vote-winner. Maybe it will work for them as well as it did for the CPC.)

Then there�s the Conservatives� predilection for boutique tax credits. Here�s how UBC�s (and Macleans.ca�s) Kevin Milligan put it recently:

Since 2006, so-called �boutique� tax credits have proliferated, allowing tax recognition of activities ranging from children�s fitness to volunteer firefighting. These credits are inefficient, and they are biased toward higher earners who are more tax-savvy.

Normally, when we raise revenue using high marginal tax rates, there is a tradeoff: We distort economic activity but we get tax revenue that can be spent on productive public projects. With boutique tax credits, we end up with the worst of both worlds; we distort decisions with higher tax rates, but the issuance of credits means that we don�t raise as much revenue.

But on the political front, the Conservatives probably view boutique tax credits as a win-win-win proposition: They win votes, they reduce revenues, and they are politically difficult to eliminate once in place.

This doesn�t sound like much and, indeed, it�s not supposed to sound like much. But the net result is that federal revenues as a share of total economic activity are now at levels not seen since before the Second World War:

This brings us to the �starve the beast strategy� described in detail here: the reduction in revenues is now a justification for reducing expenditures. But, once again, the strategy is driven by politics, not economics. The elements are as follows (see also here and, most recently, here):

Let transfer payments to individuals grow at the rate of GDP.
Let transfer payments to provinces grow at the rate of GDP.
Hold nominal direct program spending constant.
These elements have been in place in every budget since 2010. The economics of this approach are very dodgy: the economically efficient way to approach the problem of reducing spending is to perform a cost-benefit analysis and eliminate the programs that don�t pass the test. But the politics are something else. Cuts in transfer payments directly affect peoples� personal finances, and could be reversed at no political cost. The same is true for cuts in transfer payments to the provinces; much of the Jean Chr�tien-era cuts to the provinces were rescinded a few year later. The path of least political resistance is through direct program spending: the cost of paying federal public servants� wages.

I�ve noted that holding nominal spending constant means continued austerity: the costs of delivering a given set of public services increases more or less in line with GDP. The only way to reconcile rising costs with constant spending is to make cuts. Once again, even if you�ve accepted this point, the economically efficient strategy is to eliminate the programs that deliver the least value for money, and the government is free to determine what activities it values. Across-the-board cuts are almost never the best strategy. This point was well-known during the Chr�tien budget-cutting years, and the Conservative government was made aware of a similar analysis fairly recently. But since every program has its own constituency, there�s always a risk that cancelling a program outright will provide a focal point for discontent.

Indeed, Conservatives may view some of the economic disadvantages of across-the-board cuts as political advantages. For example:

�The authors found that prolonged cuts of this nature result in a loss of workforce capability, public sector productivity and innovation, and trust and confidence in public sector institutions,� states the memo.

I�m pretty sure that many Conservatives are not overly upset by this prospect. And, even the most imaginative CPC strategist wouldn�t allow herself to dream that an opposition party would campaign on a promise to raise taxes in order to increase public sector productivity and morale.

The third prong of the CPC approach�holding direct program spending constant�has gotten sharper recently. Although the government�s habit of frequently changing its accounting rules obscures the picture�again, another political winner�it seems clear that nominal spending is actually falling:

Splicing these series is almost certainly not the correct way to go about this, but it will have to do for now. If the Department of Finance is willing to provide me with a consistent series, I would be happy�thrilled! ecstatic!�to replace this chart with a better one.

This brings us to the present. Looking forward, I�ve noted that talk of a future surplus is contingent on a baseline in which the Conservatives� three-point program remains in place over the next few years; without continued austerity, those projected surpluses are transformed into projected deficits.

It�s hard to overstate the importance of establishing this baseline scenario: Election platforms are invariably expressed in terms of deviations from the most recent Department of Finance projection. Proposals for new spending (or new tax cuts) are expected to be accompanied by offsetting measures for new revenues. From what we�ve seen so far, neither opposition party is willing to consider the sort of tax increases that would produce a significant deviation from the Conservatives� baseline.

The ballot-box question in 2015 may well be: �Which party do you want to implement Stephen Harper�s agenda?�

So let's see what loving dumb rear end in a top hat Prime Minister Pretty Boy is going to appoint Finmin and watch him drown in despair.

# ? Nov 3, 2015 05:19

Mahler: Oct 30, 2008

I worked in a movie theater that Harper went to once every couple weeks (he ordered hot dogs). Once I peed in the urinal next to his. That is my Stephen Harper story.

# ? Nov 3, 2015 05:30

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Mahler posted:

I worked in a movie theater that Harper went to once every couple weeks (he ordered hot dogs). Once I peed in the urinal next to his. That is my Stephen Harper story.

Next to his?! Please clarify why urinal etiquette was violated, and by whom.

# ? Nov 3, 2015 05:38

Tippecanoe: Jan 26, 2011

Mahler posted:

I worked in a movie theater that Harper went to once every couple weeks (he ordered hot dogs). Once I peed in the urinal next to his. That is my Stephen Harper story.

Hang on, was he there with family or friends, or was he just going to the movies alone and eating hot dogs?

# ? Nov 3, 2015 05:40

Drunk Canuck: Jan 9, 2010; Robots ruin all the fun of a good adventure.

So first news of the Long Form coming back
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/02/liberals-to-restore-mandatory-long-form-census.html

Can we start pooling anti-census commentaries from very wrong politicians

# ? Nov 3, 2015 05:49

MonsieurChoc: Oct 12, 2013; Every species can smell its own extinction.

THC posted:

Conservative MP pulls no punches on campaign�s failure

Lol @ this guy.

Lol @ the sun attempting to contrive a dramatic race for interim leader of the CPC.

It's amazing the length Conservatives will go to to lie to themselves about how terrible their policies are. Our economy has been ravaged for decades, and yet somehow they still believe they were good with it and that it was a selling point for them.

They were loving terrible at every level of the economy. The economy is not a selling point for the Conservatives.

# ? Nov 3, 2015 05:52

apatheticman: May 13, 2003; Wedge Regret

http://www.pressprogress.ca/conservatives_prepared_cartoons_of_jailed_terrorist_before_revoking_his_citizenship

quote:

It looks like the Conservative Party of Canada was preparing cartoon-like illustrations of a man jailed on terrorism offences several days before Jason Kenney publicly revealed his citizenship was going to be revoked.

The Conservatives later used those illustrations as part of their campaign's outreach and fundraising activities.

On September 26, 2015, Kenney confirmed to the National Post that the Government of Canada had notified Zakaria Amara his citizenship was going to be revoked. Kenney said Amara was informed a day earlier.

The government was using new powers under the controversial Bill C-24 � the first example of its kind.

At the time, opposition leaders questioned the timing of Kenney's announcement in the middle of an election. It also came two days before a leaders debate on foreign policy that saw C-24 generate headlines.

Shortly after, the Conservatives rolled out an online petition with dark imagery, including an illustration of Amara as its background:

terror-petition.jpg

But it turns out the Conservatives' imagery was actually prepared before the government formally revoked Amara's citizenship.

Because no one decided to hide the directory on the Conservative.ca website, anyone on the internet can access the website's many files and folders simply by removing words from the website's URL. You can even see hidden files and folders.

For example, tucked away in a folder on the Conservative website named "2011" are several files uploaded on the afternoon of September 22, 2015:

http://www.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/

terror-subdirectory.jpg

Those files point to two illustrations of Amara in an orange prisoner jumpsuit, evidently mimicking a court-room sketch drawing:

Interestingly, one of the images includes text that reads "this convicted terrorist just lost his Canadian citizenship," although the image was uploaded to the Conservative website four days before Kenney made that information public.

Did partisan sketch artists at Conservative HQ learn about the government's citizenship revocation decisions several days before the rest of us or was the timing simply a coincidence?

The current citizenship revocation process lays out that the "vast majority" of decisions on citizenship revocation are decided by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, which would include "the date the person's citizenship is revoked."

The final decision came nearly a month after the earliest date Amara's 60-day notice may have expired. There appears to be no record the notice was publicly disclosed in the first place.

C-24 has been criticized as unconstitutional by a wide range of voices including the BC Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and Amnesty International.

Following last month's election results, Harper's former Parliamentary Secretary Paul Calandra pointed to C-24 as one reason new Canadians had become nervous of voting Conservative, which was also echoed by Alberta Conservative MP Deepak Obhrai, who said it cost the Conservatives votes in immigrant communities.

"I do not believe any government has a right to take citizenship away," Obhrai said. "Anything that needs to be addressed for a crime should be applying equally to all Canadian

# ? Nov 3, 2015 06:06

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

MonsieurChoc posted:

It's amazing the length Conservatives will go to to lie to themselves about how terrible their policies are. Our economy has been ravaged for decades, and yet somehow they still believe they were good with it and that it was a selling point for them.

They were loving terrible at every level of the economy. The economy is not a selling point for the Conservatives.

The fact is that, no thanks to their policies, Canada weathered the 2008 crisis decently if you measure it by how many CPC voters fared. I don't for a second believe Trudeau would've done worse, and I think in an alternate reality where he were PM, he may well have done better, but I can't say that the CPC were "loving terrible" either. Refusing to acknowledge that is one significant step toward handing the CPC another victory.

# ? Nov 3, 2015 06:07