|
That's a very good point and illustrates the weakness of my approach, which emphasized state actions. It's also yet another example of American military adventurism leading to the exact opposite of it's intended effect.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:00 |
|
|
Helsing posted:So even around 1900 there were semi-serious musings about a continent spanning American federation. Cascadian nationalists of the Pacific Northwest US constantly just assume that once they get the support to challenge the US Federal Government that the southern half of (and/or all of) British Columbia (and/or Alberta) will somehow just, you know, join them and become gun toting, libertarian, patriotic Cascadians. When you point out that the border not only defines a line on the map, but also vastly different social and governmental norms they usually end up saying something about invading and taking over, you know, for liberty. Confused bunch of fuckers if you ask me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Helsing posted:That's a very good point and illustrates the weakness of my approach, which emphasized state actions. It's also yet another example of American military adventurism leading to the exact opposite of it's intended effect. It also started the long, sad trend of broken promises between the British/Canadian governments and First Nations.  While state actions might be a little inadequate for explaining the development of BNA/Canadian identity, I do think you make good points with the economic policies of Britain. All of the internal conflicts within Canada, I think, in the 19th century centered around economic issues. Dreylad fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Nov 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Sometimes, my facebook feed gives me such gifts
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Looking over the ministerial mandate letters and noticed this in the Minister of Justice one:quote:Introduce government legislation to add gender identity as a prohibited ground for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and to the list of distinguishing characteristics of “identifiable group” protected by the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code This is great news after the last decade of bathroom panics and lack of action. I hope this happens soon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Canpol: so the libs seem less worse than we implied
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
Just working on undoing some of the horrible poo poo the Conservatives ruined doesn't make the Liberals good, just not as insane and horrible as the Conservatives, which is in line with what we were saying anyways. It's still just tax cuts for the rich and general small-c conservative garbage for the next 4 years, other than legal weed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
Aren't they specifically raising taxes on the rich and cutting them for the middle class?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
We've never had legal protections for trans gender people in Canada , so this isn't really reversing Conservative actions so much as it is a big step forward in human rights, especially considering the state of trans rights around the world generally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
ductonius posted:Cascadian nationalists of the Pacific Northwest US constantly just assume that once they get the support to challenge the US Federal Government that the southern half of (and/or all of) British Columbia (and/or Alberta) will somehow just, you know, join them and become gun toting, libertarian, patriotic Cascadians. When you point out that the border not only defines a line on the map, but also vastly different social and governmental norms they usually end up saying something about invading and taking over, you know, for liberty. Actually, when we separate we'll just smoke weed, drink coffee and craft beers, and wear plaid. The only employers will be tech startups and marijuana plantations. It'll be the same as it is now with a different flag.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:We've never had legal protections for trans gender people in Canada , so this isn't really reversing Conservative actions so much as it is a big step forward in human rights, especially considering the state of trans rights around the world generally. Ontario has a bunch, BC has some, and Manitoba as well. Oh, and NWT if I remember correctly. We've never had anything federally, to the point where the government happily outed anyone who ever had their SIN number checked. This is a good, big piece of the puzzle, but it's not the only one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
.
James Baud fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Aug 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:We've never had legal protections for trans gender people in Canada , so this isn't really reversing Conservative actions so much as it is a big step forward in human rights, especially considering the state of trans rights around the world generally. Bill C-279 was still on the books when the election was called, after Tory members of the Senate's legal and constitutional affairs committee threw in a bunch of lovely amendments and sent it back down to the Commons.  quote:Bill C-279 would add “gender identity” to the Canadian Human Rights Act and Criminal Code. It would make transgender people “an identifiable group in the hate crime and hate speech sections” of the Criminal Code as well as protect them from discrimination under the human rights act. It was passed in the House of Commons and has been stalled in the Senate for some 20 months. The Dark One fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Nov 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 11:31
|
|
|
Rosie DiManno wrote a terrible and incoherent column on how now is not the time to cut and run from Syria. I don't recommend reading it, so I won't link it. She did also write a somewhat more coherent and significantly better (relatively!) article on suicides in the military. If her summary of the report is accurate, then the suicide rate in the CF is lower than in the general public. However, it's slightly higher amongst combat arms personnel, and probably significantly higher amongst those who actually saw action in Afghanistan, but that's only a small fraction of personnel so uh not much can actually be concluded about that. Except the article ends with some nonsensical prattle about how mentally tough Canadian soldiers are and how we shouldn't worry about their mental well-being because they're tougher than us. Okay then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
rawrr posted:Aren't they specifically raising taxes on the rich and cutting them for the middle class? There's no such thing as a middle class, and that revenue neutral tax cut is completely worthless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
rawrr posted:Aren't they specifically raising taxes on the rich and cutting them for the middle class? Depends how you define middle class. Because of the way tax brackets work, Trudeau's "middle class" tax cut that begins at $45,000 doesn't actually take full effect until you're making $90,000. Then everyone who makes between $90,000 and $200,000 gets the full benefit of the tax cut, and then at $200,000 of income people start getting higher taxes associated with his tax increase on the wealthy. You can see the overall effect in this graph made by our very own Ikantski:  What this means is that someone making $60,000 gets a tax cut of about $200, while someone making $200,000 gets the full tax cut of over $600. Now, personally I would consider someone making $60,000 middle class and someone making $200,000 upper class, so it's a little perverse that this tax cut gets sold as something that primarily benefits the middle class rather than something that redistributes some money from the wealthy to the slightly less wealthy while actually not affecting the people who need help the most, which is the poor and the lower middle classes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Yea, it's loving worthless and bunnyofdoom is pulling the wool over the eyes of many posters in this thread.
ChairMaster fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Nov 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
Undoing all the horrible poo poo the Cons did is a start on being Not Bad. Only time will tell whether they are actually good or not!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Lots of articles(opinion pieces) today about how pulling out jets out of Syria is making JT look bad on the world stage. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...&service=mobile http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/justin-trudeau-nato-and-the-problem-with-backseat-ministering/
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
While I at least understand people's sudden apprehension to wanting to take on Syrian refugees in the wake of the Paris attacks, the idea that withdrawing our bomber support is a huge foreign policy blunder is stupid. Even if you do think that bombing ISIS will help stop them, the idea that Canada's contribution will tip the scales is ridiculous. I guess this is a matter of looking like we're doing something aggressive against aggression so no one will think we're weak. That Maclean's article does spell out the nuance that's being lost in the heat of the moment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:the idea that Canada's contribution will tip the scales is ridiculous. and yet off we go to the climate change conference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Depends how you define middle class. The fact that a couple of effort posts in the CanPol thread did a better job of dissecting the Liberal tax plan than anything I ever saw the official NDP release is just so pathetic that words fail me. The Liberals were very effective at attacking the NDP's pledges and this would have been a way to return fire. Unfortunately the NDP's response to anything they didn't expect was to ignore it and hope it would go away. Ikantski posted:and yet off we go to the climate change conference. If I'm not mistaken we're like the 8th worst country in the world for Carbon emissions and our per capita carbon emissions is higher than anyone else except Australia and the USA. We also have the scientific knowledge and organizational capacity to study the problem. Unlike fighting ISIS, global warming really is an area where the Canadian government could make major contributions, provided the political will was there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Helsing posted:If I'm not mistaken we're like the 8th worst country in the world for Carbon emissions and our per capita carbon emissions is higher than anyone else except Australia and the USA. We also have the scientific knowledge and organizational capacity to study the problem. Unlike fighting ISIS, global warming really is an area where the Canadian government could make major contributions, provided the political will was there. Assuming we are using the same statistics, 8th rank means approximately 1.5% of the global total though? (and the physics of global warming give approximately zero shits about per capita). Our potential contribution to reducing global warming is somewhere on par with our potential contribution to air strikes against ISIS. If you (general you) agree with the first but not the second, just say that. Saying "this is a good thing to be doing but we can't make a meaningful contribution" is a threadbare cover because Canada is kind of small and can't make "major" concrete contributions to much of anything when it comes to global-scale issues. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Nov 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
You guys are getting distracted by a really lovely comparison. ISIS and climate change aren't problems that can be tackled in the same way. Not bombing ISIS doesn't mean we aren't contributing in stopping in other, better ways. Not going to a climate change conference means we're abdicating any responsibility in dealing with an actual existential threat that requires global cooperation. It'd be more apt to say that we shouldn't take part in a massive iron seeding of the oceans project to fight climate change because our contribution to that wouldn't meaningful (and never mind that iron seeding is a loving terrible idea).
Dreylad fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Nov 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:You guys are getting distracted by a really lovely comparison. ISIS and climate change aren't problems that can be tackled in the same way. Not bombing ISIS doesn't mean we aren't contributing in stopping in other, better ways. My point is that supporting international initiatives such as a military campaign against ISIS, or mass refugee resettlement, or global warming reduction, should be a question decided on the merits of the goal, not on Canada's ability to directly contribute. This is, ironically, ESPECIALLY the case in the latter two because the latter two are more expressly numbers problems. X number of displaced persons from a horrible regional war. X too many tons of CO2 emitted means X degrees of warming means eventually everyone dies. In both cases Canada's ability to reduce X on its own is extremely limited. But nobody ITT (not even Ikantski, he seems to be being rhetorical) is saying "Canada shouldn't participate in refugee resettlement or global warming pacts because we can't make a major contribution for what it would cost us" because that is obviously a dumb thing to say. You do what you can when the goal is worthy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
I think you missed my point, but I don't disagree with what you're saying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:I think you missed my point, but I don't disagree with what you're saying. Fair enough. I think I just have a reflexive reaction to the "we can't tip the scales so don't even bother" argument because it applies in so many other contexts than most people who ever use it think it does, and it won't carry the day for anyone who thinks that campaign is worthwhile, much the same way it does not carry the day for anyone who thinks any other collective initiative is worthwhile. I'm sure you have other objections to the ISIS campaign and frankly I'm pretty on board with everything Wells is saying in his column (as usual) - while I am more open than most of you to the possibility that military intervention in situations like this can be helpful in theory, Western domestic politics mean it is vanishingly unlikely to be done in the way that is necessary for it to be helpful in practice. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Nov 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
-- Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:I guess this is a matter of looking like we're doing something aggressive against aggression so no one will think we're weak. That Maclean's article does spell out the nuance that's being lost in the heat of the moment. The sad thing is when this sort of sentiment translates into poo poo like Mosque arson and such: http://www.cp24.com/news/peterborough-mosque-damaged-by-deliberate-fire-police-1.2659423
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:Fair enough. I think I just have a reflexive reaction to the "we can't tip the scales so don't even bother" argument because it applies in so many other contexts than most people who ever use it think it does, and it won't carry the day for anyone who thinks that campaign is worthwhile, much the same way it does not carry the day for anyone who thinks any other collective initiative is worthwhile. I object to a few Canadian bombers being the key contribution of Canada to combating ISIS, instead of helping train troops and provide humanitarian care which is what this government wants to do and is getting attacked in the press for it. ISIS is a regional problem that's spilled into the global community. The best way to deal with it is by involving the regional powers in pacifying ISIS and protecting the innocent people caught up in a civil war turned ethnic cleansing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Melian Dialogue posted:This is exactly correct, and I wish those who were against the bombing campaign were intellectually honest enough to admit that they don't agree with the goal of directly bombing ISIL (which is a perfectly fine position to hold, as long as you back it up with why you think thats the case) instead of this mealy-mouthed "Well its not uhh, I dont loving hate ISIL! I just uhh..think... uhm, yknow I mean cmon, we sent 6 jets! big deal" I am amazed it's taken you this long to get an av, but I guess the wait was worth it!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:I object to a few Canadian bombers being the key contribution of Canada to combating ISIS, instead of helping train troops and provide humanitarian care which is what this government wants to do and is getting attacked in the press for it. ISIS is a regional problem that's spilled into the global community. The best way to deal with it is by involving the regional powers in pacifying ISIS and protecting the innocent people caught up in a civil war turned ethnic cleansing. It also seems like training and providing humanitarian aid is something that Canada's military capacity is much more equipped to do at the moment. Our planes are old heaps of junk that require huge amounts of maintenance, hence the costly and lengthy replacement project, but we have other military and aid capacities and in my opinion we should be playing up our strengths moreso than trying to show that we have airplanes just like America, Britain, and France.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Has anyone done an effort blogpost or something that describes what Canada has been doing in Syria? Are (were?) we bombing ISIS exclusively, or are (were?) we bombing Assad as well? Are we lockstep with the US, or only contributing to a portion of what the US is up to? If the latter is the case, is it due to some ideological reason (we'll help you with X, but not Y, for reasons) or just because there's no point in spreading our small manpower across a zillion missions? I've kind of ignored Canada's involvement, but I figure I should learn up a bit after the weekends events. I've found a few articles, but usually there's barely any info about what's actually going on, or it's a complete Tom Clancy fest with more info about what variant of bomb and plane is being used than what the bomb is actually landing on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
--]
Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:The sad thing is when this sort of sentiment translates into poo poo like Mosque arson and such: It was Peterborough, odds are they were going to do that anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:It also seems like training and providing humanitarian aid is something that Canada's military capacity is much more equipped to do at the moment. Our planes are old heaps of junk that require huge amounts of maintenance, hence the costly and lengthy replacement project, but we have other military and aid capacities and in my opinion we should be playing up our strengths moreso than trying to show that we have airplanes just like America, Britain, and France. The majority of our combat troops are unwashed masses with very mediocre training. Instead the CAF seems to pile on all the unique training and courses into only a select few individuals in each unit. Troop training is the most logical and balanced approach to the mission that I can see, and we have a few hundred superb soldiers that would be perfect for the job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:It was Peterborough, odds are they were going to do that anyway. They did elect an Afghani refugee muslim as their mp
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:They did elect an Afghani refugee muslim as their mp Local candidates are seldom the reason people vote for a party in FPTP friend. I bet the majority had no idea he was afghani or Muslim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
All I know about Peterborough is that Cow Island is a really nice place to live, niper tipping is a civic sport and beaking off at ethnic folks in nightclubs is a rite of passage or something.acumen posted:The majority of our combat troops are unwashed masses with very mediocre training. Instead the CAF seems to pile on all the unique training and courses into only a select few individuals in each unit. Troop training is the most logical and balanced approach to the mission that I can see, and we have a few hundred superb soldiers that would be perfect for the job. Well yeah, if you train a guy then you're going to lose him to a unit that needs him. (This is what Senior NCMs Actually Believe)
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:00 |
|
|
jm20 posted:Local candidates are seldom the reason people vote for a party in FPTP friend. I bet the majority had no idea he was afghani or Muslim. Well considering her picture was on all the signs and she ran for mayor last year and placed second and gave tons of interviews on her heritage especially during the refugee portion of the election..... Also She got 44% of the vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 22:10
|
|