|
THC posted:Yeah idk how 3 people can make 3 different lists of "blunders" and totally fail to mention Jim Prentice utterly dumpstering his own political career and a 40 year long conservative dynasty. Don't care about anything west of london or anything east of montreal.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
Entropic posted:I grew up listening to CBC1 and I'll not have anyone speak ill of it. I think it's important that we have John from Airdrie as a baseline for drooling idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
lol at you assholes who think white trash from aidrie represent a minority of ignorance in Canada. Yeah guys the canucks Stanley cup riot was perpetrated by Surrey white trash and not really a real representation of hockey fans
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:Really? Wynne isn't #1 on your list? Something seems fishy about that. I'm trying to cool it on the Wynne rage. Also, it was a list of political blunders, not things that the OLP did to tick me off. Top 5 things Wynne did to tick me off. 1. Wynne privatizes Hydro One for peanuts. 2. Pan Am games go $1b over budget which triggers tens of millions of "within budget" bonuses for ex Liberal premier and other cronies who headed the thing. 3. Wynne lackeys get caught on tape bribing Sudbury Liberal candidate to step down. 4. OLP cut hundreds of millions from doctors and continued to freeze hospital budgets. 5. AG report showing OLP road plowing privatization has killed a bunch of people. I can't believe I don't have room for campaigning for Trudeau, flying across the ocean four times to attend a climate summit or bribing teacher's unions. Can 2016 top this list? 10% across the board hydro increase on Jan 1, ORPP tax, cap and trade tax, another 15% of Hydro One gone, actual criminal trials for deleted emails and Sudbury and another ongoing investigations into ORNGe ... it's sure looking promising.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
The Globe editorial board asks, Does Canada need the Conservative Party?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
The biggest blunder of the year was probably Trudeau's decision to support C-51 -- combined with the incredibly cynical way that the Liberals justified their support in the press, by basically admitting they didn't want to endure Conservative attack ads over being soft on security -- because it literally put the Liberal party in existential danger. If Mulcair hadn't hosed up his own campaign so badly then there's a real chance the Liberals would have remained in third place after the election, and it's very easy to imagine the party basically disintegrating after that. We're quick to forget just how close the federal Liberals were to going extinct up until Trudeau decided, very late in the game, to campaign from the left instead of the right. Just because Trudeau ultimately recovered doesn't make his brush with death any less idiotic. My personal pick for the biggest NDP blunder of the year -- not necessarily in terms of what it will cost the party, but just in terms of how starkly it reveals the internal rot -- would be the NDP picking the same people who ran the campaign to run the post mortem on why it didn't work. Objectively speaking, though, it's probably the balanced budget announcement from Mulcair, if only because polls taken over the course of the election really show it as the exact moment when momentum shifted to the Liberals. Ikantski posted:3. Trudeau promises 25k refugees in 2015. Is it really a blunder when it helps you win the election?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Does the G&M endorsing the Conservatives sans Harper count because while that wasn't a blunder exactly, it was hilarious to watch people yell at the dumb newspaper for their dumb opinions and watch the editor-in-chief claim there had been no editorial interference by the paper's owners in the past 18 months.Helsing posted:Is it really a blunder when it helps you win the election? Seems like that could be a 2016 blunder if anyone really cares about the Liberals sticking to the exact timing on that particular promise (no one cares).
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
I don't think anyone will remember the Liberals breaking their promise on immigration, and even if they do the kind of person who cares about that is the kind of person who will likely just be grateful that Trudeau was an improvement over Harper. I doubt Trudeau's going to pay a price for exaggerating how quickly he could bring in refugees. If I had to speculate on which election promise currently look as though they might come back to haunt Trudeau then it's electoral reform. It will be relatively easy for his critics to incite people over the fact he's going to make an enormous and consequential change to how elections work without any kind of referendum. It's exactly the kind of simple story line that could be be turned into a political issue. Also in the course of trying to reform the electoral system Trudeau may come to regret his past treatment of Liberal senators. And if Trudeau fails to push through with reforms then he'll disappoint a lot of people and may pay a price for that during the next election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Is it really a blunder when it helps you win the election? It was a bit of a joke that the Liberals honestly thought they could bring in 25k instead of just saying whatever to one up the NDP. You're right, voting for C-51 was their bigger actual mistake. The fact that they didn't quickly repeal it or amend the more heinous parts tells me that they actually do support C-51 though and well it's just so nice to see the Liberals be honest about something that I can't even hold it against them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
uh lies aren't blunders if everyone believes them u guys
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:uh lies aren't blunders if everyone believes them u guys Blunder implies a mistake, the lies were purposeful and achieved the desired effect, ergo not a blunder
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
And this is why Canada's populace keeps electing retards
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
It's a representative democracy, so that stands to reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
THC posted:The Globe editorial board asks, Does Canada need the Conservative Party?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Hey did you guys know Jody Emery is a weed thought leader?quote:@TristinHopper Thing is, there are lots of real studies that demonstrate cannabinoids prevent cancers, and marijuana users are safe drivers. https://twitter.com/JodieEmery/status/682032144286257153?s=09 Daaaamn no wonder you guys want this poo poo legalized
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JodieEmery/status/682249050612080640?s=09quote:Ugh. Another tax hike for BC in the form of higher mandatory MSP fees. It's too much https://t.co/bPTQtpuQ9A #bcpoli https://t.co/4itNuwi7Vr Ugh!!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Albino Squirrel posted:That's funny, the Globe thought we needed them in October. That editorial in which they endorse the conservative party, but not harper will go down in history as one of the dumbest endorsements of all time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:That editorial in which they endorse the conservative party, but not harper will go down in history as one of the dumbest endorsements of all time. They even managed to outdo their 'elect the Ontario PCs, but don't go crazy and give them a majority' recommendation in terms of stupidity. Just barely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Albino Squirrel posted:That's funny, the Globe thought we needed them in October. It's a rehash of their endorsement, we need the Conservatives they just need to be less mean and Harperesque about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-rocks-in-a-hard-place-why-things-look-bleak-for-newfoundland/quote:There was a fierce debate during the 2015 federal election campaign over whether Prime Minister Stephen Harper had actually delivered a “surprise” $1.9-billion surplus last year, or had in fact rang up a similar-sized deficit. But, as is so often the case, it was all smoke, no fire. Wrapping up the fiscal year a few billion on either side of the ledger is a rounding error in a $2-trillion economy. Oh man my sadness boner has been pointing in the wrong direction. gently caress Alberta of course but gently caress these gap toothed fiddlin' yokels even harder. When the going is good you vote for tory cunts and now when you're hosed because you're all profligate fucks you go and vote the liberals. Starve to death assholes re-quoting this loving nugget quote:“The Liberal campaign provincially tried to mirror the campaign the federal Liberals ran so successfully,” says Memorial University political science professor Russell Williams, adding that it was clear early on that the Liberals were going to sweep away 12 years of Tory rule. “But the context is obviously so fundamentally different. Federal finances are in great shape. But here in Newfoundland, we’re talking about similar-sized deficits and there’s only half a million people.” Is everyone on the east coast loving dumb?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
THC posted:It's a rehash of their endorsement, we need the Conservatives they just need to be less mean and Harperesque about it. The Globe is basically endorsing the Progressive Conservatives with each of these articles and forgetting that such a party no longer exists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Is everyone on the east coast loving dumb? Yeah basically. A while back John Ibbitson/Ivison, I forget which, went to the Maritimes and interviewed a bunch of people and basically said "These people could solve all their problems if they would welcome young immigrants but they're all too old and racist so their economy is going to collapse and they're too stupid to elect anyone who will do anything about it."
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Oh man my sadness boner has been pointing in the wrong direction. gently caress Alberta of course but gently caress these gap toothed fiddlin' yokels even harder. When the going is good you vote for tory cunts and now when you're hosed because you're all profligate fucks you go and vote the liberals. Starve to death assholes This is awesome, just as Ontario is about to surpass Quebec to have the highest debt per capita in Canada, Newfoundland throws itself in front of the bullet and saves us the embarassment. Thanks b'ys.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Yeah basically. A while back John Ibbitson/Ivison, I forget which, went to the Maritimes and interviewed a bunch of people and basically said "These people could solve all their problems if they would welcome young immigrants but they're all too old and racist so their economy is going to collapse and they're too stupid to elect anyone who will do anything about it." It's slowly getting better. They're slowly dieing off. Sussex, a town of 4,312, got together to independantly spouncer a family, and the cities will be taking in people. We're not all stupid. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
If we could monetize the Liberal's magical ability to both have the cake and also to eat it, our debt problems would go away so quickly. https://www.liberal.ca/speech-justin-trudeau-hoc-2015-on-extending-the-combat-mission-in-iraq-and-expanding-into-syria/ posted:Are we only seeking to degrade ISIL’s capabilities, as the Prime Minister stated, or are we attempting to defeat them outright, as the Minister of National Defence suggested? If it is to defeat them, are we willing to admit that it may take more than air strikes? Are we willing to admit that it may well mean bombing in Yemen and other countries? Will our involvement in this mission end next March, or was the Minister of Foreign Affairs being more truthful when he explicitly compared this war to Afghanistan, saying that we were in this for the “longer term”? Let us remember, in Afghanistan the longer term meant 10 years not 12 months.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
This is going to be fun.quote:The Conservative Party is vowing to use any means necessary, including a Senate blockade, to keep the Liberal government from forcing through electoral-reform legislation without first holding a referendum. (The CPC currently has 45 out of the 83 seats. The PM is going to appoint five people in January, leaving the CPC with a one seat majority. Then he'll presumably let the process play out, and who knows how long that takes, and who knows how the 9 [soon to be 14, then 31] independent senators will vote.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
How dare the elected government legislate something they campaigned on?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
This is all pretty rich coming from the Fair Elections Act Party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
I guess the Conservatives are worried that in anything other than FPTP they will never hold another majority? There's no reason for electorial reform to goto a referendum, it's a major change, but so is any other government policy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:How dare the elected government legislate something they campaigned on? Well, really, the LPC didn't so much campaign on a new electoral system as they did on changing the electoral system. "We're going to change how elections are conducted in this country - do not ask us what we're going to change it to" is not a campaign promise that actually gives you a mandate to fundamentally change the nature of our democracy. You probably agree that there are alternate electoral systems to the current one that are unacceptable, right? If JT comes out and says "we've decided to switch to a US-style electoral vote system where we give every seat in a province to the party winning the most votes", that wouldn't be okay. Once you've established that there exists at least one electoral system that it wouldn't be kosher to change to, I think it becomes fair game to critique any potential electoral system they switch to. And, you know, unelected Senators blocking legislation from the elected lower house is not something that the LPC thinks is a problem worth addressing  DariusLikewise posted:I guess the Conservatives are worried that in anything other than FPTP they will never hold another majority? Changing election rules should have a higher scrutiny than regular legislation - we can't have governments just changing the electoral system every time a new party comes in power. A referendum gives legitimacy or moral force behind the decision. Maybe there are some alternative ways to get that legitimacy - support from provincial governments, or support from a supermajority of the House (something like LPC + NDP + Bloc + May), but using a very vague undercooked election promise to justify switching the system on the basis of 50%+1 of House votes isn't really kosher. Pinterest Mom fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
They did very explicitly campaign on it, which is just about the only justification I can think of for not having this go to a referendum. I really wish the parties could put away their partisan garbage for this one though, and just work towards a better system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:They did very explicitly campaign on it, which is just about the only justification I can think of for not having this go to a referendum. The explicitly campaigned to do something about it, not on an alternative system. A lot of people who want a proportional system believed the LPC was promising one, and they had candidates winking about it. Other people who don't want a proportional system believed the LPC wasn't promising one, and the LPC had an answer for them too ("JT has always said he prefers ranked ballots"). They don't have a real mandate for either of those options. If, say, a Conservative came to power after a major scandal and promised to "end the culture of corruption in the civil service", and then six months later you learn that what she meant was "we've decided to abolish the civil service, everything is coming out of the PMO now", do you think that fulfills the promise?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
We can't agree on which system is perfect, so let's keep the flawed one we have. No sense in letting go ahead with their plan to change from FPTP to... uh...
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
"If you want to change the electoral system, present your alternative to the electorate" isn't a rabid conservative position.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
But "If you want to impede an attempt to make elections more fair, use the unassailable power of the cronies you appointed" is. "Should we change it or not?" is a stupid referendum question to ask because we got the answer in the election. "Should we change it to this or that" is a good question that we may or may not have to ask because we have no idea what the LPC's plan even is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:"If you want to change the electoral system, present your alternative to the electorate" isn't a rabid conservative position. Go home Rona Ambrose, this is Sunny fuckin' Ways territory. I'd personally like to see prop rep like the NDP promised but I'm also glad we have a senate that can stop a group who seized control of parliament with less than 40% of the popular vote from changing the way votes are counted. I feel like this is specifically what the senate was created for. I'd like to hear what the Liberals' plans actually are though, it's weird that they're announcing no referendum before they've even started to examine alternative voting options.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
A referendum ballot with choices without FPTP would be fine with me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Go home Rona Ambrose, this is Sunny fuckin' Ways territory. I lost all faith in the senate doing what they were created for when they passed numerous illegal bills that were rammed through the lower house by a party that seized control of parliament with less than 40% of the popular vote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
I think the only possible good outcome is a referendum where FPTP is not even an option. The Liberals ran on abolishing it so they have a mandate to move past FPTP, but because they never said what they would change it to they don't have a mandate for any specific change. And honestly, there are worse options than FPTP. AV/IRV, in my opinion, is a worse system for Canada than even FPTP because it legislates an advantage for the Liberal Party into the voting system, and by this point we should all be well aware of what exactly happens when the Liberal Party feels they have an unassailable grip on the halls of power. Plus having to hold a referendum of some kind on this would be good if only for the reason that it would discourage future governments from just changing the electoral system to whichever one most benefits them before each new election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-rocks-in-a-hard-place-why-things-look-bleak-for-newfoundland/ Not to mention that in either 2014 or 15 the conservative government forecasted oil to remain at 110 a barrel and thought that was fine and sustainable when oil at the time of the budget being drawn up was only 90 and dropping. We unfortunately elected Danny Williams to bankrupt the province and when he finally though the jig was up, he left premier Dunderdale holding the bag for poo poo like the muskrat falls project. If you want to see an entire province crash and burn, just wait till the oil money stops and the two mega projects for offshore oil rigs close shop next year. There are so many Newfoundland trade workers who decided that on a job only lasting 3 years they should mortgage a half million dollar house only worth 200k, get two top of the line pickups on financing lease, and a pile of skidoos so they can continue to ignore their wives. I'm just glad it means when I finally go to look for a house it will be post giant housing market correction for Newfoundland.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 17:17
|
|
