CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

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

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Landsknecht posted:

If you spend any time at all working in politics you'll see that the people who get hired for caucus/government jobs are invariably the ones who are good at helping to win elections, because really that's the only thing which matters.

Should you be decent at elections you'll probably be easy enough to train into other things, the only issue is your morals/worldview.

That last part doesn't even really matter anymore in most parties. A thatcherite running the NDP? As long as he gets the votes. Oh, he didn't get the votes? Whatever, he's still good.

# ? Oct 24, 2016 18:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 15:04

Landsknecht: Oct 27, 2009; I hope this person is trolling, nobody can be so unfunny and dumb

Baronjutter posted:

That last part doesn't even really matter anymore in most parties. A thatcherite running the NDP? As long as he gets the votes. Oh, he didn't get the votes? Whatever, he's still good.

the issue with the morals isn't that they're aligned with the party, it's that they care more about winning the next election than making good policy

# ? Oct 24, 2016 18:15

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

What the hell are you talking about? The problem here isn't that somehow Kouvalis will steer the privatisation of a public utility based on what will win John Tory the next election. This contract is obviously a reward for Kouvalis' loyal service and an example of how political functionaries use their relationship to elected politicians to enrich themselves.

# ? Oct 24, 2016 18:26

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

Landsknecht posted:

Should you be decent at elections you'll probably be easy enough to train into other things, the only issue is your morals/worldview.

I would suggest that the better someone is at winning elections, the less their personal morals/worldview even matter. I'd rather have people who can sell a lovely product than a great product nobody wants.

# ? Oct 24, 2016 18:27

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Postess with the Mostest posted:

I would suggest that the better someone is at winning elections, the less their personal morals/worldview even matter. I'd rather have people who can sell a lovely product than a great product nobody wants.

This is why both capitalism and our current system of democracy don't work and produce total garbage

# ? Oct 24, 2016 18:29

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Postess with the Mostest posted:

I would suggest that the better someone is at winning elections, the less their personal morals/worldview even matter. I'd rather have people who can sell a lovely product than a great product nobody wants.

So you're a big fan of the Ontario Liberals then?

# ? Oct 24, 2016 18:29

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

infernal machines posted:

So you're a big fan of the Ontario Liberals then?

Sorry, I meant that not as a voter but as a hypothetical politician/job creator/capitalist. Also, 14% approval, time to fire the CEO and keep everything else exactly the same.

# ? Oct 24, 2016 18:45

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Most Canadian elections are a big game of musical chairs where you hope that ~~the music stops~~ government scandals and bad economic conditions somehow align closely enough with the election to give you a shot. You know the opposition won't hit you too hard over your raiding of the cookie jar because they're going to do it too when they inevitably get back into office. The idea that our political parties are full of ruthless and brilliant political tacticians fighting their way to the top in a Darwinian struggle for survival is mostly a way for Canadian voters to apply some kind of Just-World rationalization to the state of our politics. "Oh sure the politicians are corrupt but they worked hard to claw their way to the top" is a more comforting narrative for most than "the politicians are corrupt idiots who are just as dumb and mediocre as the people I interact with at work or home, except they live better than me". Seeing things that way will be much more hurtful to the average Canadian's ego than believing that we're ruled by brilliantly ruthless A-type personality sociopaths.

# ? Oct 24, 2016 18:51

Hexigrammus: May 22, 2006; Cheech Wizard stories are clean, wholesome, reflective truths that go great with the marijuana munchies and a blow job.

sliderule posted:

You missed the best title: "How the Poor Can Save Capitalism"

Stockholm syndrome at its finest.

I was going to wait and read that one along with Ralph Nader's "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!".

# ? Oct 24, 2016 19:25

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Helsing posted:

Most Canadian elections are a big game of musical chairs where you hope that ~~the music stops~~ government scandals and bad economic conditions somehow align closely enough with the election to give you a shot. You know the opposition won't hit you too hard over your raiding of the cookie jar because they're going to do it too when they inevitably get back into office. The idea that our political parties are full of ruthless and brilliant political tacticians fighting their way to the top in a Darwinian struggle for survival is mostly a way for Canadian voters to apply some kind of Just-World rationalization to the state of our politics. "Oh sure the politicians are corrupt but they worked hard to claw their way to the top" is a more comforting narrative for most than "the politicians are corrupt idiots who are just as dumb and mediocre as the people I interact with at work or home, except they live better than me". Seeing things that way will be much more hurtful to the average Canadian's ego than believing that we're ruled by brilliantly ruthless A-type personality sociopaths.

From my limited personal experience, the people managing and directing the campaigns are considerably sharper and more capable than the candidate they're supporting.

# ? Oct 24, 2016 19:49

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

infernal machines posted:

From my limited personal experience, the people managing and directing the campaigns are considerably sharper and more capable than the candidate they're supporting.

Have you seen the NDP

# ? Oct 24, 2016 19:50

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

OPC and OLP only. So I'm willing to bet my experience isn't representative of reality.

# ? Oct 24, 2016 19:53

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

infernal machines posted:

From my limited personal experience, the people managing and directing the campaigns are considerably sharper and more capable than the candidate they're supporting.

I've seen the HBO documentary VEEP and I can confirm that this is not the case.

# ? Oct 24, 2016 19:54

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

REAL CHANGE

quote:

People across Canada living with HIV feel abandoned by the federal government because of changes to the way the Public Health Agency of Canada funds the response to the virus, according to several organizations providing support services.

The full picture of which organizations and services have lost their funding as a result of the changes is still developing. This year, the agency spent $24.6 million on community-based programs through its HIV and Hepatitis C Community Action Fund.

Christian Hui, an HIV-positive man who co-ordinates the Ontario Positive Asians Network with Asian Community AIDS Services (ACAS) in Toronto, says the PHAC's planned funding cuts will hurt those in the East and Southeast Asian community who are living with HIV or AIDS.

"I'm actually really disappointed because I really believe in the work that I do," he says. "Also, I'm really sad that a community or a network that we have worked so hard on may not be able to survive because of the funding cuts."

ACAS is one of 42 AIDS Service Organizations across Canada that previously received funding from PHAC for program delivery that now will have to search for new sources of revenue in order to keep operating.

Citing a shift in focus from treatment support to prevention, the health agency said its funding of programs like Hui's will end in March 2017. That, Hui says, will leave many in his community without culturally specific peer support and access to services.

"It's catastrophic for Canada's ability to respond to the needs of people living with HIV and hepatitis C," said Gary Lacasse, executive director of the Canadian AIDS Society, which will also have between 30 and 50 per cent of its government funding cut.

Lacasse says the changes amount to a cut in social support services that ultimately help HIV-positive people access treatment, and they will have a cascading effect on the country's ability to contain the epidemic. About 75,000 Canadians were living with HIV at the end of 2014.

With political letter-writing campaigns and a change.org petition gearing up, Lacasse is calling on Health Minister Jane Philpott to increase funding for HIV overall and create a national "seamless response" to HIV, hepatitis C and other sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections.

The news of the changes came as a blow to organizers at the Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Network, who found out they will lose upward of 70 per cent of their funding, which could lead them to drastically reduce staff and cut programs.

# ? Oct 24, 2016 20:18

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

Helsing posted:

Most Canadian elections are a big game of musical chairs where you hope that ~~the music stops~~ government scandals and bad economic conditions somehow align closely enough with the election to give you a shot.
...

One point in favor of the Canadian system is that the electorate does occasionally severely punish a political party, however capricious or shallow the reasoning. Compare the US "Republican Revolution" of 1994 (where Congressional Republicans increased by 30%), with the Canadian federal elections of 1984, 1993 or 2011 (where multiple parties saw >100% gains or >50% losses in seats, also the PCs self-destructed and Ignatieff's Liberal faction followed). In principle the threat of massive electoral losses encourages more responsive and less corrupt politicians, musical chairs notwithstanding.

Like many cases where Canada compares favorably with the US the cause isn't any kind of cultural superiority but a few specific institutions Canadians are lucky to have. In particular the non-partisan electoral redistricting commission and a parliamentary system that allows a semi-stable 3 party configuration cuts prevents a lot of the stagnancy seen in the US house. The Republicans will likely keep the house even after nominating a wannabe Mussolini, which really says it all. I can't get too upset that Canadians voted for Trudeau's beautiful face even if they were generally doing it to spite Harper.

# ? Oct 24, 2016 20:18

Pinterest Mom: Jun 9, 2009

THC posted:

Have you seen the NDP

still true

# ? Oct 24, 2016 20:22

Landsknecht: Oct 27, 2009; I hope this person is trolling, nobody can be so unfunny and dumb

THC posted:

Have you seen the NDP

NDP has very few places that will hire their operatives in-between elections, LPC has bay street and various law/consulting firms, CPC has calgary and various law/consulting firms

# ? Oct 24, 2016 20:31

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

infernal machines posted:

From my limited personal experience, the people managing and directing the campaigns are considerably sharper and more capable than the candidate they're supporting.

This has tended to be my experience as well. Also, to be clear, there's a baseline of organization and discipline that you need to be electorally competitive in politics, it's just that the same can be said of many other managerial or entrepreneurial positions. If you know a moderately successful small business owner or corporate manager they are likely to have many of the same skills (absent the industry specific ones like understanding how to read a poll or time a announcement for maximum impact).

Rereading that last post I made I was definitely being hyperbolic when I implied that election outcomes are as random as a game of musical chairs. It's not quite that random. The point I'm trying to make, by use of some colourful exaggerations, is that after you've met a bunch of politicians and political operatives, or have spent some time around campaign offices, you start to appreciate that it's just another job and that the people involved are just as good or bad at their roles as the people you'll find in any other workplace, for the most part. And when you follow elections regularly you recognize just how much of the circumstances surrounding them are entirely out of the control of the people running a campaign -- something they'll candidly admit when elections go badly, but which they tend to downplay when elections go well. I believe we have a tendency to downplay this in our minds when we watch elections because it's depressing to think that primary ingredient in political success is luck and networking rather than talent.

# ? Oct 24, 2016 20:33

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

Helsing posted:

This has tended to be my experience as well. Also, to be clear, there's a baseline of organization and discipline that you need to be electorally competitive in politics, it's just that the same can be said of many other managerial or entrepreneurial positions. If you know a moderately successful small business owner or corporate manager they are likely to have many of the same skills (absent the industry specific ones like understanding how to read a poll or time a announcement for maximum impact).

Rereading that last post I made I was definitely being hyperbolic when I implied that election outcomes are as random as a game of musical chairs. It's not quite that random. The point I'm trying to make, by use of some colourful exaggerations, is that after you've met a bunch of politicians and political operatives, or have spent some time around campaign offices, you start to appreciate that it's just another job and that the people involved are just as good or bad at their roles as the people you'll find in any other workplace, for the most part. And when you follow elections regularly you recognize just how much of the circumstances surrounding them are entirely out of the control of the people running a campaign -- something they'll candidly admit when elections go badly, but which they tend to downplay when elections go well. I believe we have a tendency to downplay this in our minds when we watch elections because it's depressing to think that primary ingredient in political success is luck and networking rather than talent.

Gerry Butts has won too many elections for it to be luck. His networking is obviously top notch but I don't know why you'd classify that with luck, many people find it pretty difficult and I'd put it more in the talent/hard work side.

# ? Oct 24, 2016 20:41

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Here's a book review for one of the particularly strong statement of the idea that elections are largely driven by uncontrollable events like the weather. I don't endorse this thesis without any reservations but it's a good basis for discussion:

quote:

�Election outcomes are mostly random events shaped by things like whether the economy happened to grow in the few months before the election,� said Bartels, who holds the May Werthan Shayne Chair of Public Policy and Social Science at Vanderbilt University. �So there really isn�t a very strong incentive for politicians to respond to any particular policy agenda, and what they end up doing is implementing the set of policies they believe are good for the country.�

Sometimes the random events that influence a particular election can be teased out if the right questions are asked. Achen and Bartels concluded that shark attacks along the New Jersey shoreline in 1916 cost President Woodrow Wilson votes in the area in his re-election campaign that year.

Bartels and Achen, Roger Williams Straus Professor of Social Sciences and professor of politics at Princeton, studied how other natural events impacted elections.

�We looked at droughts and floods for the whole course of the 20th century and found there�s a pretty consistent pattern of people voting against the incumbent party when their states are too wet or too dry,� Bartels said. �When collective misfortune strikes a society, someone must be blamed.�

Like I said above I think there are some baseline requirements to be competitive so when I say elections have a highly random element I don't mean to suggest literally anyone could run a campaign and have an equal chance of success. But beyond requiring that baseline of competence it's not really clear how much impact individual talent has on electoral outcomes.

Postess with the Mostest posted:

Gerry Butts has won too many elections for it to be luck. His networking is obviously top notch but I don't know why you'd classify that with luck, many people find it pretty difficult and I'd put it more in the talent/hard work side.

quote:

New York man wins $1M lottery twice at same gas station

WEST BABYLON, N.Y. -- A construction worker who won $1 million in a lottery scratch-off game four years ago has defied enormous odds by hitting a $1 million jackpot again.

Bruce Magistro told New York's 1010 WINS that he spent $20 on 10 scratch-off tickets on the day of the drawing.

"It was actually the first ticket that he gave me that I won the Win For Life on," Magistro said.

But don't call him lucky.

After Magistro hit the jackpot the first time in 2012, his wife, Yvonne, lost a three-year battle with cancer. Much of the prize money went to pay for her medical bills.

"She passed away two years ago today," Magistro's son, Nick Mayers, said Wednesday. He said he was sure the second jackpot was her way of sending help back to the family.

"This is definitely a gift, from her to him," Mayers said.

State lottery officials introduced Magistro at a news conference at the Long Island gas station where he bought the second winning ticket April 11.

Magistro said he plays the lottery every day. This time he plunked down $20 at Mike's Super Citgo in West Babylon for a set of the Win for Life scratch-offs.

"This is impossible," Magistro said he thought as he scratched off a lottery ticket and realized he won $1 million. "I just couldn't believe I hit it two times."

He now plans to share his winnings with his three children and his fiancee.

Magistro won $1 million on a different lottery scratch-off game he played at the same gas station in 2012.

The latest win came the first time he had played the Win for Life game, which will pay him $1,000 each week -- with a minimum of $1 million -- for the rest of his life.

Lottery representative Yolanda Vega, who had presented Magistro with a ceremonial check for his first win, said even then she felt he could win a second time.

"He was so positive and outgoing that I knew he'd win again," she said. "There was something about Bruce that I felt. There was this energy coming from his core."

State gaming officials said the odds Magistro beat to get the Win for Life grand prize were 1 in 7,745,600, and they were 1 in 2,520,000 when he won the Extreme Cash scratch-off in 2012.

But beating those kinds of odds twice aren't unheard of.

A North Carolina woman with breast cancer won $1 million in a lottery game in February and then scored a $250,000 prize last month.

In 2012, a man in suburban Chicago won $1 million from a "Merry Millionaire" scratch-off game after winning the same amount nine years earlier.

Magistro said he plans to use the money to pay his bills and go on a vacation, though he hasn't decided where just yet.

"Hopefully I'll win again," he joked. "Third time's a charm."

# ? Oct 24, 2016 20:51

Lobok: Jul 13, 2006; Say Watt?

Helsing posted:

Here's a book review for one of the particularly strong statement of the idea that elections are largely driven by uncontrollable events like the weather. I don't endorse this thesis without any reservations but it's a good basis for discussion:

Like I said above I think there are some baseline requirements to be competitive so when I say elections have a highly random element I don't mean to suggest literally anyone could run a campaign and have an equal chance of success. But beyond requiring that baseline of competence it's not really clear how much impact individual talent has on electoral outcomes.

some author tired of hearing the phrase posted:

"All politicians know - and often quote - the response from Harold Macmillan when asked what a prime minister most feared: 'Events, dear boy, events'."

# ? Oct 24, 2016 20:57

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

Helsing posted:

Like I said above I think there are some baseline requirements to be competitive so when I say elections have a highly random element I don't mean to suggest literally anyone could run a campaign and have an equal chance of success. But beyond requiring that baseline of competence it's not really clear how much impact individual talent has on electoral outcomes.

You can't just go attributing things to chance willy nilly, that needs to be a last resort and ideally mathematically proveable. Yeah that lottery winner was lucky but statistically it's not surprising that someone wins it twice and there's probably a link between people who would spend $20 a day on the poor math tax and bad health outcomes. If anything politics is comparable to poker where they're operating in an environment with a lot of random variables and yet there are few excellent poker players and tons of bad ones. We know some poker players are good because the sample size is too large. Butts' sample size is also large by comparison to other political campaigner.

No matter how chaotic the environment, you can strive to operate better than your opponents which is presumably why they're spending hundreds of thousands of tax bucks to enhance their ability to do that by hiring experts. They know there's a lot of randomness but they'll work hard to leave as little to chance as possible.

quote:

The federal government is spending at least $200,000 to obtain advice from British �deliverology� guru Sir Michael Barber, according to documents that shed more light on the contract with the political consultant.

Sir Michael�s Delivery Associates Limited, based out of London, will attempt to help the Liberals deliver their ambitious campaign promises through its data-driven and results-based management theory, according to a contract obtained under the Access to Information law by Ottawa researcher Ken Rubin. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau�s Liberals started seeking advice from Sir Michael shortly after last year�s election victory, flying him in to speak at the three cabinet retreats this year in St. Andrews by-the-Sea, N.B., Kananaskis, Alta., and Sudbury, Ont.
...
The NDP�s Charlie Angus questioned why the Trudeau government is seeking help from �Mr. Deliverology Guru,� who has helped a number of �dodgy� governments deliver on their promises.

�It shouldn�t be all that difficult for deliverology for Justin Trudeau. He made some clear promises. He said he�d keep them,� Mr. Angus said. �Why do we need a guy who works in Iraq, Libya and Myanmar to come in and tell us how Justin�s going to somehow look credible for walking away on these promises?�

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-spend-200000-for-advice-on-delivering-campaign-pledges/article32187629/

Wait no this is better, just think of all the hours that go into every off the cuff remark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZOXxIKkWas

# ? Oct 24, 2016 21:45

Subjunctive: Sep 12, 2006; ✨sparkle and shine✨

There is an enormous market for telling people simple things over and over to help them meet their commitments, whether one is effective or not.

# ? Oct 24, 2016 21:59

Hexigrammus: May 22, 2006; Cheech Wizard stories are clean, wholesome, reflective truths that go great with the marijuana munchies and a blow job.

Subjunctive posted:

There is an enormous market for telling people simple things over and over to help them meet their commitments, whether one is effective or not.

You've worked as a consultant too, I take it?

# ? Oct 24, 2016 23:16

Subjunctive: Sep 12, 2006; ✨sparkle and shine✨

Hexigrammus posted:

You've worked as a consultant too, I take it?

In a couple of forms, yeah. I couldn't handle the effects on my soul, but it did pay fantastically well.

# ? Oct 24, 2016 23:27

RBC: Nov 23, 2007; IM STILL SPENDING MONEY FROM 1888

THC posted:

REAL CHANGE

the gently caress is wrong with the liberals

# ? Oct 25, 2016 00:21

Seat Safety Switch: May 27, 2008; MY RELIGION IS THE SMALL BLOCK V8 AND COMMANDMENTS ONE THROUGH TEN ARE NEVER LIFT.; Pillbug

RBC posted:

the gently caress is wrong with the liberals

"Not our fault, provinces should do treatment, hur hur"

# ? Oct 25, 2016 00:42

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

Ahem, actually, the Trudeau government only halved the rate at which federal health funding will grow, so really, they haven't cut healthcare at all! This is absolutely not the same excuse you heard from the Harper Conservatives, I have no idea why you would think such a thing! They're focused on what really matters to Canadians: real change and a strong economy for the middle class.

# ? Oct 25, 2016 01:05

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

THC posted:

Ahem, actually, the Trudeau government only halved the rate at which federal health funding will grow, so really, they haven't cut healthcare at all! This is absolutely not the same excuse you heard from the Harper Conservatives, I have no idea why you would think such a thing! They're focused on what really matters to Canadians: real change and a strong economy for the middle class.

I didn't even fall for it and this still makes me feel bad.

# ? Oct 25, 2016 01:46

Pinterest Mom: Jun 9, 2009

3% was part of the LPC platform, the NDP was the only party who promised to increase health care transfers vs the Harper baseline~

# ? Oct 25, 2016 01:57

P.d0t: Dec 27, 2007; I released my finger from the trigger, and then it was over...

Nocturtle posted:

The Republicans will likely keep the house even after nominating a wannabe Mussolini, which really says it all.

He's more like a Berlusconi, IMHO

# ? Oct 25, 2016 02:26

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

Christ almighty, there's just no satisfying Canadians. 90% of the people around here (Alberta, I mean), including my own family, are bitching to no end about how Trudeau is spending us into the poor house and how "my generation" is going to be so hosed and blah blah blah blah, meanwhile the people who aren't bitching about that are bitching about how nothing is being funded sufficiently.

I think everyone should just chill out and accept that maybe the reason Trudeau actually has such a high approval rating is because he's cutting a very aggressively centrist policy that's almost guaranteed to piss off everyone to some degree, but in the end keep as many people as relatively satisfied as possible. We're not going to turn into Greece (loving Christ, why can't people understand why a country that has extremely limited or no control over its monetary policy is entirely different from Canada's situation?) and we're not going to turn into some Randian/Mad Max hellhole with no public services.

I voted Liberal on the basis of Trudeau's policy and I'd do so again today if there were an election. He's not perfect, but of all possibilities, he's the one I fear the least. I really wish we could have Hillary Clinton though, she seems cool and good and largely underappreciated in the US.

# ? Oct 25, 2016 02:43

RBC: Nov 23, 2007; IM STILL SPENDING MONEY FROM 1888

yeah when pt6a votes liberal you know theyre loving garbage

# ? Oct 25, 2016 02:58

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

I'm sick of being a centrist and a pragmatist, I get poo poo on from all sides.

# ? Oct 25, 2016 03:09

P.d0t: Dec 27, 2007; I released my finger from the trigger, and then it was over...

You could always stop

# ? Oct 25, 2016 03:24

Excelsiortothemax: Sep 9, 2006

So I know this is Canpol and all but with Trump still a contender I have to share this.

https://youtu.be/LQmbttoxUeE

I didn't know that Jim Henson was a prophet. He truly was a gift from God to us.

# ? Oct 25, 2016 03:25

CLAM DOWN: Feb 13, 2007

P.d0t posted:

You could always stop

PT6A is far from the most annoying part of this thread for quite some time now.

# ? Oct 25, 2016 03:29

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

PT6A posted:

I'm sick of being a centrist and a pragmatist, I get poo poo on from all sides.

# ? Oct 25, 2016 03:36

Newfie: Oct 8, 2013; 10 years of oil boom and 20 billion dollars cash, all I got was a case of beer, a pack of smokes, and 14% unemployment.
Thanks, Danny.

Liberal politician apologizes for telling Labrador First Nations to just stop eating fish if government action at muskrat falls causes their food supply to become tainted with methyl mercury.

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3818408?client=ms-android-htc-rev

quote:

A Newfoundland MP who tweeted that people concerned about methylmercury should "eat less fish" apologized Monday evening with a written statement.

The MP for St. John's East, Nick Whalen, posted the tweet Sunday challenging a comment by NDP leader Earle MCCurdy who said all soil and vegetation should be cleared from the Muskrat Falls reservoir.

"If we can't afford to clear the reservoir, we can't afford to do the project," McCurdy said in an interview with NTV.

"That is ridiculous. Just measure MeHg [methylmercury] levels, eat less fish while MeHg are too high, and compensate," Whalen responded in his tweet.

However, Monday night Whalen posted a statement on social media, acknowledging his words were inappropriate and asking forgiveness.

"I would like to apologize to the people of Labrador and all Canadians for the insensitive comments I made on social media and regret any offense I have caused," the statement read.

"I am encouraged that the premier will be visiting Happy Valley-Goose Bay and meeting with community leaders to try and make progress for the people of Labrador in the days ahead."

Reaction from Muskrat Falls protesters and opponents of the Labrador hydroelectric project was swift. On Twitter, the NDP member of Parliament for Timmins-James Bay, Charlie Angus, accused him of mocking Indigenous people.

In the House of Commons, NDP MP Romeo Saganash called the comments "shameful

This has been part of an ongoing series of protests against the falls in Labrador due concerns over poisoning caused by flooding the area without spending the money to remove the surrounding bio matter to stop it from being an issue. Some good signs were recently at protests in Ottawa saying "truth and reconciliation and poison". If you want a great example about how all levels of government give no fucks about First Nations, look no further.

# ? Oct 25, 2016 03:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 15:04

Subjunctive: Sep 12, 2006; ✨sparkle and shine✨

More like "Randian Re/Max hellhole", I think.

# ? Oct 25, 2016 04:03

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

«‹›2341 »