|
PT6A posted:The ANDP is essentially as close as anyone's ever gotten to "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" in a way that's not just "conservative, but smokes weed," and I can see why there's a certain part of the media establishment that would be thrilled about it, especially as morons like Ford and Trump remind them that right-wing populist know-nothings are not as controllable and risk-free as they once were. "fiscally conservative" is a nice sounding phrase that normal people naturally interpret as meaning "balanced budgets" and incidentally the NDP has a fairly good record of doing those. but what it actually means in the minds of people who claim they are "fiscally conservative" is privatizing everything and leaving impoverished kids in the gentle hands of religious Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Sep 18, 2018 |
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
Weirdly, it turns out that being fiscally conservative effectively precludes being socially liberal in a society built off the exploitation of labour. Who knew? Oh, also turns out to be racist as poo poo too, but without explicitly saying so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 05:01
|
|
|
Well there's a reason all the old right-wing shits like the Koch bros hate Trump in the US. It's not that they don't agree with his racism. They just don't like how blatant he is about it. He's giving away the game, essentially.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 05:05
|
|
|
Look, racism just sort of happens, but as long as I don't say the n-word, I'm not a racist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 05:10
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Well there's a reason all the old right-wing shits like the Koch bros hate Trump in the US. It's not that they don't agree with his racism. They just don't like how blatant he is about it. He's giving away the game, essentially. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
What?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 05:23
|
|
|
Zizek would eat Trump
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 05:25
|
|
|
it's the accelerationist position basically. these populists are bumbling out of control, and the ruling class doesn't like them as much as a safe centrist like Wynne or Trudeau or Hillary. I want it to be true but I have my reservations
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
THC posted:it's the accelerationist position basically. these populists are bumbling out of control, and the ruling class doesn't like them as much as a safe centrist like Wynne or Trudeau or Hillary. I want it to be true but I have my reservations Well you have to bear in mind that "the ruling class doesn't like it" doesn't necessarily mean that it will cause more problems for them than it will everyone else. They just don't like when they have ANY problems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 07:29
|
|
|
The Bill 5 challenge appeal is in progress. So far the province has used the impressive legal strategy of insisting that their appeal must succeed or the absolute chaos they've created will only get worse. https://twitter.com/goldsbie/status/1042057459672731648 https://twitter.com/DavidHains/status/1042059009312923649 e: Ahahahahahaha. Only you can prevent our invocation of the notwithstanding clause! https://twitter.com/MariekeWalsh/status/1042059926481371136 infernal machines fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Sep 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:The Bill 5 challenge appeal is in progress. So far the province has used the impressive legal strategy of insisting that their appeal must succeed or the absolute chaos they've created will only get worse. This is actually impressive, in that horrific car-crash sort of way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:This is actually impressive, in that horrific car-crash sort of way.  Pictured: Robin Basu, Provincial counsel e: Province's counsel is stating that councillors act purely as a legislative body and have no constituency responsibility, because apparently there's just no point in making an honest factual argument at this point. gently caress it, just get up there and blackmail the court, tell baldfaced lies, who gives a poo poo, there are no consequences. e2: This also raises the question of what the gently caress happens if they're granted the stay until the election, but lose the appeal. I guess we just have another election then? I'm sure this is entirely accidental, coming from the legal team that is trying to pressure the court into granting the stay with the threat of unprecedented legislation. Strongest argument so far: You have a right to express yourself, you don't have a right to be heard (paraphrasing) infernal machines fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Sep 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
Already been posted, but my MP crossed the floor and now my parents are actually starting to get it that the libs and cons aren't that different
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
The most to be realistically hoped for at this point is that Ford comes out of this looking incompetent and unfocused rather than tough and decisive. Of course it doesn't matter too much how you're perceived when you've got a majority government but I really hope this fiasco creates the basis for framing Ford as not able to get things done. If he does force the courts to back down it will create an aura of inevitability around his agenda. On the plus side I really hope this taints Caroline Mulroney and follows her for the rest of her career. New New Fresh posted:Already been posted, but my MP crossed the floor and now my parents are actually starting to get it that the libs and cons aren't that different I mean, arguably this is still less embarrassing than when they tried to poach that disgraced conservative power couple only to have the local riding association go "no loving way!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
I can't wait to see the poo poo we'll get once Ford finds that bullying the courts is a legitimate strategy. e: Oh, this bodes well https://twitter.com/MariekeWalsh/status/1042092351542448128 Presented without context 
infernal machines fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Sep 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Liberals trying to enact a platform policy that has some pushback: "Ah well, I guess it isn't the time for this, next election cycle maybe" Conservatives trying to enact a platform policy that has some pushback: "RIP UP THE CONSTITUTION, BURN DOWN THE COURTS"
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
gently caress decorum if they're loving us
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:gently caress decorum if they're loving us The Conservatives exist for the sole purpose of loving us so...
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
Having approx. 700 city council members for 2.8m people is pretty excessive regardless of what you think of the how. Everybody who brings this up to me out here on the west coast has taken that part as a given. Most of the protests are just "because it's the Conservatives", whereas people would suck it up if done by the Liberals. (A large part of why Liberal governments w/ Conservative opposition keeping the pressure on are the best!)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:Liberals trying to enact a platform policy that has some pushback: "Ah well, I guess it isn't the time for this, next election cycle maybe" If the government does it how can it be illegal, huh? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
James Baud posted:Having approx. 700 city council members for 2.8m people is pretty excessive regardless of what you think of the how. Everybody who brings this up to me out here on the west coast has taken that part as a given. Hey I know you're an idiot but there's only 44 Councillors for 2.8m people, and they were raising it to 47. Try and stay in the ballpark of reality please.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
James Baud posted:Having approx. 700 city council members for 2.8m people is pretty excessive Yes it is but reality isn't even within an order of magnitude of your fantasy scenario 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
James Baud posted:Having approx. 700 city council members for 2.8m people is pretty excessive regardless of what you think of the how. Everybody who brings this up to me out here on the west coast has taken that part as a given. What the gently caress are you even talking about? Vancouver has 1 councillor per ~63k people i.e. exactly the same proportion of councillors to residents as Toronto has right now. We'd be adding three wards to fix distribution issues in areas with high growth, aiming for parity around 2026, with one councillor per ~61k people. The issue is only the Conservatives would do this, because no one else has any interest in dicking with Toronto's and only Toronto's municipal government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
James Baud posted:Having approx. 700 city council members for 2.8m people is pretty excessive regardless of what you think of the how. Everybody who brings this up to me out here on the west coast has taken that part as a given. This is possibly the dumbest post in this thread in a while, and that's saying something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
James Baud posted:Having approx. 700 city council members for 2.8m people is pretty excessive regardless of what you think of the how. Everybody who brings this up to me out here on the west coast has taken that part as a given. Vancouver has 10 Councillors for ~650,000 people, so one for every 65k Toronto wanted 47 Councillors for 2.8 million people, so one for every 60k
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:This is possibly the dumbest post in this thread in a while, and that's saying something. Number big! Why number so big? Number should be less big so better! You no like small number why?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Yes it is but reality isn't even within an order of magnitude of your fantasy scenario With 700 councillors for 2.8 million people, that'd be 4000 people per councillor. My hometown has a nine-person council for ~25k people, or ~2700 people per councillor. I'm for a 700 person council, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Number big! monsef.jpg
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
My town has 1 councillor per 1400 people and nobody seems bothered about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
I live in a city that has 10 Councillors for 48k people, such over representation
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
What we should do is double the size of Parliament
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
James Baud posted:Having approx. 700 city council members for 2.8m people is pretty excessive regardless of what you think of the how. Everybody who brings this up to me out here on the west coast has taken that part as a given. Everybody reading this stupid post should take a moment to consider that if you're part of the "everything is basically fine with our government, we just need a couple constitutional tweeks" crew then you're implicitly endorsing a world where a Lib government implementing the desires of a Conservstive opposition is indeed the best you will ever get.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
Reince Penis posted:Hey hey I heard this rumor again on the weekend from another person. I expect public sector layoffs in the ten of thousands to be announced sometime between now and the Ontario Conservatives first budget. Hey, guess what! https://twitter.com/jessiecatherine/status/1042109327656353792
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:What we should do is double the size of Parliament Only if this leads to Ukrainian parliament style fisticuffs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
Wouldn't that mean the 25 councillor plan will be scrapped in favour of the default?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:gently caress decorum if they're loving us remember when the ONDP got themselves ejected from the house one by one to delay the bill and then the Libs were like "whell, none of us got ejected  "
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Jan posted:Wouldn't that mean the 25 councillor plan will be scrapped in favour of the default? Please don't read too much into the joke image I slapped together in 30 seconds
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
Our government as a whole is so massively under represented and under funded and Conservatives keep moving the needle further and further. The fact that Liberals just fight for the status quo and not pushing things back in the other direction should tell you everything you need to know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
Liberals don't fight for the status quo, the deepest federal cuts since World War 2 happened under a Liberal majority at a time when their future election prospects were so certain that people unironically spoke of a "friendly dictatorship". The Liberals fight for whatever the international Davos hivemind thinks is trendy in a given decade. If that means eviscerating unions and driving down the social wage they do it. If it means being awoke anti-Trump selfie taker then they do that. If, five or ten years from now, the very serious people have turned against immigration you better believe the Libs will follow suit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 19:30
|
|