|
Helsing posted:The main advocates of UBI seem to be under the misapprehension that stagnant wages and worker insecurity are some kind of unforeseen or accidental byproduct of our economic system. Even worse they try to make other people believe this because if you think poverty is some kind of mistake by our otherwise benevolent rulers then it's almost believable that they would be willing to fix it voluntarily. I wonder where most unions stand on UBI. Seems like UBI could also have a profound impact on a labour union's bargaining power, but then again that's kind of the point of these reformist policy proposals: to restrain capitalism as much as possible in order to keep labour happy.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
I hate the word "folks" more than any other on the English language
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 23:58
|
|
|
lol. The right honourable dipshit from South Bumblefuck has thoughts on Toronto's transit system https://twitter.com/SylviaJonesMPP/status/1094977156327854080 Newsflash, Bloor-Yonge station alone sees almost twice as many people per day than live in you entire riding. Please shut up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
Ford isn't completely wrong about student unions. Some of the ones I was represented by would spend time and effort debating resolutions on official statements regarding Israel's recent treatment of Palestinians. All of that was apparently just to get the politically-inclined members better positioned to work for an actual political party once they graduated. Advocating for social justice is great but it's a bit much for student unions to have foreign policies. The part about negotiating on behalf of all students for tuition, benefits, wages, etc.? That's just socialism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
You’d think a professional grifter would be proud of student unions fostering a whole new generation of it
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:You’d think a professional grifter would be proud of student unions fostering a whole new generation of it Speaking of professional grifter, isn't it funny that a known hash dealer with criminal ties was able to take over Ontario's weed distribution, not to mention the distribution of everything else? In some ways, I actually admire that. Not that people made it difficult, but he's sure hashtag-winning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 00:50
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:You’d think a professional grifter would be proud of student unions fostering a whole new generation of it He never went to university what the gently caress does Doug know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:He never went to university what the gently caress does Doug know. Nice credentialism
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
xtal posted:Nice credentialism You're welcome. When it comes to Doug, I'll belittle him anyway I can. The fucker shouldn't be allowed to breathe, much less run a province.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 03:04
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:He never went to university what the gently caress does Doug know. Didn’t he go to a for profit career college for a few months? That’s more embarrassing than not going at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
lol if you think going to university means you know your head from your rear end these days
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:lol if you think going to university means you know your head from your rear end these days To be fair, Doug has a much harder time with this considering one is often inside the other, and both look nearly identical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 05:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BNNBloomberg/status/1095309993065283584 this feels like a beaverton story but yet, "For its launch, a No Name six-pack will be part of Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s “buck-a-beer” program and sold for $6.60, including deposit, during the province’s upcoming Family Day long weekend. Loblaw said the promotion will be run in a series of weekends throughout the year. " it's not even really buck-a-beer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:https://twitter.com/BNNBloomberg/status/1095309993065283584 Yeah it is, the extra 10 cents per beer is the deposit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 15:09
|
|
|
And it's not even always a buck a beer, it's just on sale for $1.10 a beer. quote:A six-pack of No Name beer will be sold for $10.45 at select LCBO stores and at lcbo.com this month, Loblaw said in a release. There's a liquor store in Red Deer that's advertising 18 cans of beer for $16, so it's not like a buck-a-beer is impossible. Nearly $2/can is more than decent local craft brews here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
Oh, you bet your rear end I'm going to be buying no name loving beer. Exactly once, for the novelty factor. And then I will go back to supporting my local microbreweries that put out award winning, top shelf product at a reasonable price.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
^^^^Only Buck a beer I'm buying is Dominion's. Also, I really impressed and pleased with Jagmeet here. Not even being sarcastic
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 15:40
|
|
|
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canada-forests-carbon-sink-or-source-1.5011490 This has been doing the rounds this morning and the way it’s being reported it is kind of appalling in how blatantly misleading it is. The headline being shouted from the rooftops is “turns out trees don’t actually help with CO2 lol” but if you actually read the article, the problem is that natural CO2 sinks are being offset by increased deforestation in the form of forest fires, pine beetles killing trees, and logging. So the actual story is “trees don’t give you a net gain in sequestering CO2 when you burn more trees than you grow”, which is not at all what the headlines seem to be implying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Also, I really impressed and pleased with Jagmeet here. Not even being sarcastic Singh generally performs pretty well in terms of rhetoric, I challenge anyone to find a speech where he says anything particularly objectionable. The problem with him (to be fair, the entire NDP that he happens to be leading), is that their policies are basically "do what the Liberals do with maybe a token means-tested social program handout for street cred". Their housing plan is 100% textbook Liberal platform stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
Entropic posted:https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canada-forests-carbon-sink-or-source-1.5011490 Yeah they mentioned this several times on the radio during my commute this morning, but even the way the CBC reports it is loving appalling. "Some scientists say forests may not reduce carbon emissions, more at the half hour!", rather than just having the guts to just say that forests don't reduce carbon emissions in any meaningful way. I think it plays in with the talk about deplatforming and free speech and all that. If the institutions that people trust didn't allow every crackpot to come and shout obvious lies, there wouldn't be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 16:47
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I mean, we absolutely should not be thinking “we’re fine in Canada, we have so many trees, that’ll save us!” We need to actually hunker down and look at major policy changes to start the process of actually reducing fossil fuel reliance. But articles like this don’t seem to get spun as “trees alone won’t save us, we need to do more” (which is true and needs to be said!); rather, they get spun as “lefties can’t even get trees right, see, enviro-nerds don’t know what they’re talking about so why should we listen to them about anything?” Headlines matter, jfc, in 2019 the CBC needs to do better. you can’t just report poo poo like that with an inflammatory headline that buries the lede.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
Wilson-Raybould has resigned from cabinet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
Oh boy. This is going to sink the Liberals in a single election cycle, isn't it. The couldn't manage to avoid being obviously manifestly corrupt for four loving years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
 Her resignation letter is keeping it coy but lawyering up with a former Supreme Court justice isn't a move to calm the waters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Oh boy. That's seriously loving depressing 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
Well, I guess we're in for four years of Scheer powered darkness. That blows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
Say bye bye to your healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
Man, usually the Liberals last two terms at least before their massive corruption catches up with them and the country lets the Cons gently caress em for a few years
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
Except nobody even cares when the Cons are in contempt of government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
Powershift posted:That's seriously loving depressing How is that depressing? That's way better than what I expected, which was at least another few years of Liberal Government before they're inevitably replaced by the Conservatives anyways. We're getting a head start this way. Kraftwerk posted:Say bye bye to your healthcare. The idea that the Cons are competent enough to get rid of health care once and for all is ridiculous, it's going to be the Liberals who do it when it happens (relatively soon).
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
Syfe posted:Except nobody even cares when the Cons are in contempt of government. This is true. Harper was found in contempt of parliament. There were so many scandals throughout the last conservative government that seemed to be gigantic "nothing burgers" for the public at large. What finally did him in was just boredom and fatigue with a government that was in power for over 12 years. Why is it that when Liberals who functionally aren't so different from conservatives do a bad thing that people are more outraged and they dont have the political capital to survive the scandal? The only explanation I can offer is that there's weathervane voters who switch parties depending on which one is out of power and the left wing of the liberal voters defects during scandals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
Welp..... I'm gonna be drinking this weekend I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Welp..... You should be drinking to excess every weekend, you're one of the people who helped this happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:How is that depressing? That's way better than what I expected, which was at least another few years of Liberal Government before they're inevitably replaced by the Conservatives anyways. To what end? At worst a horrible conservative government just swings things back to the Liberals, a bad Conservative government has never made people swing to the NDP in serious numbers. There's no reasonable world where a Conservative government is better than the Liberals if you have anything resembling left-wing beliefs. quote:The idea that the Cons are competent enough to get rid of health care once and for all is ridiculous, it's going to be the Liberals who do it when it happens (relatively soon). This just isn't supported by any evidence at all. When has any prominent LIberal made a case that could even approach proposing privatizing health care? Their platform is almost certainly going to include expanded public health coverage (almost certainly pharmacare, albeit probably some BS means-tested thing)
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:You should be drinking to excess every weekend, you're one of the people who helped this happen. What other choice did we have exactly? The NDP fully betrayed their base to go to the middle and got punished for it. Trudeau did what the Libs always did but we had to vote for the policies we liked most even if we knew it was lies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:The only explanation I can offer is that there's weathervane voters who switch parties depending on which one is out of power and the left wing of the liberal voters defects during scandals. I think this is it. Liberals don't really have a diehard base. Even the bougie urban Liberal voters are willing to vote NDP, or even Conservative in some cases. Which makes sense when your party ideology basically amounts to "we really like being in power". When you're an "always Conservative no matter what" voter you're willing to ignore or rationalize scandals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
enki42 posted:To what end? At worst a horrible conservative government just swings things back to the Liberals, a bad Conservative government has never made people swing to the NDP in serious numbers. There's no reasonable world where a Conservative government is better than the Liberals if you have anything resembling left-wing beliefs. The Liberals were going to be replaced by the cons like it or not, it either happens earlier or at a later date. It's better for it to happen earlier, because we get a head start on the Liberals being out of office. enki42 posted:This just isn't supported by any evidence at all. When has any prominent LIberal made a case that could even approach proposing privatizing health care? Their platform is almost certainly going to include expanded public health coverage (almost certainly pharmacare, albeit probably some BS means-tested thing) Death by a thousand cuts is the only way to kill public healthcare in Canada, and the Cons aren't smart enough. The Liberals are going to do it eventually, it's their dream, it'd be their ultimate victory. Kraftwerk posted:What other choice did we have exactly? Not "we", bunnyofdoom was working for the Liberals in 2015. He campaigned for them. He is human garbage, and only quit when Trudeau went back on his electoral reform promise (as if anyone with a loving brain in this entire country thought that promise wasn't going to be broken at the soonest possible opportunity).
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
The Liberals could easily be the eternal ruling party of this country if they weren't so nakedly corrupt all the time
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Singh generally performs pretty well in terms of rhetoric, I challenge anyone to find a speech where he says anything particularly objectionable. The problem with him (to be fair, the entire NDP that he happens to be leading), is that their policies are basically "do what the Liberals do with maybe a token means-tested social program handout for street cred". Their housing plan is 100% textbook Liberal platform stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
ChairMaster posted:The Liberals were going to be replaced by the cons like it or not, it either happens earlier or at a later date. It's better for it to happen earlier, because we get a head start on the Liberals being out of office. If you assume that the Liberals are better than the Conservatives, barring any major upheaval in the political landscape of Canada, a Liberal victory is always better than a Conservative victory. The Liberals are the only other party that has a realistic chance of forming government given the current NDP, and all a Conservative victory "accelerates" is the Liberals coming back into power. quote:Death by a thousand cuts is the only way to kill public healthcare in Canada, and the Cons aren't smart enough. The Liberals are going to do it eventually, it's their dream, it'd be their ultimate victory. Says who? You ignored the rest of my post where I asked you to provide any evidence of this whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 19:20
|
|