CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

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

BattleMaster: Aug 14, 2000

Leofish posted:

I don't know how to formulate a search to come up with a not-crazy result, but I suppose it's possible he may have shares in a company that might have something to do with some kind of ballot counting machine, maybe. That's practically the same thing as making them himself to favour candidates guaranteed to destroy western democracy for... ??????

Has it ever been explained what he gets out of it?

I think it's just naked antisemitism as you mentioned earlier.

If you assume that all billionaires use their money and connections and power to push an agenda, you would think that the larger number of rich right-wingers would overpower the left-wing agendas. Unless you think that Soros has a little special something that makes his power and money worth more, and to them I guess that "something" is him being Jewish and benefiting from the supposed Jewish conspiracy?

I'm probably thinking about this harder than they are.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 00:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 14:38

sitchensis: Mar 4, 2009

So the right wing is controlling the narrative this election and the only alternatives presented are are two big wet farts of centrism.

God loving drat.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 00:53

DariusLikewise: Oct 4, 2008; You wore that on Halloween?

Read this to understand the Soros thing, the author of this article got chased off Twitter by right-wing trolls because of it

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/7xnxpx/the-anti-semitic-roots-of-canadian-conservatives-foreign-funded-radicals-attacks

quote:

Seven years ago, as the Harper Conservatives were settling into their first and only majority government, then-Natural Resources minister Joe Oliver published an explosive open letter accusing �environmental and other radical groups� of trying to block resource projects.

�It�s financed, without exaggeration, by billionaire socialists from the United States�people like George Soros,� Oliver, who is Jewish, told CBC�s The National on January 9, 2012, the same day the now-infamous letter was published. In response, Open Society Foundation�founded by Soros�told the Vancouver Observer that it wasn�t funding any pipeline opposition in Canada.

The Soros dog-whistle didn�t seem to mean much at the time. After all, it was well before the Hungarian-American billionaire�s name became a widely popular proxy for far-right fear-mongering about �globalism� and �paid protesters,� and a pipe bomb was sent to his house by a Floridian Trump obsessive who shared memes describing Soros as a �Judeo-plutocratic Bolshevik Zionist world conspirator.�

But it�s no coincidence that the government�s promotion of the �foreign funded radicals� trope, which had first started in the pages of the Calgary Herald�s a few years earlier, began with name-dropping Soros�who had been the subject of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories since the late 2000s courtesy of right-wing commentators like Bill O�Reilly and Glenn Beck.

That�s because the entire subtext of the �foreign funding� campaign�even if not the speaker's intention�tapped into centuries-old anti-Semitic tropes that imply shadowy Jewish financiers scheming behind the scenes. The power and effectiveness of �foreign funded radicals� doesn�t come from presenting a coherent logical argument�the thesis falls apart if you think about it for more than a few seconds�but by appealing to long-standing anti-Jewish narratives that have found a home in Alberta politics for many decades.

Yes, seriously.

�The idea that Jews are setting about intentionally to stoke social unrest goes back pretty far,� said Talia Lavin, extremism researcher at Media Matters for America, in an interview with VICE Canada. �It serves a dual purpose: to imply that social protest is inherently illegitimate because other motives than sincere ideological rooting, that there�s this financial motive, and it also serves to explain social problems as simply the crafty machinations of Jews working towards their own racial ends.�

Let�s be very clear. We are not saying proponents of the �foreign funded radicals� trope�including Andrew Scheer, Jason Kenney, former BC justice minister Suzanne Anton, �Fair Questions� founder Vivian Krause and former Dragon�s Den star W. Brett Wilson (who has repeatedly called for such �traitors� to be literally hanged)�are anti-Semitic.

Their targeting of donations made to environmental organizations like West Coast Environmental Law and the Wilderness Committee by US foundations such as Tides and the Rockefeller Foundation have nothing visibly to do with prejudice against Jewish people. Likewise, criticism of non-Jewish celebrities such as James Cameron, Leonardo DiCaprio and Neil Young for alleged interference in Alberta�s business seem far removed from �globalist� conspiracy theories.

But it�s all anchored in a very long tradition of anti-Semitic scaremongering about �inherently illegitimate, inorganic, unnatural and a result of nefarious, devious plotting by the Jews,� Lavin said. This traces back to Henry Ford-era propaganda about the Rothschilds and jazz music, and includes white supremacist allegations that the NAACP and leftist student movements were being funded by Jewish subversives.

It�s usually not as explicit in the case of Canada, but it�s coming from the same point of origin.

�I�m not trying to suggest that Jason Kenney is a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semite,� emphasized Kate Jacobson, host of leftist podcast Alberta Advantage, in an interview with VICE Canada. �I just think the regurgitation of these narratives is really popular with their base because it�s a way of giving voice to a real anger and type of populist discontent, but it really relies on these tropes�and inflames them.

�It�s basically a way of looking at the rapid development of industrial capitalism, and how it�s a very intangible and powerful and international phenomenon, and then personifying and identifying it as �the Jew,�� she added. �These things are really, very dangerous.�

Logically, the underlying argument of �foreign funded radicals� doesn�t make any sense. Oilsands companies rely primarily on American capital to exist: four of the top five largest owners of Suncor, the girthiest oilsands company, are headquartered in the United States with over $6 billion in combined share value, while heavy hitter Imperial Oil is majority owned by Texas�s Exxon Mobil. Almost all oil exports from Canada end up in US refineries, which are often owned by the very same companies that extract the bitumen; if the Trans Mountain expansion gets built, it�s almost guaranteed that exports will go to California and Washington, not Asia.

Furthermore, the people and organizations slinging mud against environmental groups rarely divulge their own funding sources.

Vivian Krause, whose �research� is primarily cited in claims of �foreign funding,� hasn�t disclosed her own financing since 2011 (up until 2015, her Twitter account made critical references to Soros, but in recent years has tried to distinguish herself from such connections). Climate denying group �Friends of Science��a frequent peddler of the �foreign funded� line�received a $175,000 donation from Talisman Energy in 2004 and listed in US coal company Peabody Energy�s 2016 bankruptcy documents as a creditor. Other astroturf groups like Oil Sands Action and Suits and Boots refuse to disclose sources of money.

Postmedia�the newspaper chain that has promoted the narrative of �foreign funding radicals� the most, including from our favourite grandpa Joe Oliver�is overwhelmingly owned by US hedge funds. Oh, and Canada just bailed out a Houston-based pipeline company formed out of the ashes of Enron to the tune of $4.5 billion (although the full cost of buying and expanding the pipeline is expected to cost somewhere between $15 billion and $20 billion).

Anna Johnston, staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law�one of the organizations frequently smeared as �foreign funded��said in an interview with VICE Canada that it receives a �very small percentage� of funds from the US and that all strategic plans by the organization are determined prior to seeking funding.

�It�s a completely absurd tack to take,� she said. �The argument itself has no merits. The intention is purely to distract audiences from talking about the issues and attempt to totally discredit the groups that are raising valid public policy questions.�

It certainly is absurd. But it�s not accidental.

Shane Gunster, associate professor of communication at Simon Fraser University and expert in media coverage of environmental issues, said in an interview with VICE Canada that the entire premise of �foreign funded radicals� relies on a petronationalist framing of criticizing oilsands as �un-Canadian.� Anti-oilsands activism has been presented as �primarily driven by groups from the outside,� he said, creating an �inside/outside narrative� that conveniently ignores all Indigenous opposition to new projects. Supporting the oilsands is considered to be Canadian, with any criticism coming from outsiders.

�Clearly, they�re trying to make the argument this is from people whose strings are being pulled from the outside,� he said.

Sound familiar?

That�s modern anti-Semitism in a nutshell: the idea that progress is being disrupted by mysterious outside sources, personifying a critique of capitalism by assigning specific blame to Jewish people. It�s very rare to hear accusations of �foreign funding� attached to non-Jewish billionaires: the name of Bill Gates is never invoked in the same derogatory way as Soros�. While celebrities like DiCaprio and Young are frequently ridiculed for their commentary about the oilsands, there�s never any suggestion that they�re funding opposition. That�s left to the anonymous �foreign� threat, aka the Jews.

�There�s this perennial idea that Jews seek to disrupt white societies in the name of diluting white racial purity and creating chaos that they can then profit from,� Lavin said.

Jacobson said that it�s no coincidence that both Indigenous people and �foreign funded environmentalists� are talked about in the same breath, with anti-Soros rhetoric embedded in the assumption that Jews can never be citizens of Canada (or any country) because of an allegiance to some kind of �abstract international power.� Vague concern trolling about �foreign funding� inevitably end up reproducing such tropes.

�Both of those ways are saying �you fundamentally do not belong to the nation of Canada,�� Jacobson said. �Indigenous people: because the nation of Canada is predicated upon their destruction. And a dog-whistle for Jewish people: because Jews fundamentally, of course, can never belong to a nation.�

It�s the same reason, for instance, why Palestinian rights activist Dimitri Lascaris was recently slammed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other federal party leaders after tweeting that two Liberal MPs �are more devoted to apartheid Israel than to their own Prime Minister.�

The framing of the nefarious Jew loyal to outside forces is deeply embedded in the political history of Alberta. The Social Credit Party, which ruled the province from 1935 to 1971, was founded on the economic principles of C.H. Douglas, who scholar Janine Stingel described as believing in �an international, Jewish financial conspiracy controlled the world's economies and governments.� Jacobson said that anti-Semitism of the long-lasting Social Credit Party�whose second leader, Ernest Manning, was the father of Reform Party leader Preston Manning�was �completely foundational to their worldview.�

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious and highly influential anti-Semitic conspiracy text that framed Jews as �insidious trouble makers with a nefarious agenda at odds with that of the good, �true� citizens of a nation,� was a key foundation for the party; an Alberta MP was busted in 1953 for distributing it out of his office at the House of Commons. And this isn�t all well in the past, either: Stockwell Day, short-lived leader of the Canadian Alliance and high-ranking Conservative MP until 2011, proudly associated with Holocaust denier Jim Keegstra after he was convicted of hate crimes in 1984.

�Obviously there are huge differences between the United Conservative Party and Social Credit,� Jacobson said. �But I very much see Jason Kenney as the heir to Social Credit�s populist tradition.�

The anti-Soros undertones weren�t a dominant theme at the time of Oliver�s open letter and interview, said Gunster of Simon Fraser University, with considerably more focus placed on globe-trotting celebrities. However, he said that he�s not that surprised by the recent turn as �it�s not that far from that to conspiracy theories about George Soros and his foundation.�

Canada�s flaccid iteration of France�s �yellow vest� movement has successfully married anti-carbon tax rhetoric with racist fear mongering about the UN migrant pact, which far-right propagandists such as The Rebel have directly linked to Soros.

Entrenched in the movement is a regurgitation of the same anti-Semitic trope: signs at rallies have included �foreign funded eco-shaming radicals not welcome� and �Justin you are un-Canadian� and �Trudeau is a traitor.� A recent rally in Lethbridge was attended by literal fascists, including a woman who famously had her kids taken away from her after she drew swastikas on their arms and another with the Nazi dog-whistle �1488� drawn on one vest. Fascist militias including Sons of Odin, and its splinter group Wolves of Odin, have helped organize protests.

Such rhetoric can have fatal implications. In early November, 11 people were killed in the shooting at Pittsburgh�s Tree of Life synagogue, the deadliest single attack on Jewish people in US history. Perpetrator Robert Bowers was unbelievably anti-Semitic, convinced that a Jewish refugee organization was bringing the asylum seekers from Honduras to the United States.

Canada�s version is less obvious. But it�s still very present, seeming to grow by the week in the gradual lead up to the Alberta and federal elections. Any sensible inquiry into the concern trolling will fail as it�s not premised on any sort of actual logic: after all, why would an American foundation fund environmental activism as a means to inhibit Canadian economic progress while also funding environmental activism in the US, while also understanding that almost all Canadian oil is being exported to the US and primarily benefits American investors? There is no coherent explanation outside of its cleverly veiled anti-Semitic roots.

It may only get worse. Lavin of Media Matters said that the Tree of Life massacre and pipe bomb placements haven�t slowed such rhetoric of Jewish conspiring. And Canada has indeed birthed many renowned crypto-fascists�Faith Goldy, Stefan Molyneux, Lauren Southern.

There were over 1,700 recorded anti-Semitic incidents in Canada in 2017, the highest ever. Many terrifying racist militia groups are forming in the shadows.

�In that context, it�s not entirely surprising that the Canadian far-right would seek to adapt some of the same language of delegitimization of anti-Semitic conspiracy that�s been endemic to American discourse for over a century,� Lavin said.

What�s next will be up to us to decide. Johnston of West Coast Environmental Law said that she feels optimistic based on polling data from the last time this kind of rhetoric rose in popularity.

�Most Canadians really don�t like this US-style attack-based campaigning,� she said. �It may work for a core group of constituents, but we were never going to convince those Jason Kenney and Harper constituents of our arguments on the issues either. I don�t think we�ll pay it too much mind.�

Here�s hoping the majority of Canadians feel the same.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 01:33

PittTheElder: Feb 13, 2012; Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

Pinterest Mom posted:

https://twitter.com/MaximeBernier/status/1100511251787116544

Elizabeth, thank you

We should make Canada a post-national subdivision of the EU. I think we'd genuinely be a better place.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 01:52

Arc Hammer: Mar 4, 2013; Got any deathsticks?

Free movement of goods and people across the Atlantic? Yeah I'd be down for that.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 02:17

Jan: Feb 27, 2008; The disruptive powers of excessive national fecundity may have played a greater part in bursting the bonds of convention than either the power of ideas or the errors of autocracy.

sitchensis posted:

So the right wing is controlling the narrative this election and the only alternatives presented are are two big wet farts of centrism.

God loving drat.

Let's vote the Greens in, at this point I'd rather have tinfoil hats, no wifi and no nuclear than anything the other parties are offering.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 02:27

apatheticman: May 13, 2003; Wedge Regret

Arcsquad12 posted:

Free movement of goods and people across the Atlantic? Yeah I'd be down for that.

Agreed, I want to see Europe before it burns.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 02:56

Furnaceface: Oct 21, 2004

apatheticman posted:

Agreed, I want to see Europe before it burns.

Hey now, some of it will flood instead of burn. Climate change isnt all fires and droughts. :colbert:

# ? Feb 27, 2019 03:27

Maneck: Sep 11, 2011

Zeeman posted:

Counterpoint: The Court doesn't restrict itself to what was meant in 1867, and there was a lot of precedent here that s.121 didn't prohibit this sort of legislation

Counter-counter point: the prior case on point was Gold Seal. It was decided for social policy reasons (read: prohibition) rather being the result of actual legal analysis. Which is to say most scholars thought it was bad law, and that's also why every judge on the way to the Supreme Court ruled in favour of upholding the constitution, notwithstanding binding precedent on the point. On the second point, in Comeau, the SCC said you can't "living tree" away a prior bad interpretation of the constitution through the introduction of new historical evidence (notwithstanding the SCC had just done that in the assisted dying case). So maybe you're right? It's pretty muddy at the moment.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 03:42

The Butcher: Apr 20, 2005; Well, at least we tried.; Nap Ghost

TheKingofSprings posted:

Changing the topic, what does Trudeau actually have under his cap outside of ~~weed~~ lovely ditch weed going into this election?

I realize it's first world problems and then some, but seriously. Why is this weed so lovely. I would have been disappointed with this poo poo in high school.

There are probably millions still flowing into the black/grey market due to this.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 07:03

Furnaceface: Oct 21, 2004

The Butcher posted:

I realize it's first world problems and then some, but seriously. Why is this weed so lovely. I would have been disappointed with this poo poo in high school.

There are probably millions still flowing into the black/grey market due to this.

They asked criminals how much/what was being used and expected them to tell the truth.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 07:12

BGrifter: Mar 16, 2007; Winner of Something Awful PS5 thread's Posting Excellence Award June 2022

Congratulations!

The Butcher posted:

I realize it's first world problems and then some, but seriously. Why is this weed so lovely. I would have been disappointed with this poo poo in high school.

There are probably millions still flowing into the black/grey market due to this.

I really need to find another black/grey market dispensary cause this poo poo is unacceptable. It�s so much worse than 2018 it�s insane.

Legalization in Canada may be the worst thing to ever happen to weed.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 07:17

less than three: Aug 9, 2007; Fallen Rib

Dogwood BC while normally being pretty solid has suddenly fallen in line to fawn over Jagmeet being a "winning recipe for the Left"

https://dogwoodbc.ca/news/burnaby-south-singh-victory/

Time to cancel that recurring donation.

less than three fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Feb 27, 2019

# ? Feb 27, 2019 07:20

Hand Knit: Oct 24, 2005; Beer Loses more than a game Sunday ...
We lost our Captain, our Teammate, our Friend Kelly Calabro...
Rest in Peace my friend you will be greatly missed..

Pinterest Mom posted:

https://twitter.com/MaximeBernier/status/1100511251787116544

Elizabeth, thank you

Personally I think getting rid of the nation as the primary means of organizing political power (something that never fit well for Canada anyway, but that's another story), and moving towards some level of global sovereignty would be really quite good.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 09:13

Franks Happy Place: Mar 15, 2011; It is by weed alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dank of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by weed alone I set my mind in motion.

BGrifter posted:

I really need to find another black/grey market dispensary cause this poo poo is unacceptable. It�s so much worse than 2018 it�s insane.

Legalization in Canada may be the worst thing to ever happen to weed.

Given the fact that it makes up about $6-10 billion worth of BC's GDP and employs about 30-50k FTEs across the province, legalization may end up being the worst thing to ever happen to BC itself.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 11:08

RandomPauI: Nov 24, 2006; Grimey Drawer

Ignorant yank here. Would Trudeau demoting his Justice Minister to protect a company from paying fines be enough to bring down the government? My base line for Canada is Rob Ford and he died before he could be charged for ordering a murder.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 12:44

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

RandomPauI posted:

Ignorant yank here. Would Trudeau demoting his Justice Minister to protect a company from paying fines be enough to bring down the government? My base line for Canada is Rob Ford and he died before he could be charged for ordering a murder.

Trudeau has a majority and therefore nothing can bring down the government short of a massive schism in the Liberal Party, which won't happen.

It might be enough for him to lose the next election this coming fall, but probably not.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 12:45

RandomPauI: Nov 24, 2006; Grimey Drawer

Thanks for clarifying things. I naively thought this might be a big enough of a deal to cause a split. Then again, I'd heard the horror stories of Canadian military procurement so why should this be any different?

# ? Feb 27, 2019 13:01

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

Risky Bisquick posted:

If you have no kids, you shouldn't have any problems with your finances whatsoever. None

I for one am glad to hear that we've solved the problem of poverty for everyone except people who have children.

I mean, I don't believe for a moment it's actually true, but it's a nice thought at least.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 13:05

vincentpricesboner: Sep 3, 2006; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

PT6A posted:

I for one am glad to hear that we've solved the problem of poverty for everyone except people who have children.

I mean, I don't believe for a moment it's actually true, but it's a nice thought at least.

He's saying it in a lovely way, but to maintain the finances of a family with young children is immensely more difficult than a typical working single person. You have a dependent(s) you constantly are planning around, you don't get enough sleep, you have high food and household good costs, you should be saving for their education, etc etc etc. I've seen it theorized that each child you choose to have can cost you up to 500,000 until age 18.

Thats not to say that we don't currently undertax and undersupport single poor people in Canada. We do.

But to say a single person should be getting the same cash benefits as someone spending an extra thousand or two a month on childcare,diapers,formula, etc is ridiculous.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 14:16

InfiniteZero: Sep 11, 2004; PINK GUITAR FIRE ROBOT; College Slice

RandomPauI posted:

Thanks for clarifying things. I naively thought this might be a big enough of a deal to cause a split.

The circus in Ontario isn't really normal Canadian politics but incredibly boring scandals in the Liberal party are entirely typical.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 15:38

PittTheElder: Feb 13, 2012; Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

So apparently the CAQ have decided to not be ineffectual cowards, and just implement PR like they said they would, sans Referendum.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5001665/quebec-no-referendum-electoral-reform/

Quebec: still the best province?

# ? Feb 27, 2019 16:12

Tsyni: Sep 1, 2004; Lipstick Apathy

PittTheElder posted:

So apparently the CAQ have decided to not be ineffectual cowards, and just implement PR like they said they would, sans Referendum.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5001665/quebec-no-referendum-electoral-reform/

Quebec: still the best province?

gently caress I wish Horgan had just done this.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 16:15

NZAmoeba: Feb 14, 2005; It turns out it's MAN!; Hair Elf

PittTheElder posted:

So apparently the CAQ have decided to not be ineffectual cowards, and just implement PR like they said they would, sans Referendum.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5001665/quebec-no-referendum-electoral-reform/

Quebec: still the best province?

As someone who lived with MMP in New Zealand, hell yes this is a Good Thing.

The CAQ are still assholes who purged my Permanent Residency application, but thankfully they did it in such a dick way that the courts smacked them down and made them start processing again

Essentially, deciding to cancel all 18,000 pending applications, before the new legislation had even been voted on, on the premise of "well we'll vote on that legislation soon so may as well just cancel everything now" isn't exactly legal.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 16:25

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

PittTheElder posted:

So apparently the CAQ have decided to not be ineffectual cowards, and just implement PR like they said they would, sans Referendum.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5001665/quebec-no-referendum-electoral-reform/

Quebec: still the best province?

# ? Feb 27, 2019 16:52

DariusLikewise: Oct 4, 2008; You wore that on Halloween?

Province of Manitoba Finance Minister 2 days before a budget drops

https://twitter.com/Min_Fielding/status/1100787129465163777?s=20

# ? Feb 27, 2019 17:13

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

PLEASE GIVE ME LESS MONEY I AM A CONSERVATIVE

if only this worked in the private sector

# ? Feb 27, 2019 18:05

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

PittTheElder posted:

So apparently the CAQ have decided to not be ineffectual cowards, and just implement PR like they said they would, sans Referendum.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5001665/quebec-no-referendum-electoral-reform/

Quebec: still the best province?

loving finally, hopefully Quebec will drag the rest of the country in-line.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 18:17

Vintersorg: Mar 3, 2004; President of
the Brendan Fraser
Fan Club

I loving hate Conservative think of, "spending on things is bad!!"

Like what do you do with all the tax money?? How are these loving rear end in a top hat shits in charge of stuff?

# ? Feb 27, 2019 18:17

Furnaceface: Oct 21, 2004

Vintersorg posted:

I loving hate Conservative think of, "spending on things is bad!!"

Like what do you do with all the tax money?? How are these loving rear end in a top hat shits in charge of stuff?

Decades of right wing propaganda and conservative run media have turned people stupid.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 18:20

DariusLikewise: Oct 4, 2008; You wore that on Halloween?

PC Party of Manitoba sandbagging for Scheer

https://twitter.com/PC_Manitoba/status/1100807371188629504?s=20

# ? Feb 27, 2019 18:21

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

Vintersorg posted:

I loving hate Conservative think of, "spending on things is bad!!"

Like what do you do with all the tax money?? How are these loving rear end in a top hat shits in charge of stuff?

Conservatives believe that the government can be removed, taxes abolished, and that somehow their lives will be unaffected. They are really loving stupid.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 18:24

mik: Oct 16, 2003; oh

But they can never reach that ideal of hyper-efficient government because ironically all their bullshit neoliberal policies actually cost more.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 18:44

The Cheshire Cat: Jun 10, 2008; Fun Shoe

mik posted:

But they can never reach that ideal of hyper-efficient government because ironically all their bullshit neoliberal policies actually cost more.

It�s almost like the whole thing is a smokescreen to hand out government money to their friends in private industry.

Conservative politics start to make a lot more sense once you start viewing them as a massive grift. Ignore whatever they claim to believe in. Just watch what they actually do.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 18:50

InfiniteZero: Sep 11, 2004; PINK GUITAR FIRE ROBOT; College Slice

DariusLikewise posted:

PC Party of Manitoba sandbagging for Scheer

Pallister has been positioning himself as standing up against Trudeau since the Liberals came to power. It's more that than sandbagging for Scheer.

(note: all comments regarding Pallister apply to the rare times he is actually in Canada)

# ? Feb 27, 2019 19:00

DariusLikewise: Oct 4, 2008; You wore that on Halloween?

Vintersorg posted:

I loving hate Conservative think of, "spending on things is bad!!"

Like what do you do with all the tax money?? How are these loving rear end in a top hat shits in charge of stuff?

This is more about cutting Provincial funding that goes to Winnipeg for stuff so the PCs can make their budget look better and force Winnipeg to either raise taxes or cut spending on public services again. Also the PCs don't like Bowman so they get to put the screws to him now.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 19:02

Mordecai: May 18, 2003; Known throughout the world! Chop people's head off to the ground! Angry eyes that frighten people! Dragon among humans, king of dragons... Manchurian Derp Deity, Ha Che'er.

RandomPauI posted:

Ignorant yank here. Would Trudeau demoting his Justice Minister to protect a company from paying fines be enough to bring down the government? My base line for Canada is Rob Ford and he died before he could be charged for ordering a murder.

Compared to the US, the Canadian PM is vastly more powerful within Canadian politics. Our previous PM was found in contempt of parliament and basically nothing came of it.

Imagine the president also being congressional house leader and most of the non-ceremonial parts of the speaker, oh and running the national committee too.

The senate, meanwhile, drafts and modifies very few bills. Its members are of course filled with patronage appointments by the PM.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 20:31

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

Mordecai posted:

Compared to the US, the Canadian PM is vastly more powerful within Canadian politics. Our previous PM was found in contempt of parliament and basically nothing came of it.

Imagine the president also being congressional house leader and most of the non-ceremonial parts of the speaker, oh and running the national committee too.

The senate, meanwhile, drafts and modifies very few bills. Its members are of course filled with patronage appointments by the PM.

It's more complicated than that. The Canadian Prime Minister may have fewer formal limits on his power but he can also be replaced at any time if he losses the support of his MPs. The current trend toward extremely centralized decision making within the PMO isn't built into the Canadian constitution and in theory the entire cabinet and not just the Prime Minister are supposed to make decisions.

The ongoing centralization of power in Canadian politics is the result of what our political parties think their constituents would want (I'm using constituents here to refer both to voters and activists / donors). If for whatever reason the Liberals decided to kick Trudeau out as leader tomorrow and choose a new Prime Minister they would be completely free to do so.

Somebody with a deeper knowledge of this subject like Pinterest Mom might want to weigh in here but generally speaking I think the real power Trudeau has over his MPs would be in his capacity as party leader. He can more or less decide who gets to run under the Liberal banner and who gets to serve in cabinet. It's his ability to use those carrots and sticks to keep his own MPs in line that gives him his real influence. From a strictly legal standpoint the Prime Minister's office shouldn't be nearly as powerful as it is in practice. At least on paper I would say that the US President - who is the head of state as well as the head of government, and also the supreme commander of the armed forces - is the stronger office.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 20:49

Mordecai: May 18, 2003; Known throughout the world! Chop people's head off to the ground! Angry eyes that frighten people! Dragon among humans, king of dragons... Manchurian Derp Deity, Ha Che'er.

Helsing posted:

It's more complicated than that. The Canadian Prime Minister may have fewer formal limits on his power but he can also be replaced at any time if he losses the support of his MPs. The current trend toward extremely centralized decision making within the PMO isn't built into the Canadian constitution and in theory the entire cabinet and not just the Prime Minister are supposed to make decisions.

Very true; I was going for simple analogies to how it is in practice, but this does bear frequent repeating to counter the feeling that it's always been this way.

It was a bit before my time, but wasn't Trudeaumania I who really sped it up?

# ? Feb 27, 2019 21:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 14:38

A Typical Goon: Feb 25, 2011

Mordecai posted:

Compared to the US, the Canadian PM is vastly more powerful within Canadian politics. Our previous PM was found in contempt of parliament and basically nothing came of it.

Imagine the president also being congressional house leader and most of the non-ceremonial parts of the speaker, oh and running the national committee too.

The senate, meanwhile, drafts and modifies very few bills. Its members are of course filled with patronage appointments by the PM.

We actually have a nominally non-partisan Supreme Court though, which is a huge difference

# ? Feb 27, 2019 21:04

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

«‹›2341 »