CanPol 2019 - you won't drink whiskey, and talk politics and vote like us

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol 2019 - you won't drink whiskey, and talk politics and vote like us

«‹›185 »

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

EvidenceBasedQuack posted:

I too think we should protect the debt

Unrelated: cool thread https://twitter.com/Colettod/status/1130552113916981256?s=19

im the 17% of "green/left populists" who disagree with the conservatives on everything but still plan to vote for them

# ? May 21, 2019 04:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 07:08

pokeyman: Nov 26, 2006; That elephant ate my entire platoon.

Wistful of Dollars posted:

I want to the grocery store today and my bill was $14.88.

I'm now questioning my life choices.

If we hadn�t busted up the bread cartel it�d be a higher but less offensive number. Checkmate regulators.

# ? May 21, 2019 04:33

Legit Businessman: Sep 2, 2007

Wistful of Dollars posted:

I want to the grocery store today and my bill was $14.88.

I'm now questioning my life choices.

Everytime I charge legal aid for a day parking, it would come out to $14.88. I now charge them $14.87. v :shobon:

# ? May 21, 2019 05:18

Albino Squirrel: Apr 25, 2003; Miosis more like meiosis

John Wilkes Booth posted:

http://i.imgur.com/B17sFKi.gifv

FanTAStic.

# ? May 21, 2019 06:24

Entorwellian: Jun 30, 2006; ~~Northern Flicker~~
Anna's Hummingbird

Sorry, but the people have spoken.

I remember seeing that parody ad years ago and it still holds true to this day.

# ? May 21, 2019 07:20

EvidenceBasedQuack: Aug 15, 2015; A rock has no detectable opinion about gravity

vyelkin posted:

im the 17% of "green/left populists" who disagree with the conservatives on everything but still plan to vote for them

I was canvassing on Easter weekend about cuts to education and met this proud Ford Nation grandma. Had a quick chat. She signed the NDP petition and wished governments in power would do more to minimize climate change.

They exist.

# ? May 21, 2019 15:07

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

vyelkin posted:

im the 17% of "green/left populists" who disagree with the conservatives on everything but still plan to vote for them

I'm the 17% of Right Populists that are voting Green or NDP

# ? May 21, 2019 15:47

Pinterest Mom: Jun 9, 2009

https://twitter.com/DanjoKaz00ie/status/1130815065958092801

:thunk:

# ? May 21, 2019 16:15

HackensackBackpack: Aug 20, 2007; Who needs a house out in Hackensack? Is that all you get for your money?

GONNA NEED A NEW THREAD TITLE

https://twitter.com/Erin_Weir/status/1130851278790070272

# ? May 21, 2019 16:19

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/DanjoKaz00ie/status/1130815065958092801

Democratic Socialist, A (pronounced "eh")

e: I guess DSeh is right there.

# ? May 21, 2019 17:06

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've no problem with that, Canada is American in the sense that every country other than the USA and Canada uses the term "American" anyway.

# ? May 21, 2019 17:30

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

Foreign Affairs minister Chrystia Freeland (the Nazi) ordered the shutdown of visa-processing services at the Canadian embassy in Havana. As justification she cited the "sonic attack" hoax, in which some American staff who had returned to Cuba for the first time in decades heard the mating sounds of Cuban crickets, and claimed they were under "sonic attack". Effects of the "sonic attack" include headaches, fatigue, nausea, and dizziness.

# ? May 22, 2019 01:41

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Looks like the Greens have announced their climate emergency plan:

https://twitter.com/paulmanly/status/1130944351671078912

How'd that random comment about mangrove forests end up in here? Uhhh yeah I'll get right on helping replant those because there's definitely tons that need protection in Canada.

# ? May 22, 2019 02:41

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

It�s better than anyone else�s plan I guess

# ? May 22, 2019 02:43

McGavin: Sep 18, 2012

Femtosecond posted:

How'd that random comment about mangrove forests end up in here? Uhhh yeah I'll get right on helping replant those because there's definitely tons that need protection in Canada.

Like the buffalo, the once vast mangrove forests of the Canadian prairie are now little more than a memory... :canada:

# ? May 22, 2019 02:54

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

DariusLikewise posted:

It�s better than anyone else�s plan I guess

The comment on mangrove forests is weird but it's literally the last part of the last point in a plan that's otherwise pretty good. I could quibble and argue with certain parts of it but I'd be very happy if the NDP brought out a plan like this.

# ? May 22, 2019 04:26

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

With Singh suddenly pivoting away from LNG I'm not sure if there's actually any difference between the NDP plan and this Green plan. Both focus on retrofits and a Canada wide electric grid.

Mangrove weirdness aside it is good to see some mention of adding more carbon sinks. Restoration of pacific coast kelp forests is slightly more relevant to Canada than mangroves.

One issue I have with this plan is that it feels like a continuation of the status quo, but with solar panels. This could be intentional so as not to startle anyone though I find a green vision where it's the same as now except that the SUVs being driven around electrically powered instead of gasoline powered uninspiring.

I'd like to see a vision that encourages a restructuring of our cities in a way such that the most easy and affordable way to live in Canada is one with a low carbon footprint. This means big changes in our land use policies to create cities where zero emission active transportation is the most reasonable option for typical day to day errands.

# ? May 22, 2019 04:42

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Femtosecond posted:

With Singh suddenly pivoting away from LNG I'm not sure if there's actually any difference between the NDP plan and this Green plan. Both focus on retrofits and a Canada wide electric grid.

Mangrove weirdness aside it is good to see some mention of adding more carbon sinks. Restoration of pacific coast kelp forests is slightly more relevant to Canada than mangroves.

One issue I have with this plan is that it feels like a continuation of the status quo, but with solar panels. This could be intentional so as not to startle anyone though I find a green vision where it's the same as now except that the SUVs being driven around electrically powered instead of gasoline powered uninspiring.

I'd like to see a vision that encourages a restructuring of our cities in a way such that the most easy and affordable way to live in Canada is one with a low carbon footprint. This means big changes in our land use policies to create cities where zero emission active transportation is the most reasonable option for typical day to day errands.

I absolutely agree with you that ideally any GND-type program in Canada would include trying to shift the status quo away from personalized transportation anyway. That being said, I note that the two transportation-related points in this plan are:

quote:

10 - Plug in to EVs
By 2030 ensure all new cars are electric. By 2040, replace all internal combustion engine vehicles with electric vehicles, working with car makers to develop EVs that can replace working vehicles for Canadians in rural areas. Build a cross-country electric vehicle charging system so that drivers can cruise from St. Johns, NL to Prince Rupert, B.C. � with seamless ease.

11 - Get Canada back on track
Modernize VIA Rail, expand service and ensure trans-modal connections across Canada to light rail and electric buses, so that no one in rural and remote areas of Canada lacks efficient, affordable and safe public transit.

That's one point on electric vehicles and one point on expanding public transit to try and ensure everyone has access to it. As a habitual city-dweller I might prefer if they had said a bit more about expanding public transit in cities, not just expanding it to rural areas, but I feel like they're showing a commitment to both.

Also, of course the Greens are in favour of the status quo, they would love it if we could snap our fingers Thanos-style and make a world where everything stays exactly the same but now we're carbon neutral. They're not a party for socioeconomic transformation. Unfortunately none of Canada's parties are for that anymore, so I'm resigning myself to voting for whoever shows the most ambitious and comprehensive plan to stop us all from dying of climate change.

# ? May 22, 2019 04:52

McGavin: Sep 18, 2012

quote:

Build a cross-country electric vehicle charging system so that drivers can cruise from St. Johns, NL to Prince Rupert, B.C. � with seamless ease.

Awesome, two places nobody wants to drive to.

# ? May 22, 2019 05:03

MikeSevigny: Aug 6, 2002; Habs 2006: Cristobal Persuasion

the fish and chips is pretty good in prince rupert, at least

# ? May 22, 2019 05:48

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

Here's former NDP guy Stuart Parker with a rather negative take on the BC Green Party's activities since the 2017 election and the NDP government they've supported

Stuart Parker posted:

A little over two years ago, on May 10th, 2017, Dr. Andrew G. Weaver, the leader of the Green Party of British Columbia, issued a threat: he might use his three-person caucus to keep the criminal enterprise known as the BC Liberal Party in office if the BC New Democratic Party did not give him what he wanted. The BC Liberals had held power in the province for sixteen years. During that time, they had conducted a fire sale of public assets, selling, for instance, a railroad valued at $1.1 billion for $99 million. That sale was so egregious, some of the party�s underlings had to do some time for it in exchange for their families being looked-after.

The one decent thing the BC Liberals had done was to introduce a carbon tax in 2008, a tax that was capped by the party�s second leader, Christy Clark, in 2011. Clark�s government had been focused on vastly expanding fracking and petroleum extraction in the province and selling the �natural gas� to unspecified buyers in East Asia. The BC Liberals had also sold off public forest land, allowed mining companies to break the law with impunity and vastly expanded casino gambling in the province, which had become a haven for those wishing to use an inflated real estate market and an insufficiently supervised set of casinos to launder billions of dollars.

Nevertheless, Weaver threatened BC�s New Democratic Party with the possibility that he would keep this crew of kleptocratic money-laundering climate villains in office if the party did not do all it could to woo him to their side.

[...]

In the end, in exchange for agreeing to vote �no confidence� against Clark, Weaver obtained what we call the �confidence and supply agreement.�

The agreement was pretty problematic as it was based on what we might call �process promises� � promises in which someone commits to do what some future consultation or evaluative process tells them to do. The BC NDP secured an agreement from Weaver and his caucus that they would support the government until 2021 in exchange for a promised minimum wage increase being referred to a commission, the decision on whether to build the Site C hydro megaproject being referred to the BC Utilities Commission and ditching first-past-the-post and bringing in proportional representation referred to a postal referendum.

This stood in pretty dramatic contrast to similar agreements at the federal level like Jack Layton�s 2004 agreement to support Paul Martin�s government for nine months in exchange for $4 billion in new social spending, or Tommy Douglas�s 1965 agreement to support Lester Pearson�s government in exchange for creating Medicare. This was especially underlined, contemporaneously, in 2017, by the Democratic Unionist Party propping up Theresa May�s regime in London in exchange for billions of dollars in new spending and a hard border being re-created in Northern Ireland in contravention of the Good Friday Agreement. Whereas the DUP had secured not just a fortune in government spending but the dismantling of a multi-decade international peace process, Weaver secured an agreement to listen to civil servants.

But, when the BC Utilities Commission found that there was neither an energy, economic nor environmental case for Site C, the NDP went ahead with it. When the NDP appointed a fake YES committee for proportional representation, run by the historical enemies of electoral reform, who looted the government�s funds and presided over a historic defeat for PR, the Greens did not bat an eye. They were more concerned with three issues:

1. inviting Uber, the American Ponzi scheme dressed up as a taxi company, seeking to abolish public transportation, into BC and pay drivers less than minimum wage while doing it;
2. preventing �card certification� of unions in non-union workplaces, forcing workers to vote twice to be unionized, the second vote under the supervision of their bosses and subject to intimidation and coercion; and
3. preventing the minimum wage from rising to $15 before 2021, keeping it under that of Jason Kenney�s Alberta until the end of the government�s mandate

During their time working with the NDP, Weaver�s Greens developed a fourth major concern: preventing British Columbians who own two homes from paying a surtax on their second home in places where homeless people were desperate for shelter.

The Greens have not been shy in threatening to bring the government down over the latter three issues, threatening to vote with the BC Liberals in the next confidence vote if the government did not scale back its support for workers unionizing or earning a decent wage.

[...]

I am writing this piece because of recent events in which Dr. Weaver has offered us a second-rate Pontius Pilate impression around some provincial legislation that served to massively increase fracking in the Peace Region, build a pipeline from the Peace to Kitimat, and construct the highest-emission, most climate-changing megaproject in BC�s 162-year history by giving a billion dollars in tax breaks to Royal Dutch Shell. Royal Dutch Shell, for those with a shorter memory, was the petroleum company of apartheid South Africa and a key actor in the genocide against the Ononi people in Nigeria.

According to Weaver and his apologists, there is nothing the BC Green Party can do to stop the package of $6 billion in tax breaks for transnational oil companies to develop liquified �natural gas� export facilities in Squamish and Kitimat, based on fracking and pipeline-building, with the �product� destined to be burned in the USA or East Asia to fire inefficient industrial production. They argue that there is nothing they can do because the BC Liberals and BC NDP both support these LNG projects and, between them these parties control the vast majority of votes in the legislature.

This seems strange because the concessions Layton demanded in 2004 were opposed by the Liberals and Conservatives who comprised the vast majority of MPs; this was also true of the Medicare reforms the NDP demanded in the 1960s; they too were opposed by most of the MPs in the house. Similarly, a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is opposed by the vast majority of MPs in Westminster. The reason that Layton and Douglas got their way is because they did not just threaten to vote against the government on the specific issue; they threatened to vote against the government on everything unless they got what they wanted.

The Tories, being implacable enemies of the Liberals, put all kinds of confidence matters before the house, just as the BC Liberals do against the BC NDP. There is a wealth of opportunities for Weaver and his confederates to defeat the government if the Horgan regime does not do what they want. But they only threaten to do this when they want to reduce wages and undermine the rights of workers. Whenever there is an environmental matter on the table, they claim their hands are tied because they must vote with the government on all confidence matters in the interests of �stability,� a nebulous concept they refuse to define.

So, let us be clear: when it comes to sticking up for property and business owners, the BC Greens threaten to bring the government down all the time and obtain major concessions from the NDP but when it comes to the environment, their supposed raison d��tre, they state that they cannot threaten to change their vote on a confidence vote unless it specifically mentions LNG. According to the Greens �if you don�t do what we want, we will vote to defeat you at the next opportunity� is a threat that is both impossible and unethical, even though Medicare, the putative bedrock of our social contract was obtained by that very threat.

In response to this reasoning, some Greens have stated, �but what if the NDP won�t back down and we do have to bring down the government?� �What if they win a majority or the Liberals do?� The argument seems to be that unless the threat of defeating the government over the biggest carbon bomb BC has ever built has a 100% chance of succeeding, it should never be issued. The reasoning appears to be that a 100% chance of two huge LNG plants, fueled by fracked gas in the Peace, carried by pipeline through Unist�ot�en territory, to Squamish and Kitimat, is somehow not as risky as whatever a majority NDP or Liberal government would do. So it is better vote for that rather than take a risk and try to stop it, even though this involves signing off on the most omnicidal legislative act in BC history.

Let�s be clear: if the world increases carbon emissions at the rate the BC NDP-Green government proposes to, we are all dead and so is most of everything else, except maybe a rat every four miles. There is a good chance we�re dead anyway, but at least we have a shot if we try to stop governments accelerating the extinction event that grips our planet.

The BC Green Party is right. There is a chance that if they actually tried to stop Kitimat and Squamish LNG they might fail. But we are out of time. If we take no risks in attempting to save the planet, it�s over. We�re done. And we will have deserved to die.

Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 06:30 on May 22, 2019

# ? May 22, 2019 06:20

Furnaceface: Oct 21, 2004

DariusLikewise posted:

It�s better than anyone else�s plan I guess

Damning with faint praise when they default to that position due to the Liberals/Conservatives not even having plans yet and the Mad Max party claiming that climate is a figment of our imaginations.

Give in on nuclear you green cowards. :argh:

# ? May 22, 2019 07:18

Kibayasu: Mar 28, 2010

McGavin posted:

Awesome, two places nobody wants to drive to.

The means to go there are also the means to leave.

# ? May 22, 2019 07:38

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

I've never gotten "big country" excuses for matters of generally urban land use and transport arguments.

"Bikes might work for a tiny country like Holland but Canada is way too big"
"We're a huge country, mass transit might work in compact countries like Japan but we're too big"
"Electric cars? Canada is too big, the ranges on those vehicles isn't there yet"
"Our cities are always going to be sprawling, our country is big and we're never going to run out of land"

Are people commuting from Toronto to Edmonton every day? What the hell does the size of the country have to do with anything. If the EU was to federalize would they suddenly have to ditch their transit and more compact walkable cities because they've suddenly become a "big country" ? How does the moscow metro work when russia is the biggest country, shouldn't everyone need an SUV for each foot in a country that big?

99.9% of trips are done within your own city, the size of the country has gently caress all to do with it. Also the massive amount of undeveloped land in the Canadian shield or northwest territories doesn't effect the scarcity of desirable land in our major cities or change the fact that we absolutely could and should restructure our cities over time starting yesterday to be as focused around anything-but-cars as possible.

It's maddening.

# ? May 22, 2019 07:39

berenzen: Jan 23, 2012

It's the suburbanite idea of "why do we have to build up, when we have all this space to poo poo on? And if our cities are so big, then obviously bikes and public transit aren't feasible. So let's build more poo poo for car-centric purposes."

It's a loving stupid idea, but that's the mindset.

# ? May 22, 2019 07:58

James Baud: May 24, 2015; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

So, slight surge that may not be sustainable due to the new federal subsidy, but electric vehicles (and plugin hybrids) are running at about 13% of all new car sales in BC for May 2019. The provincial government's goal for 2025 is 10%.

https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/05/20/bc-electric-vehicle-orders/

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=2010000101#timeframe

(I'm factoring in a small drop in units sold in 2019 since that was the trend in every month earlier in the year - housing wealth effect fading?)

# ? May 22, 2019 10:45

Argas: Jan 13, 2008; SRW Fanatic

berenzen posted:

It's the suburbanite idea of "why do we have to build up, when we have all this space to poo poo on? And if our cities are so big, then obviously bikes and public transit aren't feasible. So let's build more poo poo for car-centric purposes."

It's a loving stupid idea, but that's the mindset.

Those folks would rather the world go to poo poo than give up their single family homes and their cars because they can't imagine anything worse than losing that.

# ? May 22, 2019 11:18

DynamicSloth: Jul 30, 2006; "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."

DariusLikewise posted:

It�s better than anyone else�s plan I guess

I agree, though the worst parts of the Green plan have significantly been left out of the text:

1. No nuclear

2. No deficit spending

The NDP is unlikely to do any better on the first but they hopefully learned something from the last election on the second point.

# ? May 22, 2019 12:17

EvidenceBasedQuack: Aug 15, 2015; A rock has no detectable opinion about gravity

Suburbans aren't necessarily opposed to building up and sustainable development. It's just that they individually want detached homes and car freedom. Others can do their part. They deserve their white picket fence homes you know.

Just like every small business owner is entitled to have their dream business, no matter unsustainable it might be. They're job creators.

# ? May 22, 2019 12:55

flakeloaf: Feb 26, 2003; Still better than android clock

My fence is pressure-treated, thank you very much. Keeping it white is way too much work.

# ? May 22, 2019 13:29

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

THC posted:

Here's former NDP guy Stuart Parker with a rather negative take on the BC Green Party's activities since the 2017 election and the NDP government they've supported

Holy poo poo was that refreshing to read.

# ? May 22, 2019 13:56

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.

EvidenceBasedQuack posted:

Suburbans aren't necessarily opposed to building up and sustainable development. It's just that they individually want detached homes and car freedom. Others can do their part. They deserve their white picket fence homes you know.

Just like every small business owner is entitled to have their dream business, no matter unsustainable it might be. They're job creators.

I had some widely varied and fairly eyeopening conversation with a couple tourists from, Burnaby(?) I think.

Very big on "individual freedoms", "anti-SJW", and also in absolute awe of the walkability and social cohesion of the downtown Toronto neighbourhood they were visiting. Oh, and the transit system. They weren't using it of course, they just Uber'd everywhere, but they were amazed that it existed or something.

# ? May 22, 2019 13:57

Wistful of Dollars: Aug 25, 2009

McGavin posted:

Awesome, two places nobody wants to drive to.

Presumably there are places in between

# ? May 22, 2019 14:29

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

Wistful of Dollars posted:

Presumably there are places in between

There are not, I have seen this with my own eyes.

# ? May 22, 2019 14:46

Pinterest Mom: Jun 9, 2009

Femtosecond posted:

With Singh suddenly pivoting away from LNG I'm not sure if there's actually any difference between the NDP plan and this Green plan. Both focus on retrofits and a Canada wide electric grid.

Mangrove weirdness aside it is good to see some mention of adding more carbon sinks. Restoration of pacific coast kelp forests is slightly more relevant to Canada than mangroves.

One issue I have with this plan is that it feels like a continuation of the status quo, but with solar panels. This could be intentional so as not to startle anyone though I find a green vision where it's the same as now except that the SUVs being driven around electrically powered instead of gasoline powered uninspiring.

I'd like to see a vision that encourages a restructuring of our cities in a way such that the most easy and affordable way to live in Canada is one with a low carbon footprint. This means big changes in our land use policies to create cities where zero emission active transportation is the most reasonable option for typical day to day errands.

The plan feels like an odd mix of really radical rhetoric (state of emergency + wartime cabinet + eventually end all foreign oil imports) coupled with bog standard actual practical solutions. It makes it really hard to evaluate!

# ? May 22, 2019 14:54

flakeloaf: Feb 26, 2003; Still better than android clock

McGavin posted:

Awesome, two places nobody wants to drive to.

Put me down for $100 on Terry Fox outrunning the car.

# ? May 22, 2019 15:00

Entorwellian: Jun 30, 2006; ~~Northern Flicker~~
Anna's Hummingbird

Sorry, but the people have spoken.

THC posted:

Here's former NDP guy Stuart Parker with a rather negative take on the BC Green Party's activities since the 2017 election and the NDP government they've supported

Thanks for posting this. Jesus gently caress, Weaver.

# ? May 22, 2019 15:02

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

THC posted:

Here's former NDP guy Stuart Parker with a rather negative take on the BC Green Party's activities since the 2017 election and the NDP government they've supported

This is good and by that I mean the Green Party is bad.

# ? May 22, 2019 15:04

Wistful of Dollars: Aug 25, 2009

Rime posted:

There are not, I have seen this with my own eyes.

Ah, well then.

# ? May 22, 2019 15:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 07:08

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

vyelkin posted:

The comment on mangrove forests is weird but it's literally the last part of the last point in a plan that's otherwise pretty good. I could quibble and argue with certain parts of it but I'd be very happy if the NDP brought out a plan like this.

I don't really have great faith in a NDP plan at this point, maybe their platform will be better, but unless Jagmeet can speak to it in a cohesive and clear manner they are hosed

Furnaceface posted:

Damning with faint praise when they default to that position due to the Liberals/Conservatives not even having plans yet and the Mad Max party claiming that climate is a figment of our imaginations.

Give in on nuclear you green cowards.

Liberal Plan: Build this pipeline and tax it
Conservative Plan: Build this pipeline and cut the taxes

# ? May 22, 2019 15:32

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol 2019 - you won't drink whiskey, and talk politics and vote like us

«‹›185 »