|
Arivia posted:Is this some attempt to set up a Shillary counterpart? He really is just reusing Trump's playbook. What a ridiculous post. Trump crapped on Hillary despite umpteen investigations failing to find any evidence of wrong doing. Ford is jabbing the Liberals the day after senior Liberal was sent to prison for crooked politicking.
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
RBC posted:TIME TO START FIRING A MILLION PUBLIC SERVANTS!! NO OTHER OPTIONS SORRY There's going to be four years of stupid garbage. With respect to announcing that the Liberals cheated the books going into an election (again and to no one's surprise), let them have it. Save your energy. It'll be needed later.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
James Baud posted:Decriminalization of all drugs is pretty easily bashed as being pro date rape, I don't think there's a lot of demand for absolutism. When general decriminalization of drugs is suggested, no one is seriously suggesting making every drug that exists available to the public. It's about making possession (trafficing maybe?) of certain Opioids and a handful of psychoactive drugs that people actually use/abuse. I've never heard a serious argument that general public should have access to, say, propofol. Or thousands of other drugs that aren't actually used outside of a hospital. That includes antibiotics. They are not benign. The most obvious reason why there's no one arguing for legalizing literally everything is fentanyl. Fentanyl probably wouldn't be abused absent Opioid prohibition. It's pharmaceutical properties aren't ideal for getting high. What it has going for it is a potency per unit of volume 100 times greater than heroin. It's convenient for illicit transport and trafficing. There's no need to legalize it because if morphine and heroin were legalized, the reasons why fentanyl is attractive would vanish. This is a significant part of why making other opioids legally available would actually cause a drop in overdose deaths.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2019 03:16
|
|
|
I took a picture of one of these fine gentlemen carelessly destroying a Canadian flag to show how much he loves Canada. Now it seems kind of quaint, in that in the time it took me to walk home, their self-ownage achieved transcendence via the gas money debacle. Here it is anyway 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
BGrifter posted:If Trudeau was actually what Albertans fantasize, I might consider voting Liberal. I like the sound of this gun grabbing, tax raising, anti-pipeline, anti-oil and gas, Alberta hating fictional Trudeau. This isn't an exaggeration. The Liberals spent $4.5 billion on an Albertan pipeline to keep the possibility of the Trans mountain expansion alive. Doing so was a betrayal of their environment based campaign. And yet, according to most Albertans, Trudeau is the most anti-pipeline Prime Minister in history. It does not matter what he does, he's wrong. Trudeau's best move is probably to give up on Alberta and those three Liberal seats in favour of becoming the heretofore imaginary villain (which is, not coincidentally, to be his father).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:How likely is it that Trudeau broke the law with regards to this whole scandal? When will we actually find out what happened? The only way we can find out precisely what happened is if Trudeau decides to waive a cabinet confidence. That confidence stays in place even if the Liberals lose the election (i.e. if the Conservatives come in, they don't get to find out the cabinet confidences of the Liberals). The fact that this is even being talked about means that someone leaked a cabinet confidence. As to "did he break the law", that we do know. No, he didn't. A Prime Minister and cabinet wield executive power, the oft forgotten (in Canada) third head of government alongside the legislature and the courts. Cabinet deciding that a prosecution is not in the best interests of Canada for political reasons is an explicitly an exercise of that executive power. A Prime Minister saying "Use a deferred prosecution, we don't want to bankrupt a company with 60,000 employees" is exactly why this power rests with the executive. For added context on this, even if there was a piece of legislation that said "The Prime Minister shall not give SNC-Lavalin a break" - Trudeau's cabinet could still do it. Because the legislature cannot, merely through legislation, limit the ability of the executive to exercise its powers. Or to think of it another way, these "deferred prosecution agreements" are now part of the law in Canada (for better or for worse). Someone has to decide whether they should be employed in any case. That will usually be a prosecutor, who serves under and at the direction of the Minister of Justice, who is part of Cabinet. Which is to say, Cabinet or a delegate thereof is who was going to decide on whether to exercise the discretion in any event. The scandal is that, notwithstanding the above, Canada likes the idea that prosecutors should enjoy independence and not be subject to political whims. It's a pretty good idea generally. And the allegation here is that Trudeau has interfered with that independence.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:I can't believe this is the best defence the Liberals can muster and their trying it after Butts has resigned (for no reason!). The Clerk of the Privy counsel is the most senior civil servant in the government. He's not a Liberal. He is required to refrain from entering the political fray.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
Michael Wernick was appointed by the governor general, just like every previous Clerk of the Privy Counsel. Prior to that, he spent eight years working as a Deputy Minister under the Conservatives, before being appointed DCPC while Harper was Prime Minister. If he is taking partisan positions, he should be fired immediately. Keeping the civil service non-partisan is a core tenet of the position. Breaching that duty would (or at least should) be a bigger scandal that the Raybold-Wilson affair.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:So, stick with me here, his comments about a political scandal should be anodyne and non-controversial (and irrelevant). What you describe has nothing to do with being non-partisan. When called before a committee, a civil servant had better show up and answer questions. And in so doing, give full, truthful answers. Being non-partisan does not mean holding back facts or expert opinions. It means the opposite: offer the best facts and opinions possible, irrespective of what the political fallout is. Arabian Jesus posted:I'm starting to suspect a viral video may not have been the best metric to elect a leader He's crashing so hard he might actually reinvigorate the Bloc.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
Do Conrad Black's increasingly embarrassing efforts to obtain a US pardon count as CanPol? He just wrote a very special article about "The greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War", namely that people keep saying mean things about a sitting US President who isn't black. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6737685/The-greatest-constitutional-crisis-Civil-War-writes-Conrad-Black.html Also, he's now supposedly a member of the "Canadian House of Lords". God bless the Daily Mail.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2019 00:26
|
|
|
Danaru posted:holy gently caress people are going to actually going to believe this poo poo It's not wrong through?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2019 02:44
|
|
|
As long as it's not another effort towards proportional representation. Parties who can't get elected in a single riding should't have elected members. Also, computers overcome the reasons for not doing ranked ballots.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2019 04:14
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:drat those parties that get broad support across the province/country! They should only pander to people in select areas to be elected. I am personally biased it towards the (completely unrealistic) concept of voting for the individual running rather than a party, and so I really like ranked ballots. In my last municipal election, there were four candidates with very similar positions and one outlier. I was terrified he was going to win by splitting 70% of the votes amongst four reasonable candidates whose views were the polar opposite of his. By fortune the outlier lost, but it was a painfully obvious example of why ranked ballots (so you can do "anyone but this guy") are voter enabling. Also, I checked your numbers. The votes were 796,000 and 795,000 for the Liberals and NDP respectively, and you chose to round them down to 750,000 to make your argument look better. Bad form. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
Alberta succession has never advanced beyond the lunatic fringe. It shows in the "rational" they gets pushed to justify succession.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2019 05:08
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:So yeah idk "fiscal responsibility" isn't made up, there are real reasons to not just debt finance everything, but right-wing parties braying about fiscal responsibility are usually full of poo poo, and 20 billion dollar deficits (which the LPC are currently running) seem to be sustainable in terms of keeping debt/gdp stable rn. It's a great post, but one of the things which is absolutely going to suck, worldwide, is what's going to happen when interest rates start to rise. The under control deficit (at a Federal level) is only under control thanks to historically low interest rates. If they return to the historically expected levels, the amount paid for debt servicing is going to go way up, which will result in much higher deficits even if services were cut. How many governments would pass the stress test that's been imposed on new home buyers? Certainly not Ontario.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
bub spank posted:I mean, assuming you're not disabled, I agree. That is really cheap. At a fully licensed daycare in Ontario, kids under 18 months are usually north of $2000 per months, under two and a half is around $1800, under 4 is $1200, and then it drops off once the kid goes to school so they only need before and after care, say $500. Per kid.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:Eventually the SCC will rule on this and state "yeah, it's a violation of your rights but it's a good one so gently caress off." You're right. That said, R. v. Comeau (2018) is an awful decision precisely because the logic used there could undo any part of the constitution if the end result can somehow be construed as "for the benefit of [the] constituents". For those not familiar, the case involved moving beer from one province to another. Every province makes it illegal to import alcohol from other provinces (at least above a certain fairly small quantity). The Constitution Act, 1867 makes it really clear that the provinces cannot enact trade barriers as between each other. The court found the phrase "shall... be admitted free into each of the other Provinces", at section 121 of the Constitution, ambiguous. The Court did not actually explain how it is ambiguous, it just found it was. Anyway, the result of finding an ambiguity is that the Court must look to the historic record to interpret what was meant. As it happens, the historic record with respect to s. 121 is clear. It was there to prevent the provinces from putting up tariffs. The court favoured public policy by which extremely high taxes are imposed on alcohol, for the benefit of public health. Frankly, the evidence of a public health benefit to the current high tax regime is quite compelling. The problem is that evidence about why something is a wise public policy should have nothing to do with interpretting what was meant in 1867. But, the court really liked the public policy argument so we ended up with this curious bit of reasoning: "But the historical evidence nowhere suggests that provinces would lose their power to legislate... for the benefit of their constituents even if that might have impacts on interprovincial trade". In short, despite overwhelming evidence that s. 121 was designed to prevent trade barriers, and the fact that the constitution says no trade barriers, the court ruled trade barriers are okay there was no evidence that historically trade barriers for the right reason were not okay and the drafters didn't say "no trade barriers, not even for a good reason".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:Where's the guy that said it was politically expedient to protect SNC-Lavalin and that the Liberals were just being savvy Maybe you mean me? I said that nothing alleged involves illegality. As for political expediency, we'll see. It's easy to see why Trudeau wanted to see a deferred prosecution used. The bribery was ages ago and everyone involved is long gone from SNC-Lavalin. Raybold-Wilson has decided to try to make this blow up in Trudeau's face. While press and opposition are going crazy, that itself doesn't mean much. The mechanics of why what was done is wrong might be too obscure to penetrate the public consciousness. And francophone media are on Trudeau's side. I mean, what would the campaign commercials look like? "Justin Trudeau used his position to try to keep a Canadian company that employs 60,000 people from going under. We won't do that. Vote Conservative." Tochiazuma posted:Because "we" don't mind openly slashing regulation and letting corporations do what they will in the name of 'jobs' but if you try to cut deals in secret whoooooo What secret deal?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:The Liberals rammed through the DPA in the 2018 budget bill and didn't make it public they were making the agreement. They've already lost the battle of messaging that this was "good for people and jobs". Accusing your opponents of being politicians is a good tactic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
MakaVillian posted:I'm surprised Trudeau would've been stupid enough to waive privilege if he knew what Wilson-Raybould was going to say. There's a good case that was the smartest move he's made in the whole affair. Raybould-Wilson made a big deal about how she had taken advice from a former Supreme Court Judge about what was covered by privilege, and the media was already going with the narrative that there was a cover up going on. The trouble with a cover up is that it tends to lend legitimacy to whatever comes out, when if finally comes out. And the claim for privilege here was weak, so everything was coming out sooner or later. With an election on the way, sooner is much better than later. Trudeau and the Liberals took the position they have nothing to hide. This way they can just say Raybould-Wilson is wrong about the facts. Which just happens to be Trudeau said this morning.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2019 17:00
|
|
|
hot cocoa on the couch posted:Lmao they'll probably be like "if you vote us in again we double dog pinky swear to put in PR" Since they probably want to win the election, they won't associate themselves with proportional representation again.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:Nobody is going to touch PR for years now because of the stain on the Libs broken promise. Also relevant: it's unpopular and keeps getting rejected by the voting public.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:gently caress sakes so it's a trap they knew was there but they couldn't help themselves. Note quite. The Act governs the relationship between the Attorney General and the Public Prosecution Service. Whereas this scandal relates to the interaction between the Attorney General/Minister of Justice and Cabinet.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:Ford has basically threatened to cut funding to universities and colleges that don't provide a platform to all forms of speech. He's made it so right wing fuckers can scream to him about the evil Marxist postsecondary institutions stifling free speech, allowing him to rip into the education system further. I actually thought this was a problem on campuses, wherein groups holding minority views (conservatives) were being indirectly shut down. It worked like this. The group books a speaker, and budgets for security as required by campus policy. Then the University comes and says, "You don't just have to pay security for your group, you also have to pay for security for all the groups who come to protest you." This is a switch from "Pay your own way" to "Pay your own way, plus the way of everyone who wants to get in your way." That's no okay. That is blocking free speech, since a person won't be allowed to speak unless they pay not just for the expenses actually associated with their event, but also to cover the cost of efforts made against the speaker to frustrate the event. However, the only example I could find of this was the University of Waterloo telling Lindsey Shepard that if she wanted to book her speaker, it would be $25,000. The speaker was Faith Goldy. First, shame on the University of Waterloo for not just saying, "Nope, free speech doesn't mean allowing hate mongers." Second, if the extent of this problem is that a speech which shouldn't have been allowed to go ahead because of its contents didn't go ahead, I can wait until a real problem emerges. That sure doesn't justify whatever awfulness Ford is going to impose.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2019 04:38
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Dreylad is just saying that if pedophiles want to proselytize on university campuses, the ill-advised "free speech" poo poo the right wants would mean they can. It's a bit of an extreme example but these short-sighted bits of legislation are open for abuse. It isn't a good example. NAMBLA advocating their positions is actually a crime in Canada. Just advocating for sexual relations between adults and children is a violation of the criminal code.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2019 05:49
|
|
|
It is getting lots of coverage. It's just that thanks to Blair's actions there's more context than the straight forward retaliatory firing everyone expected. It is a more complicated story than "Ford fired a political enemy". There is no doubt Ford & Co. wanted to fire Blair. They were just waiting for an excuse. Blair gave them a good one. He took confidential police communications concerning the Premier's security detail and filed them in court. Which makes them publicly available. There is no legitimate need to do that, ever. If Blair needed a judge to see such documents, that can be easily done without making them public. It only requires obtaining judicial leave to file the materials under seal. No judge is going to refuse to seal documents described as "concerning the Premier's security detail", and there is absolutely no disadvantage to Blair in proceeding in that fashion. Blair didn't do that. As to why he didn't, there is some suggestion that the email is not terribly relevant to the defamation case and were mostly intended to publicly embarrass the Premier. I don't know whether that's the case or not, but it is atypical to see evidentiary documents filed this early in litigation. That gives Ford a lot of cover to fire Blair. And as a corollary, the OPP Association is now firmly in Ford's camp because Blair's inappropriate disclosure harmed line members of the force.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:I hope it goes CPC minority/NDP opposition to just show how much of a gently caress up turfing electoral reform was. With electoral reform LPC would have had a permanent minority government at least but they wanted to have complete power for the benefit of their buds on Bay St. Bay Street doesn't like the conservatives now? On financial issues, the Liberals and Conservatives are indistinguishable.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:https://twitter.com/CochraneCBC/status/1103071538285342721?s=19 By which you mean that Liberal corruption is, overall, good for Canada.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Even if this weren't a pipe dream, those are CPC majority numbers. It's a long way to go to the election, and Scheer doesn't look or sound like a closer. Also his voting history is going to make it easy for the Liberals to fear monger.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2019 05:40
|
|
|
THC posted:Incredible timing on this one He does a new historic apology once a month. The Wilson-Raybould scandal has being going for a month.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2019 13:23
|
|
|
overboard posted:I gotta say I’m happy with Trudeau’s response in the sense that this is probably the most honest he’s been. Most people who aren’t Liberal hacks are saying he should have apologized, etc. but that is literally not what he believes so isn’t this better? They’re still going to try to force the DPA, at least now we can easily judge it for what it is. The Liberals decided that the general public doesn't actually understand what the PMO supposedly did wrong. Plus the emerging expert consensus that, even accepting everything Wilson-Raybould's versions of events, there is an ethics issue, nor a criminal one. Why turn the current confused concern into a simple story by apologizing? That said, I don't quite get liking what Trudeau said.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:AOC is popular because she’s progressive, genuine, relatable. The the most similar NDP MP is probably Charlie Angus. Ms. Ashton positions over the years illustrate your point. He take on "elbowgate" was telling: quote:I am ashamed to be a witness to the person who holds the highest position in our country do such an act. I want to say that for all of us who witnessed this, this was deeply traumatic. What I will say, if we apply a gendered lens, it is very important that young women in this space feel safe to come here and work here, Doesn't feel safe. In the House of Commons. Because the Prime Minister bumped into someone. A "deeply traumatic" experience. Ashton has already been on Parliament Hill for more than a decade. She is the lifelong politician child of a lifelong politician. It shines through. Maneck fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Mar 8, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2019 03:43
|
|
|
quote:In an online video, CCFR executive director Rod Giltaca said the doctors’ push for a handgun ban will cause numerous children and teens to be inadvertently caught in the crossfire and killed when police come to collect prohibited weapons. 1. "Gun owners might turn criminal and shoot children if hand guns are made illegal," is the greatest gun rights arguthreat in Canadian history. Are we sure these people aren't actually a satire inspired by gun rights groups? Gun rights arguments are never good, but that is so bad it's surreal. I honestly can't tell. 2. The CPSO instantly dumpsters most complaints about doctors. To the public, that's probably concerning. You want the CPSO to take complaints about doctors seriously given the power they hold over people. But the complaints system gets abused far more often than it is used to report a legitimate issue and it has to be that way. They've probably a computer algorithm for "Dr. Jerk tortured me by not giving me X", where X opioids. Anti-antibiotics too. Not to mention all the personality disordered people doctors who run into who cannot tolerate being told "no", without lashing out at whomever stood up to them. These at least will be standard forms and really easy to junk. That'll save some time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Broadly speaking, gun ownership is one of those things that falls squarely into the "I don't give a poo poo" category for me. I don't think there are any real issues with our current laws, or at least none that I think are likely to be improved. Pretty much this. Long guns are a rural/urban divide issue that we'll probably never get over. There's no sane reason to loosen the laws on restricted fire arms, and there doesn't seem to be much evidence of a benefit to increasing those laws either. Not my thing at all, it wouldn't affect me at all if they were banned - but I live in a city. Lots of people don't. With respect to handguns, I don't get the logic in allowing them at all. As it stands they're already prohibited weapons. Legally they can only be 1) at a licensed range or 2) the home of the licensee. They can't be moved without a special, one time license. They have to be stored locked and away from ammunition (also locked), such that the already shaky "self-defense" justification is a joke. Their legitimate uses are obscure. Whereas harm wise, they kill people every day. Seems like we should just outright ban them and move on (sorry to the dozens of target shooters who use them legitimately).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
Toalpaz posted:Not sure if farmers have a good reason for owning guns, last time I hard about a farmer killing anybody it was some FNs kid. In rural areas, guns are used frequently but almost never against a human being. When that happens, it makes the news and you hear about it. Colton Bushie was murdered two and a half years ago. Meanwhile, Toronto has lost its mind and is getting days with six different shooting incidents. There's 6.3 million rural Canadians. There's 6.4 million Canadians in the GTA.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Do they though? If they keep animals, easy yes. Sometimes animals need to be destroyed, and waiting 6 hours for the vet to come with drugs is needlessly cruel. And even if they don't keep animals, there's wild animals about.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:The PQ is the most fun to watch party in the country. They seem to be the only party whose elected members operate in the manner the system's design requires. They exercise independent judgment rather than just following the leader of the all powerful party apparatus.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
xtal posted:If we band together we can sponsor him as a refugee No need, he's already married to a Canadian. infernal machines posted:You're a data driven guy, why do you stan Grenier's particular brand of digital haruspicy every single election? Is it because it's all we've got? A few years back the CBC decided they needed to have an equivalent to Nate Silver. This is what we got.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2019 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
infernal machines posted:Worth a look, Jonathan Goldsbie takes a stroll through Canadian mainstream news media It's real bad A very careful look, maybe. Mr. Goldsbie's hot takes tend towards glib and shallow. He cherry picks mercilessly to feed sensationalistic blurbs. Always check his sources. He claims: quote:Here's a Vancouver Sun columnist offering a glowing writeup of a book about "the increasingly tense decline of white populations in Europe, the U.S. and Australia". The book warns that all of English Canada could become like Toronto: "A dynamic, low-cohesion, future-oriented society with an attenuated connection to its British and European past." The review concerns a book on the rise of western populism. Slamming a guy reviewing a book about populism because one of the driving factors of populism is fear over demographic shifts seems like a cheap shot. You say, "But maybe the author of the book has a sketchy history?" And you look him up and he's an academic whose ethnic herritage is a superposition of latino, chinese and jewish. Not a likely candidate to lead a white nationalist pogrom.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2019 20:40
|
|