CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

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

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.

Hal_2005 posted:

Edit: Jesus you wasted 3 posts on 1 explanation? When did you go off your meds? Farm margins are so well documented as a cash intensive operation I'm not sure how I could even argue against trying to explain farming is not exactly a earnings rich field of work.

Farms work on trade credit. They also work on operating loans financed by their crop insurance premiums and sold forward contracts for harvested production. Layering into this poo poo sandwich, nearly all farmland and machinery is financed by land leases/mortgages. So pray tell, CI (keeper of D&D's domestic debt bubblewatch), how can overleveraged families who monetize all land revenue each year to meet their operating interest payments find fresh cash to set aside for defined benefit accounts remitted to the AB govt ?

So why is the government obligated to give unprofitable, over-leveraged businesses an exemption to otherwise universal health and safety regulations? Why does this only apply to "family farms"? What quantifiable value do these farms produce that offsets the costs of the people killed and maimed by failure to adhere to minimal safety standards?

# ¿ Dec 12, 2015 06:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 13:06

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.

Helsing posted:

It's bizarre to see people pending over backwards to justify the government refusing to disclose who it's paying and how much it is paying them on the grounds of something as nebulous as "security".

This is unacceptable for the very simple reason that it continues the feedback loop between private business and the current governing party. We've got a long history of this in Canada and we know what it creates: a feedback loop of corruption. It amounts on an invisible tax on everything the government does: instead of getting the best deal the government reroutes it's purchases through friendly suppliers and lets them overcharge. Then those politicians get extra money and resources to remain in power.

It's not a matter of this being a large or small purchase. It's about the kind of institutional culture that these attitudes perpetuate. As the old saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Seriously. Not to mention, if this were somehow a Conservative government doing this, the thread would be crying bloody murder. The argument appears to be "I'd rather not know in case it looks bad, because this is something I like".

There is no valid reason procurement information regarding supplies for this program can't or shouldn't be made public. The only people who will have a problem with the costs (assuming nothing particularly egregious is happening) would have a problem regardless.

sliderule posted:

This would be a valid concern if there were anything at all that could be done about government corruption.

WTF does this even mean?

# ¿ Dec 15, 2015 20:38

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.

brucio posted:

Haha do people really think competitive government procurement could actually happen with this resettlement timeline? Maybe for some things, but the PG community is worked to the bone as it is right now.

No one has complained about the lack of a competitive procurement, the complaint is that there's no data whatsoever on the costs or suppliers. The government is spending money without providing data on how, why, and with whom, which is something they should be obligated to do.

Will the pricing for supplies be high due to lack of available alternatives? Sure. Can that be explained and justified? Absolutely. So why not release the data?

sliderule posted:

It means that there are no mechanisms in our political system by which we can correct corruption in a meaningful way.

The federal conservatives were corrupt. They went on being as corrupt as they pleased until the day they were voted out. There will be no repercussion for the vast, vast majority of their corrupt action (if there is any at all). We can't go undo the damage caused by the corruption retroactively, and there's nothing stopping another majority from doing it again.

Look at all the corruption already exposed about the OLP. Even in the sunlight, there will be no consequence for the guilty.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. WTF is the relevance of this cynical platitude in regard to justifying why the government shouldn't provide data on program spending?

Are you seriously saying "Corruption in government is inevitable, so lets just let it happen where we can't see it"?

infernal machines fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Dec 15, 2015

# ¿ Dec 15, 2015 20:51

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.

Mr Luxury Yacht posted:

Well, other than what I mentioned before, on another front people will probably dig into Jim's history and find out his kid once played hockey against the kid of the assistant minister's cousin and suddenly the headlines are all "LIBBBERALL CORRUPTION!!1!". Or lets say that someone in the government DID know Jim, because they had dealt with him before they were in government and he did good work getting things fast. The press and a lot of people on the fence with either the government or the refugees will eat them alive. Do you really think most of those people are going to look at the higher cost and either 1. be all "okay cool I understand" and 2. Not blame the refugees?

tbh it's asking them to commit a giant political shitstorm for doing something that's entirely necessary.

Why do optics in any way factor into whether the government should provide data on how they're spending public money? It's not up to the government to decide to withhold information because it might be construed to make them look bad. They don't serve for their own benefit, they serve the public. Government transparency isn't a pick and choose thing, because that isn't transparency, at best it's light propaganda.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2015 21:04

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.

sliderule posted:

I'm saying that in this case, where there is a potential benefit in nondisclosure (that there will not be vitriol and violence directed at the supplier of the goods, expanding anti-refugee sentiment to more targets and resonating that sentiment through common enemies) and zero benefit in disclosure that maybe nondisclosure is not awful.

I'm all for summary execution of the corrupt, but that's just not the way our system works (the way it works is that there is no disincentive or penalty for corruption).

Holy hell. How are "Corruption exists, it's better if we don't see it", and "This could maybe look bad, so it's better if we don't know" actual arguments being put forward in favour of the government in this thread?

Seriously?

# ¿ Dec 15, 2015 21:12

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.

sliderule posted:

FTFY

Not sure who's saying that.

The benefit it produces is an open and transparent government, I would assume the value of that would be self evident. The harm of not releasing it is speculation and innuendo, and fostering distrust of the government when they take action that would otherwise be supported.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2015 21:38

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.

ocrumsprug posted:

On one hand you have a boring, if expedited, procurement document available to FOIA that is only of interest to a handful of racists that will never ever ever actually submit a FOIA request.

On the other, you have a shady deal proving that Libs are Libbing again, and it only took them 6 weeks to start. And they are using Conservative tactics to do it.

Seems odd that people that support the Liberals would choose the latter option.

The thing is, if you spent the last 8 years crying foul over the Conservatives' opaque governing it's mighty hypocritical to do an about face just because it's now your team doing it.

If it was bad when the Conservatives did it (it was), then it's still bad now, no matter how noble the intentions.

Edit: I though the point of Real Change™ was to have *better* government, not the same poo poo under different colours

infernal machines fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Dec 15, 2015

# ¿ Dec 15, 2015 21:50

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.

More generally, this is about how we want the government to behave, and not specifically "uggh, Liberals". Even if it may be used to justify the latter, it shouldn't justify compromise about the former.

Weak excuses involving national security don't help.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2015 21:58

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.

Constant Hamprince posted:

Let's lay off this herbicide derail and get talking about the real issue facing the nation: the Liberal party's shameful cronyist patronage of Big Coat and the National Mitten Cartel.

God, I love this country.

Yeah, it's the mittens we're mad about, not the government using "national security" to hide spending data.

# ¿ Dec 16, 2015 16:54

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.

Kraftwerk posted:

Where I get gouged and raped without lube is the 407. I spend 400 a month on it to get to work because the 401 would take an impossibly long time.

Sounds like you're paying for the convenience and the value you place on your time (the system works). If you want to save money, take transit.

# ¿ Dec 21, 2015 06:16

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.

I've lived and worked in both Brampton and Toronto, including commuting daily to Brampton from Toronto for work and regular onsite client work throughout the GTA. All without having a car. It's possible, and not even especially difficult in most cases.

Don't get me wrong it's much easier if you live and work in the core of TO, but within the GTA the regional and local transit netwoks make it entirely feasible to live and work without a vehicle. The rural outlands of course, are not so lucky.

infernal machines fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Dec 21, 2015

# ¿ Dec 21, 2015 06:51

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.

Kraftwerk posted:

My employer subsidizes my car use.

Wait, so what is the problem? You're paid for the use of your vehicle, you pay to avoid traffic by using the 407, this is pretty much how this should work. If the 407 were free it would be as busy as the 401, which you don't use because of the traffic.

# ¿ Dec 21, 2015 07:03

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.

Hal_2005 posted:

Hey, since you're back, do you feel like addressing any of the bill 6 rebuttals?

# ¿ Dec 23, 2015 08:02

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.

PT6A posted:

I want St. Hubert to come west and crush the life out of Swiss Chalet and their lovely garbage chicken. Putt-putt-BANG-BANG, motherfuckers!

You know, I'm starting to realize that 99% of the things I miss about Montreal are either food or booze.

Does St. Hubert even exist any more? I haven't seen one in Ontario for at least five years.

# ¿ Dec 30, 2015 05:19

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.

Cultural Imperial posted:

uh lies aren't blunders if everyone believes them u guys

Blunder implies a mistake, the lies were purposeful and achieved the desired effect, ergo not a blunder

# ¿ Dec 30, 2015 23:05

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.

It's a representative democracy, so that stands to reason.

# ¿ Dec 30, 2015 23:22

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.

Rust Martialis posted:

the NDP in most elections, federal, provincial or Toronto mayoral.

Their failures at each of those levels (in Ontario) appear largely identical. Absolutely uninspiring campaigns based on a platform and message of "moderation", fiscal restraint, and to some extent pocketbook populism. It turns out, to the extent that people want anything like that, they'll vote Liberal (or equivalent) to get it.

# ¿ Jan 2, 2016 01:25

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.

Ikantski posted:

I think it was infernal machines who linked this series of articles, it has some pretty good insight into how transit gets done in Toronto. http://spacing.ca/toronto/2014/05/28/spacing-investigation-part-1-political-movements-behind-scarborough-subway/

Of course

is, transit doesn't get done in Toronto. Despite the Scarborough subway shenanigans from the city and the province the LRT is still what's officially on the books planning wise. The subway doesn't so much as have a planned route, so there's no way to do an EA or any budgeting. And despite the mayor going on record saying it's a done deal, and adding a dedicated property tax increase for it, there is still no Scarborough subway plan of any sort, just a bunch of councillors, MPPs, and MPs jerking each other off. The wheels are quite literally going to fall off the SRT it's meant to replace long before there's ever a shovel in the ground, but no one at any level of government cares. Meanwhile, the original plan would have been completed by 2017.

Dreylad posted:

Well I don't want to pretend those past years were free of corruption or complicated politics. Toronto is still living with the legacy of a half built transit system that was centered on cars (The Gardiner, the Spadina, and the Scarborough Expressways were components of a broader plan as everyone assumed TTC ridership would continue to plummet during the 60s and 70s). Obviously the megacity had a big impact on how Toronto is governed, which is compounded by the fact that cities were responsible for fewer services then than they are now.

Transit was handled by Metro Toronto even before amalgamation, the makeup of which was basically the same as the megacity is now even though the municipalities were separate. Amalgamation came with a massive downloading of provincial responsibility to the municipality and very little funding to cover it. On top of which we now have the suburbs that were more interested in keeping their taxes low than building infrastructure as part of the city itself, they still don't want the taxes, but they want the perks the city core has. Since provincial and federal funding only comes as one-time dispensations for specific projects we're left with no way to plan a proper system, we just dream big and hope we can sell it every time we want to build something. Everything else is covered by increasing fare-box revenues or trying to squeeze a little more blood from the stone that is the city budget.

We do have the remnants of a lot of car-centric development, the issue is the councillors representing the former suburbs fight tooth and nail against any effort to transition it to a more transit oriented system, even well outside the boundaries of their wards. For example, not one single councillor who's ward touches the downtown Gardener express way (or surrounding neighbourhoods) voted to keep the eastern portion, but almost every councillor from outside the city core did. The same councillors, almost to a man, are the ones that have fought any transit expansion in the suburbs except their unicorn subway line, and have very loudly shouted down any plans for increased transit funding in the form of increased taxes, tolls, or fees (except of course increased fares).

infernal machines fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Jan 3, 2016

# ¿ Jan 3, 2016 19:20

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.

PT6A posted:

Yeah, if anything it's just a waste of money. They shouldn't necessarily do it again, but given that the money's already been spent, I don't see a particular problem with the result.

You can use a shotgun to kill a housefly, or a flyswatter, the fly is dead either way. But some would argue it's not an appropriate use of a shotgun, and it makes a bit of a mess.

I think I have a problem with the RCMP wholesale fabricating a terrorist plot and cajoling some mentally ill drug addicts (who by the RCMP's own account were completely incapable) into carrying it out.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2016 16:55

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.

I'm curious why it is the goal of our security apparatus to identify people at risk of radicalization, and then act to radicalize them. As opposed to say, identifying people at risk of radicalization (mentally ill or otherwise), and then pushing them into support programs to help address the issues leading them towards committing a terrorist act.

From an outside perspective, the later seems preferable to the former, both in terms of outcomes and cost.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2016 18:57

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.

PT6A posted:

...it's very possible they wouldn't have voluntarily entered treatment, and you cannot compel someone into treatment without a crime being committed.

I don't know that playing Mr. Big for months, planning a terror attack, and repeatedly pushing the target to carry it out is necessarily the solution to this.

PT6A posted:

I'm still more liberal than I was, I just don't particularly care about a couple of terrorists (mentally handicapped or not) getting convicted of a crime, beyond the inordinate amount of resources that were spent on making it happen. You have to be quite the bleeding heart to think that people who literally wanted to blow up parliament shouldn't spend some time at the ol' government hotel, one way or the other.

Except they didn't literally want to blow up Parliament until the RCMP put them up to it. They wanted to do something, yes. They had no coherent idea what, and absolutely no way of accomplishing it.

infernal machines fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jan 7, 2016

# ¿ Jan 7, 2016 19:05

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.

PT6A posted:

They wanted to blow up parliament and I'm the sociopath???

No, the RCMP wanted to blow up Parliament, by their own reports the couple mostly just wanted to get high and gently caress.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2016 19:10

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.

PT6A posted:

I'm supposed to feel better solely because they only knew they wanted to kill people and destroy things, not which people/things they wished to target specifically?

No, you're not supposed to feel better, but you might hypothetically feel some outrage that a government agency took a couple of incompetents and crafted a terror campaign for them to carry out, then held their hand though the process so they wouldn't just wonder off when they lost interest.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2016 19:14

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.

Helsing posted:

I feel like I'm usually first to sign up for the bleeding hearts brigade in CanPol but I honestly don't feel bad at all for the would be terrorists who got caught. Even if they had limited mental capacity I feel like they were functional enough that we can expect them to understand a concept like "murder is wrong".

I don't have a specific issue with the couple being incarcerated in one form or another, my problem is the manner in which the RCMP went about it, and what that says about their motives and use of resources.

For example, I don't feel much safer knowing that an organization in charge of law enforcement is targeting people they feel may commit terrorist acts, and them presenting them with help and support to commit a terrorist act, so they can jump out from behind the bushes and yell Gotcha!

# ¿ Jan 7, 2016 19:21

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.

PT6A posted:

It's not a hypothetical. We know that Daesh and other organizations are recruiting Canadians and other people in western countries.

Okay, so how to we go from this fact to ..therefor the government must get these people to commit fake terror attacks, so that they can arrest them.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2016 20:02

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.

flakeloaf posted:

But then how will we know that this new legislation protects us from terrorists?

Look, there's only so many people who can be radicalized, we just have to make sure the RCMP is the one that does it.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2016 20:35

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.

Ikantski posted:

Toronto Hydro privatization plan in the works

Yeah...

So here's the thing about Tory, he's a a "business man", and evidently what that means is he trusts his acolytes and advisors implicitly. He's just there to give broad direction, and when they tell him something is a good idea, he'll just say it as fact.

So we have things like Smart Track, and earnest discussion about privatizing Hydro, that got one of his rivals laughed out of the race back in 2014. This is a guy who got upset that city staff weren't giving him the numbers he needed to show that privatizing garbage collection east of Yonge was a good idea. He was told it was something that needed to happen, he repeated that to the press, so when the numbers show otherwise it's a conspiracy, rather than a reflection of reality.

If it's something his admin has been working on since before the election, whether he knew of it or not, he'll back it come hell or high water.

# ¿ Jan 9, 2016 06:44

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.

cowofwar posted:

Tory continues the trend of really subpar mayors. Apparently the talent pool is very shallow. Some cities have managed to squeak out some accomplishments despite a retard at the helm but Toronto has just kind of coasted while performing damage control for the last always years.

Qualified people are uninspiring, and uninspiring people don't drive the vote.

# ¿ Jan 9, 2016 07:24

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.

Toronto is awful, it's just that everywhere else in Canada is worse, and jealous about it to boot.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2016 23:10

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.

Kafka Esq. posted:

Toronto is fine if you live on a relatively good transit line and don't have to deal with rush hour.

Yes, Toronto is fine if you live in Toronto, if you live in one of the former suburbs that amalgated in, it's poo poo. And it will continue to be poo poo for as long as you and your neighbors keep electing ridiculous fuckwits to represent you on council.

the talent deficit posted:

I worked at Spadina and Adelaide and lived at Queen and Church and my commute was like 20-25 minutes in the winter. I commute from a whole other city to downtown Vancouver now and my commute is 15 minutes.

Well you could walk that distance in less time, but yeah, that's what we get for having the (former) suburbs control our transit development. Anything that prioritizes transit is a "war on the car".

Also, that's a terrible comparison. You can get from Pickering or Oakville to downtown Toronto in 35 minutes. Turns out taking surface routes through the downtown core during rush hour will run across some congestion you won't hit on a regional commuter line.

infernal machines fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Jan 10, 2016

# ¿ Jan 10, 2016 23:49

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.

Brannock posted:

Envious.

Jealousy is another thing.

quote:
[jel-uh s]
adjective
1.feeling resentment against someone because of that person's rivalry, success, or advantages (often followed by of):
He was jealous of his rich brother.
2.feeling resentment because of another's success, advantage, etc. (often followed by of):
He was jealous of his brother's wealth.

In other news, Libs prepare to lib harder than ever, with the help of new superstar team member Bill Blair

# ¿ Jan 11, 2016 06:53

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.

Helsing posted:

I'm not worried that it "won't come to fruition". Rather I'm worried that weed laws and regulation are going to become more restrictive than before because there will now be a powerful corporate lobby with a vested interest in defending their profits.

This is exactly what's being telegraphed, and with the interest in using the LCBO (or LCBO model) here in Ontario for distribution, it's all but guaranteed even without onerous licencing restrictions on production. None of this should be surprising however.

What's unclear is why this was handed to federal newbie Bill Blair.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2016 20:00

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.

Franks Happy Place posted:

...existing large scale corporate "medical" grow ops that have been built in anticipation of legalization

That who's mentioned here http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ex-colleague-will-lobby-mp-bill-blair-to-restrict-field-of-pot-growers/article28102506/ using one of Blair's former cronies to lobby for production licencing restrictions.

flakeloaf posted:

And probably a tobacco company or three. Wheeeee!

This is going to be a fiasco and I feel really bad for you, Frank.

TBF, if his folks weren't drafting federal and provincial legislation for just this event over a year ago, they didn't have a chance.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2016 20:15

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.

THC posted:

At least it'll create good union jobs.

I'm down with that. I'm sure the OLP will find some way to privatize it though.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2016 20:17

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.

Ikantski posted:

I think it is a good thing about Trudeau that he is willing to spend lavishly on frivolous things. People love Trudeau. People will do what people they love do. The people will also spend their money on frivolous things, from the heart outwards cause everything is gonna be ok. My stocks go up and Canada's impending economic crash is postponed another couple of years. It's good. I don't know how many different ways I can say that.

Now there's no need for sarcasm Ikantski, tell us what you really think.

# ¿ Jan 12, 2016 01:41

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.

Ikantski posted:

Y'all need to cool it on the Wynne hate. She's a progressive trail blazer who saved us from being squished under Hudak's jackboots. She's literally saving the planet so of course she will need a little help from her friends.

So hypothetically speaking, she's less bad than the alternatives?

Not that Wynne is good, but everyone else who ran was worse in an immediately identifiable way. What do we do here, in situations where we're choosing the least bad option as a matter of course?

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 03:01

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.

Ikantski posted:

The NDP would have been better but it doesn't matter because the $8m in union OLP advertising made it a race between Hudak and Wynne. Yes, a Hudak minority would have been better. The province is financially hosed, we're constantly fighting with nurses, doctors, teachers and jail guards, we're about to become the highest debt per capita province in Canada. The "most progressive budget" in our history included selling off our biggest asset. Wynne didn't bring it up a lot during the campaign but it was in there.

I'd prefer Hudak who was honest about it and was only going to sell 49% rather than Wynne selling off 60% but max 10% can be held by any entity. What kind of fairlyland school trustee bullshit is that? The 60% share holders can just talk to each other and agree to do what they want. It's retarded. Hudak was going to trim the public sector via attrition and spare nurses. Wynne is trimming the public sector via attrition and sparing teachers. We have almost nothing to show for 10s of billions in green energy subsidies and tripled electricity rates.

Hudak and Horwath both ran horrible campaigns but when you look at the policy they've stood up for, I think they would have been better leaders.

So presumably people didn't vote for privatizing public assets or "trimming" the public sector by way of under staffing the the public service. Of course that's what's happening now, but presumably they were sorta 50/50 going on campaign promises vs actual history.

We had the ONDP who voted down a budget that had all the good and none of the bad, then ran on some ponderous bullshit that didn't add up, with nebulous efficiencies to fill the gaps. The OPC who promised to gut everything they could and sell the rest minus 1%. Or the OLP who were at the time basically promising their previous budget, with similar bs about looking for efficiencies, but no stated intention of enacting specific recommendations from the Drummond report.

I'm not trying to be an rear end here, but what was supposed to happen?

I voted ONDP, because my MPP is great, but it wasn't based on the ONDP platform. We were handed a poo poo sandwich of an election and asked to pick out the peanuts, and we failed.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 07:11

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.

blah_blah posted:

It definitely won't change in the near future, no. At least, if you are a very good programmer and not a gigantic rear end in a top hat, you probably have job security for the rest of your working life (or at least long enough for you to make enough $$$ to retire comfortably).

...Said every North American manufacturing worker in the 1980s.

So tell me, what is it about writing software that makes you so immune to the pressures of globalization and the effect it has had on literally every other industry? Hell, what is it about writing code now, that makes you immune to a collapse of the tech market, like the one that happened 15 years ago?

Why is it different this time, specifically for you?

infernal machines fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Jan 13, 2016

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 22:12

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

«‹›103 »