Dynasty, s3: Canadian Politics 2018

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

I don't know how the Ontario Liberals manage to do it but the new labour legislation Bill 148 might actually get me to vote for the fuckers one more time, after I was sure I was done with them by 2010 or so. These are some of the most sweeping protections for temporary and part-time workers I've seen any government implement. The way e.g. Tim Hortons franchises are responding to the minimum wage increases are mostly serving to make them look ridiculous. I'm glad I'm not seeing much serious support for the corporations in this regard.

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Tuesday, 9 January 2018 14:21 (four months ago) Permalink

Yeah, in my circles Tim's and other businesses like Cineplex have been roundly mocked for their responses but uhhh given the nature of those circles I don't know if I can trust that there isn't a significant chunk of the country that doesn't buy the crocodile tears

Simon H., Tuesday, 9 January 2018 14:25 (four months ago) Permalink

I hate that we have to fight and scrap for even the incredibly modest gains like the ones in Bill 148

Simon H., Tuesday, 9 January 2018 14:26 (four months ago) Permalink

this is the story of my post post-secondary life

infinity (∞), Tuesday, 9 January 2018 17:56 (four months ago) Permalink

Moved from the 2017 thread:

What it comes down to, imho, at least these days, is that laïcité is used by some in Quebec as an excuse for all-out xenophobia, while others are aware of its risks yet knowingly cling to it in spite of its bad rep in the anglophone world because they believe that religion represents a dormant threat to modern societies. Quebec's relative outspokenness in the latter department is sometimes an awful thing (re: that superfluous burqa ban), sometimes a great one (I say this as someone who would never consider moving back to my home country, Romania, in no small part due to its increasingly theocratic, i.e. openly homophobic, sexist and racist, ideology).

― pomenitul, Tuesday, December 26, 2017 11:32 AM (two weeks ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I would agree it is sometimes a great one if the catholic religion was making a big comeback but it isn't. After all, the cross in the national assembly is here to stay. Really the only target is different very small religious minorities.

― Van Horn Street, Tuesday, January 9, 2018 8:09 PM (fifty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-opposition-parties-balk-at-marking-mosque-shooting-with-day-of-action/article37538523/?cmpid=rss&click=sf_globefb

But this week, the province's two main opposition parties made it clear that, while they support a commemoration, they believe Islamophobia is a loaded term.
The Parti Quebecois says the term is too controversial, while the Coalition Avenir Quebec deems the word inappropriate because Quebecers "are not Islamophobic."

Ihsaan Gardee, director of the Muslim council, attributed the parties' position to identity politics in an election year in Quebec.

"In our view, when arguing semantics, it draws attention away from the core issues of hate and Islamophobia and anti-Muslim discrimination that are being discussed and how to effectively address them," Gardee said Tuesday.

― Van Horn Street, Tuesday, January 9, 2018 8:12 PM (forty-eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The whole Netflix thing is so weird. I subscribe to Netflix so I don't really mind it not being taxed but it seems ridiculously unfair that Canadian companies that offer streaming services have to be taxed but any foreign companies offering the same service are not required to be taxed. Just seems like an obvious loophole that should be closed (either by taxing everyone or no one) and I don't even get why anybody is debating this.

― silverfish, Wednesday, December 27, 2017 12:23 AM (one week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The alternative would be a special Netflix tax that would go to help funding Canadian cinema and television series. A bunch of european countries went this route, Germany and France notably. As you know I am certain, instead of that tax, Joly basically bargained with Netflix that they invest 500 millions here in Canada. I really do believe that Melanie Joly is making sure the 500 millions investment is managed by Netflix because 1. Telefilm has been absolutely incompetent at building up a lucrative film industry in Canada whereas Netflix has the strong incentive of building a more efficient and larger infrastructure, retaining talent, etc 2. Netflix is already a much better international distributor than anything Can-Con has ever had access to, 3. Ubisoft (a foreign company) and Cirque du Soleil (a Canadian one) have been successful content creating companies that got shit tons of subsidies (much more than Netflix is getting at the moment), 4. there was a danger that that big three telecoms was going to gobble up the entire private film/tv series content creation market, now there is not only one but two different alternative paths.

I am still not under 100% sure this is best idea. But I am certain that doing nothing would have been way worse.

― Van Horn Street, Tuesday, January 9, 2018 8:23 PM (thirty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Wednesday, 10 January 2018 02:01 (four months ago) Permalink

a long time coming

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-united-states-trade-complaint-1.4480738

Canada appeared to be mounting a case on behalf of the rest of the world, since it cited almost 200 examples of alleged U.S. wrongdoing, almost all of them concerning other trading partners, such as China, India, Brazil and the European Union.

The 32-page complaint homed in on technical details of the U.S. trade rulebook, ranging from the U.S. treatment of export controls to the use of retroactive duties and split decisions by the six-member U.S. International Trade Commission.

infinity (∞), Wednesday, 10 January 2018 19:03 (four months ago) Permalink

Wow

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Wednesday, 10 January 2018 19:24 (four months ago) Permalink

Btw re

Yeah, in my circles Tim's and other businesses like Cineplex have been roundly mocked for their responses but uhhh given the nature of those circles I don't know if I can trust that there isn't a significant chunk of the country that doesn't buy the crocodile tears

― Simon H., Tuesday, 9 January 2018 09:25 (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I thought that it was interesting that Michael Coren, who can be very conservative (at least on social issues) came out so strongly against the corporations and in favour of the raise. The CBC business panel I watched the other day was also mostly supportive. Even the Ontario PCs mostly seem to agree with a $15 minimum wage but want to get there a little slower.

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Wednesday, 10 January 2018 19:29 (four months ago) Permalink

Well, that would be interesting. Wonder what would happen to my job.

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Wednesday, 10 January 2018 20:49 (four months ago) Permalink

:(

pomenitul, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 21:13 (four months ago) Permalink

sending good vibes yr way sund4r

as long as you don't mind living in canada, it's not so bad once canadians have good work experience stateside and then return home

it would suck having to end your stay prematurely due to this though

i became a us citizen half a year ago but will end up moving back for good probably in a year

infinity (∞), Wednesday, 10 January 2018 21:30 (four months ago) Permalink

Thanks, guys. Tbh, I already consider coming back, for reasons I won't go into fully (but I'm spending a third of the year in Canada as it is; long distance relationships are hard). There's no guarantee I'd be renewed for another year anyway and I could probably come in on another visa if I had to. Still, it definitely raises questions.

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Thursday, 11 January 2018 02:27 (four months ago) Permalink

Interesting - BC Supreme Court rules that indefinite solitary confinement is unconstitutional: https://bccla.org/2018/01/bc-supreme-court-ends-indefinite-solitary-confinement-federal-prisons-across-canada/

Also, not sure what to make of these exemptions to the new labour legislation that the Ontario legislature passed last week. A little disappointed: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/provinces-new-wage-laws-wont-apply-to-film-and-tv-workers-or-students-18-and-under

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Friday, 19 January 2018 03:02 (four months ago) Permalink

holy moly, patrick brown

while my dirk gently weeps (symsymsym), Thursday, 25 January 2018 06:24 (three months ago) Permalink

yeah just read the details of the allegations, jfc

Simon H., Thursday, 25 January 2018 12:55 (three months ago) Permalink

I'm re-watching Season 5 of the Wire and last night watched the episode where Carcetti and Norman are watching Rupert Bond's press conference on Clay Davis' indictment. Norman to Carcetti: "You'll need to have a comment. Try not to sound too gleeful about it."

My first thought after hearing it this morning was that this was probably Kathleen Wynne and her chief of staff's first exchange this morning.

Haven't read the details and probably don't want to. Ugh, good riddance.

Federico Boswarlos, Thursday, 25 January 2018 15:16 (three months ago) Permalink

conservatives in this country are really hard to distinguish from maga chuds. twitter comments on any media accounts regarding the brown story are all about feeling sorry for patrick brown and thinking its a conspiracy theory.

khat person (jim in vancouver), Thursday, 25 January 2018 17:04 (three months ago) Permalink

Could be nothing. On the other hand...

http://warrenkinsella.com/2018/01/column-metoo-isnt-just-coming-to-political-canada-its-here/

Simon H., Tuesday, 30 January 2018 15:18 (three months ago) Permalink

Wow @ the hints in the comments.

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Tuesday, 30 January 2018 16:40 (three months ago) Permalink

If this turns out to be real that's....going to be one hell of a thing.

Simon H., Tuesday, 30 January 2018 16:56 (three months ago) Permalink

I know someone who has worked with a prominent provincial politician here in B.C. who sexually harassed her and who was just generally a pig around the office. It would be huge news if it ever gets out.

khat person (jim in vancouver), Tuesday, 30 January 2018 17:14 (three months ago) Permalink

don't know this guy, but:

Intern scandal brewing in Ottawa as the #metoo movement meets Justin Trudeau. Story soon.

— Andrew Krystal (@AndrewKrystal) January 30, 2018

Simon H., Tuesday, 30 January 2018 21:26 (three months ago) Permalink

his timeline is a treat. Gregg Zaun and Christie Blatchford retweets.

khat person (jim in vancouver), Tuesday, 30 January 2018 22:46 (three months ago) Permalink

if it is him, this would be awfully brazen: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-careful-metoo-1.4511093

rob, Tuesday, 30 January 2018 23:57 (three months ago) Permalink

i kinda doubt it's him, just bcz of the wording of the kinsella piece. but if it is, that would be pretty insane.

while my dirk gently weeps (symsymsym), Wednesday, 31 January 2018 03:20 (three months ago) Permalink

to my scandal-loving disappointment, Kinsella intimated that Trudeau was not the figure he was writing about:

The Internet is a vanity press for the deranged https://t.co/00iFn6Jy0n

— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) January 30, 2018

sean gramophone, Wednesday, 31 January 2018 03:31 (three months ago) Permalink

maybe it's his dude gerald butts?

while my dirk gently weeps (symsymsym), Wednesday, 31 January 2018 03:36 (three months ago) Permalink

my scandal-loving disappointment

I've never voted for the Liberals federally but this is still relieving to me.

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Wednesday, 31 January 2018 03:48 (three months ago) Permalink

Nova Scotia mayor comes out

iCloudius (cryptosicko), Friday, 2 February 2018 16:58 (three months ago) Permalink

Glad now it's 'in all of us command' instead of 'in all our sons command'.

Van Horn Street, Saturday, 3 February 2018 05:17 (three months ago) Permalink

i've been parsing that line wrong all along. i always thought the patriot love was in "thy sons' command". possessive sons', command as a noun.

adam the (abanana), Saturday, 3 February 2018 06:08 (three months ago) Permalink

Wait, I've read it that way my whole life. It only just occurred to me that it makes more sense if "command" is a verb and "sons" is plural. Speaking to Canada in the imperative still seems odd, though.

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Saturday, 3 February 2018 12:27 (three months ago) Permalink

Yep, me too.

bumbling my way toward the light or wahtever (hardcore dilettante), Saturday, 3 February 2018 12:48 (three months ago) Permalink

I think I probably did think about it once or twice and then forgot. If the original line was "thou dost in us command" as per [Removed Illegal Link], that is a much better line than either the one we grew up with or this new one. Are we also going to take the cross out of the French lyrics? Lol j/k.

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Saturday, 3 February 2018 12:48 (three months ago) Permalink

I keep trying to imagine this happening to the White House and failing: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/24-sussex-drive-trudeau-not-living-1.4511732

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Saturday, 3 February 2018 12:51 (three months ago) Permalink

This seems like a good history of the anthem: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/o-canada/

In The Common School Book of Vocal Music, published by the Educational Book Company of Toronto in 1913, the original line "True patriot love thou dost in us command" was changed to "True patriot love in all thy sons command." This particular change was also included in a version published by Delmar in 1914, and in all versions printed thereafter. There is no evidence as to why the change to “sons” was made, although it is worth noting that the women’s suffrage movement was at its most militant and controversial around 1913, and by 1914 and 1916 there was an enormous surge of patriotism during the First World War, at a time when only men could serve in the armed forces.

I figured the 'thy sons' version probably took off because of the war, but didn't connect it to the suffragettes.

Up to the middle of the 20th century, public discussion relating to the anthem, evidenced by letters to the editor in the country’s major newspapers, tended to revolve around the appropriateness of the phrase “stand on guard for thee” and the controversy associated with the tune’s perceived similarity to Mozart’s “March of the Priests.”

My view, having had to listen to the damn song every morning for years, is that we ban it forever and enjoy some peace and quiet.

jmm, Saturday, 3 February 2018 16:31 (three months ago) Permalink

(also, "peoplekind" is hilariously clunky. why not "humankind"?)

Simon H., Tuesday, 6 February 2018 17:43 (three months ago) Permalink

he is such a high school teacher

while my dirk gently weeps (symsymsym), Tuesday, 6 February 2018 17:47 (three months ago) Permalink

Me cause human contains the word “man.” Sexist.

Srsly, though, what a peoplegling of the language.

bumbling my way toward the light or wahtever (hardcore dilettante), Tuesday, 6 February 2018 17:48 (three months ago) Permalink

Stupid phone. *because

“Me cause earthquake! Cave dilettante strong!”

bumbling my way toward the light or wahtever (hardcore dilettante), Tuesday, 6 February 2018 17:49 (three months ago) Permalink

I'm gonna start using hupeoplekind

silverfish, Tuesday, 6 February 2018 17:55 (three months ago) Permalink

so inclusive

while my dirk gently weeps (symsymsym), Tuesday, 6 February 2018 17:57 (three months ago) Permalink

i kinda think trudeau was kidding actually

while my dirk gently weeps (symsymsym), Tuesday, 6 February 2018 17:57 (three months ago) Permalink

I think he meant it as a bit of light ribbing. He wasn't mansplaining. The full question is at 1:06:38 here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3988&v=JDAYH0GSDWs

jmm, Tuesday, 6 February 2018 18:02 (three months ago) Permalink

(also, "peoplekind" is hilariously clunky. why not "humankind"?)

"Humanity" is a perfectly good actual English word but it does seem like ribbing (someone who was asking a very long and convoluted question) in context.

I'm not a biologist but I'm p sure "maternal love" is not the actual definition of "mitochondria" btw.

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Tuesday, 6 February 2018 18:37 (three months ago) Permalink

good old "people" is fine

though high school teacher will knock off points for being ambiguous by using the word "people" (in chicken scratch along the margin: who? what people? be specific. -5)

infinity (∞), Tuesday, 6 February 2018 19:12 (three months ago) Permalink

Yeah, my Apple Oxford dictionary defines "mankind", "humanity", and "people" almost exactly the same way: "human beings considered collectively".

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Tuesday, 6 February 2018 19:17 (three months ago) Permalink

And I'm actually unconvinced that it does describe Peterson, although it probably works for Harper. There is nothing contained about his hostility: he is a boat-rocker who talks about his crusade against 'postmodernism' in the language of war.

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Sunday, 6 May 2018 03:38 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I don't see how any of the things that Brown points to are evidence of a uniquely Canadian tendency towards deference. Among British settler states, it is the US that is the more exceptional case in having fought a war of independence. The handling of G20 protests was unfortunate and infuriating but I don't see how it was worse than the handling of protests at e.g. the 2004 RNC or the J20 protests. Centrist or right-ish moves on the part of the NDP or Liberals don't seem that different to me from similar moves that have been made by UK Labour or the Democratic party.

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Sunday, 6 May 2018 03:58 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Just shared a prediction about tomorrow night's debate with a friend. Either Wynne or Horvath, or both, will bring up Rob at one point, as they should, if you frame it in terms of Doug's reckless verbiage when the story broke--he was slandering journalists left and right, even though he undoubtedly knew the story was true. But Ford will turn it around on them with some well-rehearsed for-shame theatrics, and he'll "win" that part of the debate.

clemenza, Sunday, 6 May 2018 17:55 (two weeks ago) Permalink

sund4r

i'm not sure if you are disingenuously overlooking the nuances of brown's argument

peterson has a lot of traits of the canadian archetype. not every facet of peterson's personality is a canadian archetype

brown is building an image of a canadian archetype that involves various conservatives, and this includes harper, it could easily include rob ford and doug ford jr.

canada's main economic resources inform our culture: it is an old school, conservative-style way of doing business because it comes from mining resources, where once stability is reached, a bourgeois is created that stays in power and itself creates a conservative culture (you can see it in shows like dragons' den vs shark tank)

i watch and read popular canadian news outlets and most of them sound conservative to me

liberals are conservative

and we had a staunchly conservative government before them

having said that, i think just like in vancouver, i'm going to wager that toronto and montreal have small but thriving pockets of free-thinkers that are mostly found in art and academic circles, but not outside of that -- as in, not in business or management

F# A# (∞), Monday, 7 May 2018 01:10 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Yeah the centuries old mission to create a Canadian archetype is doomed.

Van Horn Street, Monday, 7 May 2018 01:32 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Brown's argument doesn't seem particularly nuanced to me but tbf I'm unlikely to ever get on board with a piece that tries to argue a sweeping claim that "x is the default setting for the [ nationality][ gender]".

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Monday, 7 May 2018 01:50 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Except for people in the West Island let's be fair.

Van Horn Street, Monday, 7 May 2018 01:59 (two weeks ago) Permalink

F#A#oo, I will give you that you seem to at least be attempting to make a more coherent argument than he does. The point about a resource economy is an interesting one. There is a nuanced argument to be made about the differences between Canadian and American conservatism owing to Canada's inheritance of British Toryism (including Red Toryism) and roots in United Empire Loyalism. More generally, the combination of a constitutional monarchy and Westminster Parliament with decentralized federalism, of American Loyalists and a virtually abandoned francophone colony, probably has produced a unique political culture but I don't think it breaks down to what Brown seems to be breaking it down to (and "more Petersons than Trudeaus" really needs more support, as VHS said). Our major print news outlets do all mostly tend to the right, except for the Toronto Star, mainly because of Postmedia's stranglehold on ownership. I don't think there's a sensible case to be made that, overall, Canada is a more right-wing country than the US (or most of the anglosphere) if that's what you're saying.

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Monday, 7 May 2018 02:13 (two weeks ago) Permalink

the thing about this, and why i'm so open to others' views, is that there is a very personal feel to this

meaning, i speak from my own, yet limited, experience, and i think brown does, as well

and while i actually would love to have the stats and numbers, i think because of the type of canadian identity that is exported and sold to the rest of the world (the nice, progressive canadian), those types of numbers are difficult to come by, so for all we know i may be full of it

the reason for this is like you say, there is a stranglehold and information is undoubtedly less accessible in canada than in the us (i would be surprised if you disagreed with me on this), because of the oligopoly and almost monopoly the government holds on a lot of industries

but i am a little paranoid and generally do not trust government to act in the best interest of canadians

so because of this, i look to voting trends, but ya, it's all good

F# A# (∞), Monday, 7 May 2018 02:28 (two weeks ago) Permalink

ON debate off to a start. Some surprising enthusiasm for Horwath.

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Monday, 7 May 2018 22:17 (two weeks ago) Permalink

This is my first real exposure to Horvath. (Sorry--it takes an election to rouse me into paying attention.) First impression, very good. Ford, meanwhile, struggles to string together a few sentences.

clemenza, Monday, 7 May 2018 22:22 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Politicians never stay within the time limits during a debate--except Ford. They've got him programmed well: "They're gonna give you 45 seconds to answer, Dougie. Don't ever, ever, ever use more than 30 of them."

clemenza, Monday, 7 May 2018 22:30 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Is anyone else experiencing issues with the stream at http://toronto.citynews.ca/cityvote-the-debate/? Is it because I'm in the US?

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Monday, 7 May 2018 22:32 (two weeks ago) Permalink

"'Six Million Dollar Man,' Doug--just keep saying 'Six Million Dollar Man.'"

clemenza, Monday, 7 May 2018 23:15 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Ha, Horwath seems to be doing better than Wynne so far and is starting to persuade me. Ford makes no sense half the time and, depressingly, people still seem to favour him. Horwath's question, m/l, "be upfront, what are you going to cut?" was v good imo.

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Monday, 7 May 2018 23:21 (two weeks ago) Permalink

She framed it really well with the comparison to Harris and Hudak.

clemenza, Monday, 7 May 2018 23:23 (two weeks ago) Permalink

OTM

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Monday, 7 May 2018 23:23 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Man, he has trouble with this whole hand-motion/talking coordination.

clemenza, Monday, 7 May 2018 23:26 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Can't watch this right now but GO ANDREA FFS

Simon H., Monday, 7 May 2018 23:27 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Wow, the three post-mortem commentators all liked Horwath best.

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Monday, 7 May 2018 23:30 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Except for the guy talking now, who's saying Ford won because he didn't accidentally say he was going to kill every fourth new-born during his first 100 days. I take his point, but Horvath was far and away the best.

clemenza, Monday, 7 May 2018 23:34 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Yeah, I'm seriously considering voting NDP now. If so, it will be the first time since 1999 that I do so provincially, although I've voted NDP federally in every election since 1997.

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Tuesday, 8 May 2018 01:48 (two weeks ago) Permalink

do it! do it!

while my dirk gently weeps (symsymsym), Tuesday, 8 May 2018 03:47 (two weeks ago) Permalink

i mean, this is an ABF election

while my dirk gently weeps (symsymsym), Tuesday, 8 May 2018 03:54 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Well, the PCs won't win my riding, regardless. (I was going to say "Ottawa Centre will elect a Tory when Massachusetts votes for a Republican Presidential candidate" but, actually, the latter has happened more recently than the former.)

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Tuesday, 8 May 2018 10:34 (two weeks ago) Permalink

lol

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Tuesday, 8 May 2018 18:49 (two weeks ago) Permalink

trying to figure out which local trot is running the ONDP twitter

Chariot of the Proletariat 🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/xy9v0dnf8n

— Ontario NDP (@OntarioNDP) May 9, 2018

in other local developments, guess who's a fucking moron

Here’s the link https://t.co/uTNW9UaKug

— Jason Chapman (@_JasonChapman) May 9, 2018

Simon H., Wednesday, 9 May 2018 17:20 (one week ago) Permalink

why are they asking trump about ontario politics

F# A# (∞), Wednesday, 9 May 2018 17:57 (one week ago) Permalink

Tbf, without context, it does seem like a bit of a condescending question. Had Ford just said or done something that suggested gross ignorance of basic Parliamentary procedure?

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Wednesday, 9 May 2018 22:55 (one week ago) Permalink

Known Quebec islamophobe on the cover of Urbania to celebrate their 15th anniversary! Supposedly that's the woke edition.

https://cdn.urbania.ca/media/2018/05/URBANIA_No47_15ans_C1-C4_Num47_v7_HR-425x545.jpg

Van Horn Street, Thursday, 10 May 2018 18:11 (one week ago) Permalink

https://urbania.ca/article/richard-martineau-martyr-quebecois

Comment interprètes-tu notre page couverture ?

Je suis une cible facile. Des fois, j’ai l’impression que pour rentrer dans une gang, t’es obligé de me lancer des flèches : « T’as fessé sur Martineau, tu peux faire partie du groupe, voici tes patchs… » Je représente plein d’affaires que les gens n’aiment pas, je fais un bon punching bag. Et à force de me faire rentrer dedans, je dis parfois de façon ironique que je suis un martyr pour la cause. Peut-être que je me complais dans le rôle de victime, à l’occasion.

F# A# (∞), Thursday, 10 May 2018 18:34 (one week ago) Permalink

;_; poor Dick Martineau.

Van Horn Street, Thursday, 10 May 2018 18:51 (one week ago) Permalink

Only in Quebec this type of stuff could happen without any sort of backlash.

Van Horn Street, Thursday, 10 May 2018 20:44 (one week ago) Permalink

Liberals are giving Texas oil company #KinderMorgan a blank cheque while dumping all the risks on Canadians

Rigged process, First Nations & local communities shut out, oil spill threats, science ignored & now billions on the line

It's clear this pipeline should not be built.

— Jagmeet Singh (@theJagmeetSingh) May 16, 2018

jagmeet comes out against the kinder morgan pipeline, which is great. id imagine he may be running in burnaby south as kennedy stewart will resign to run of mayor of Vancouver.

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 16 May 2018 17:39 (six days ago) Permalink

Oh, good for him.

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Wednesday, 16 May 2018 17:56 (six days ago) Permalink

NDP is well ahead of the Liberals in provincial polling. I might have to sign up to do some (uuuugh) canvassing.

Simon H., Wednesday, 16 May 2018 18:09 (six days ago) Permalink

*ON provincial polling, I should specify

Simon H., Wednesday, 16 May 2018 18:09 (six days ago) Permalink

can't we just nationalize the oil industry

the bhagwanadook (symsymsym), Wednesday, 16 May 2018 18:17 (six days ago) Permalink

no, because the whole point is to make tons of money for corporations, wreck the environment, employ paltry numbers of workers, and pay ultra-low royalties

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 16 May 2018 18:31 (six days ago) Permalink

providing any tangible social good is anathema to the extraction industry

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 16 May 2018 18:32 (six days ago) Permalink

I think natural resource rights are largely under provincial jurisdiction but I'd be for socializing the industry at that level.

I used to sometimes like to defend the NEP as a challop.

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Wednesday, 16 May 2018 18:57 (six days ago) Permalink

Abacus has Ontario PCs and NDP in a tie: http://onpulse.ca/blog/entering-the-long-weekend-the-pc-lead-evaporates-as-ndp-momentum-builds

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Sunday, 20 May 2018 16:52 (two days ago) Permalink

Yeah, Joel Harden is a sessional at Carleton, which intrigues me a little.

In the wtf file, btw, this whole story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pc-doug-ford-stolen-data-allegations-1.4671063?cmp=rss

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Sunday, 20 May 2018 23:30 (two days ago) Permalink

After reviewing the ONDP's platform document, I'm honestly pretty unconvinced that the modest tax increases they're proposing - on larger corporations, the top 1% of income earners, and non-resident housing speculators, with a tax freeze on the 'middle class' and a reduction in small business taxes - could pay for the vast spending increases they're also proposing in virtually every area. This is actually a main reason why I've not voted for the ONDP, for the most part. To his credit, Bernie Sanders has been pretty upfront that he would need to raise taxes pretty significantly, including on the middle class, to pay for his platform in the US. That said, if the NDP is the best anti-Ford option, they're the best anti-Ford option. I just don't know what the government would actually look like because I'm not sure it could look like this platform.

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Monday, 21 May 2018 01:21 (yesterday) Permalink

Better something you are not sure you could like than straight up something you are going to hate, not that you didn't made the point but let me reiterate.

Van Horn Street, Monday, 21 May 2018 05:15 (yesterday) Permalink

I agree, but I also agree w/ Sund4r that the ONDP (and the NDP more generally) hedge their bets far too much in terms of policy and I continue to believe that's their greatest liability at the ballot box.

Simon H., Monday, 21 May 2018 05:36 (yesterday) Permalink

The "you don't have to pick btwn bad and worse" messaging is actually not bad, but I wish there was more distance between their policy planks and the Liberals' to help back up the rhetoric (not to say there are non - pharmacare ain't nothing)

Simon H., Monday, 21 May 2018 05:37 (yesterday) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.