[Abyss]

My bucket-list includes a trip way North to see the Aurora, polar bears, and the Russian invasion fleet.

[cerveza_fiesta]

BACK ON TOPIC......

The media swings peoples' opinion and is second only to "that's the way my parents voted" in terms of voter influence. Canadian news has already decided that this is going to be a fight between Trudeau and Harper, and that NDP's gains are a blip in the road. That's all they've said since Trudeau became leader of the libs, so it's no wonder the polls are reflecting that right now.

It's a positive feedback loop -- they create the narrative, have it confirmed by polls a year later and then continue parroting the poll results which reinforces the narrative. Maybe it's not a conscious effort, but it seems to be what happens a lot of the time.

EDIT -- the above is just idle speculation on my part, I'm not saying it's the be-all end all. Possibly too cynical a view.

AND TO MERGE THE OFF TOPIC WITH THE TOPIC

How important to *anyone* is arctic sovereignty anyway. I mean really, who gives a shit beyond Harper's inner circle (maybe only him?). They always say it's for mineral / oil / fairydust rights, but It is so goddamn harsh and cold up there that even if they found oil there is literally no way to engineer a cost-effective solution for extracting it before the Saudis run out of oil (which is like 100 years from now ffs).

The underlying reason for investing in arctic sovereignty is flawed and is therefore stupid IMHO, and I can't conceive why the cons are invested to the tune of 40 BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS in such a useless project.

I'm not one to start crying "well ah don't want mah tax dollers goin to some stupid gov'mint project...." like 3/4 of the morons on the CBC comments section, but holy shit! 40 billion dollars is enough to bail all 4 maritime provinces out of debt and still have enough left over to buy coffee (at locally-owned specialty coffee shops) for everyone in the country for a year. I know the government line is "Well our shipbuilding money all gets spent in the local economy where the ships are being built, and we employ X thousand people for a decade" but that is a cruel twist on the truth....and not just ranting here, it really is a nasty twist.

Foreign companies with Canadian offices, and tax-dodging local companies (e.g. JD Irving) in the supply chain pay a pittance to local workers, and then pocket 90% of the difference using industrial research benefits, and then don't pay taxes using loopholes our illustrious government refuses to close. It literally contributes less to the local economy than a straight bailout and buying everyone coffee, and it literally provides the exact same level of protection against a fictional contender for arctic mineral rights. fucking stupid.

Ok, reaching CBC commenter levels of rant there, but unless I'm missing something blatantly obvious I will continue to rage over that one.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 23 January 2015 - 04:51 PM

[Studlock]

I love how this thread just turned into another virtual tour guide, except for this time it's by Canadians for Canadians!

To the issue at hand I'll probably vote NDP as I'm more aligned politically with social democratic ideals than I am liberal democratic ideals. I hope Harper is booted from office though.

Also just a clarification is this thread solely about 'small' politics and the working of the government or is about all politics big and small? Just wondering I'm in a politic and social change class right now and we're a lot of interesting things about power and, what I see as the performative element of power, politics and I would like to discuss some of this things in a Canadian context.

[cerveza_fiesta]

@Stud

I think the topic can be for any and all political topics really. There' s only so much to say about a federal election until it's called and the actual campaigning starts, so fire away.


I'd personally love to hear your thoughts on everything you said in your post. I have a far-too-peripheral understanding of what's going on in my country's leadership and thought this would be a good spot to talk about some of it.

[D'rek]

I think you're right about Trudeau, CF. I have to wonder if some other Liberal who few had heard of much before (a la Dion or Martin) had become the Liberal leader and done all the exact same things that Trudeau has done if they would be getting the same amount of press coverage as Trudeau. The media just loooooves talking about Trudeau, because of the legacy and because he's seemingly newsworthy just from being 'different' than the other main politicians (when really the 'different' is just a decade or two younger).

Obviously the media talks about the PM a lot, because he's the PM. Mulcaire is just not as sensational to talk about because he's sort of just an 'ordinary' politician and he's not currently in charge.

So, then, because they talk about Trudeau and Harper so much more they sort of unconsciously weave the narrative to themselves and the audience that it's really only about Trudeau and Harper, and it snowballs.

[Studlock]

I think on the topic of Trudeau represents something Canada wasn't had in a long time: a charismatic leader. Personally I think he has that certain persuasive touch, historically, many Canadian leaders didn't have. Compared to Harper, a individual who openly shuts down the press and scientific conversation and relies solely on policy to appeal to voters (among other things) Trudeau is, like, at least 10 golden Brad Pitts. I think that's why the media is so obsess with him--he's actually an interesting person (that and his obvious political legacy).

[cerveza_fiesta]

I know it's a bit silly to like a politicion for non-policy, non-platform reasons, but I do really like the way he deals with the "scandals" that the cons have been trying to pin on him.

Cons: He smoked POT in College!!!!
Trudeau: Yeah, me and pretty much everyone else. I didn't like it and I don't do it anymore. Next question?

Cons: He takes off his SHIRT at CHARITY EVENTS!!!!!!
Trudeau: Yeah it was a charity event and everybody was completely into it. Next question?

That's the intangible thing I like about Trudeau's attitude. He's willing to accept a *nothing* attack, call it nothing, and move on rather than feeding the flames with some big clumsy apology.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 23 January 2015 - 05:50 PM

[QuickTidal]

Studlock, on 23 January 2015 - 05:27 PM, said:

I think on the topic of Trudeau represents something Canada wasn't had in a long time: a charismatic leader. Personally I think he has that certain persuasive touch, historically, many Canadian leaders didn't have. Compared to Harper, a individual who openly shuts down the press and scientific conversation and relies solely on policy to appeal to voters (among other things) Trudeau is, like, at least 10 golden Brad Pitts. I think that's why the media is so obsess with him--he's actually an interesting person (that and his obvious political legacy).

This is totally true. Agreed.

However, he needs to be of a less "Conservative" mindset on the Oilsands I think. He's basically a part of my generation (he's about 5 years older) and we all grew up with massive attention to the environment...we need to get Canada OFF the list of worst environment offenders ("Fossil of the Year" award 5 years running...which is horrible), and the top of that list are egregious issues like us not having signed the Kyoto Accord...the continued push for the Oilsands (and the XL pipeline)...seriously every time I see that oilsands ad in the movie theatre I grind my effing teeth. But yeah, as a younger person I'm surprised his stance isn't less vehement on the environment issues Canada has been failing at in the last decade.

[Studlock]

The thing about the oilsands is I honestly don't think Canada, and not just Alberta, can get ride of the oilsands. I don't think it's to much of a reach to say the Alberta has been the engine of the Canadian economy for the last couple years. I think it's right behind Quebec in contribution to the GDP and while Ontario is contributing almost double to the GDP it has almost half the population of Canada while Alberta has around 3 million. Plus I think Alberta's economy is growing at a faster rate than pretty much any other province (or was we'll have to see what happens next). And just to illustrate how important the oilsands is to Alberta, about a quarter of the Province's budget comes from the gas and oil industry. Not to be cynical but I honestly think the oilsands is far to important is Canada's (and not just Alberta) economy to level off or even decrease it.

Not that I disagree with you. There has to be a cleaner way to access the stuff than what we do right now. I also think XL pipeline is a hugely irresponsible, not only environmental but also economically, to par take in. I honestly hope we as a country start developing something substantial outside of our primary industries which rule the day at the moment.

[QuickTidal]

Studlock, on 23 January 2015 - 06:18 PM, said:

The thing about the oilsands is I honestly don't think Canada, and not just Alberta, can get ride of the oilsands. I don't think it's to much of a reach to say the Alberta has been the engine of the Canadian economy for the last couple years. I think it's right behind Quebec in contribution to the GDP and while Ontario is contributing almost double to the GDP it has almost half the population of Canada while Alberta has around 3 million. Plus I think Alberta's economy is growing at a faster rate than pretty much any other province (or was we'll have to see what happens next). And just to illustrate how important the oilsands is to Alberta, about a quarter of the Province's budget comes from the gas and oil industry. Not to be cynical but I honestly think the oilsands is far to important is Canada's (and not just Alberta) economy to level off or even decrease it.

Not that I disagree with you. There has to be a cleaner way to access the stuff than what we do right now. I also think XL pipeline is a hugely irresponsible, not only environmental but also economically, to par take in. I honestly hope we as a country start developing something substantial outside of our primary industries which rule the day at the moment.

Oh indeed, I see that POV for sure. My issue with it comes from the fact that as a finite source (ancient sunlight...there is only so much under the earth) it's like a country saying "We know eventually this will run out, and we know it causes ALL kinds of other problems, but when that happens we'll deal with that bridge...It won't be on my watch." instead of actively trying to figure out the alternatives now. The government is more than willing to take all the water out of the bowl, without paying any attention for what happens when the bowl is empty and what taking the water out DID to the bowl and its surrounding area. That's what mostly bugs me about the oilsands. The carbon footprint from oilsands oil is insane (making a tiny car burn gas comparable to a Hummer or an F150), the tailings are horrible and will only get bigger (the toxic lakes are currently 176 SqKilometers), they produce greenhouse gases at 3 times the amount any other process does, fully exploiting the oilsands will possibly mean us giving off more emissions towards harming the climate than the US and China combined. It's all that stuff that is swept under the rug in the name of using up a limited resource because no one can/or wants to bother finding another way that really rankles me.

I'd love for Canada's politicians to give it more than casual lip-service.

[Studlock]

I definitely agree there. One of my biggest, upon many big problems, problem with Harper is his muzzling of environmental science. This process has to be transparent. In a democracy the power of society theoretically is in the hands of the citizens, and to make inform decisions we need to see what the fuck is going on. Man I hate Harper.

[QuickTidal]

Studlock, on 23 January 2015 - 07:25 PM, said:

I definitely agree there. One of my biggest, upon many big problems, problem with Harper is his muzzling of environmental science. This process has to be transparent. In a democracy the power of society theoretically is in the hands of the citizens, and to make inform decisions we need to see what the fuck is going on. Man I hate Harper.

Yeah, Harper is bloody useless. I agree fully.

[Wolf Ghost]

canadian politics are like watching school kids try to make decisions
Trudeau as a PM scares me, the liberals haven't bothered making a budget for their election platform two years in a row now so if elected theyre just going to wing it just because his dad was a popular pm does not mean he will be any good. Harper may not be popular with everyone but he at least worked his way up through different parts of the govt before he became PM, trudeau is simply riding his dads legacy. what worked in the 70s and 80s wont work now.
if liberals get power theyll tax the hell out of everyone, bloat the govt even more , kiss quebecs ass even more , decimate our army even more, probably close some more small town hospitals and schools and theyll ignore the west like they always have.
look at British Columbia if you want to see what will happen to the rest of Canada if liberals get power. even though we have every type of tourist attractions and bountiful amounts of natural resources some renewable and some not we are a have not province. liberals brought in HST and then flipflopped costing taxpayers billions to undo it all even though it actually did save companies a ton of time and money in accounting. they run a knee jerk govt and have no vision for the future
and its cold too but thats ok

[Studlock]

Yeah I don't think they'd raise taxes all that much, and especially not on areas that need it (like corporations). Economically I find both the conservative and liberals to be very similar as the both run it on neo-liberal principles. Forever growth and forever profit along with a close, incestual relationship with multinationals. I think there foreign policy might change in some regards and we might get more attention paid to less privilege areas of societies. As for Trudeau as PM, I don't know he seems to utterly comfortable with the spotlight and stress so far. I don't like Harper because some of his policies and programs are actively harmful, the aforementioned muzzling of science, the disconnection from the press, and so on.

Honesty I'll be happy if Harper and Conservatives are out, I'll be even more happy if the NDP are in but I doubt it.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Studlock, on 23 January 2015 - 07:25 PM, said:

I definitely agree there. One of my biggest, upon many big problems, problem with Harper is his muzzling of environmental science. This process has to be transparent. In a democracy the power of society theoretically is in the hands of the citizens, and to make inform decisions we need to see what the fuck is going on. Man I hate Harper.

Not to mention straight up burning environmental research

In regards to Stud's above point. I doubt theyd touch corp taxes rates, after all its still unknown who bears the burden of taxation.

http://www.cdhowe.or...-fairness/28070

I think this is a good way to reform the tax system. It's a study done by real economist so you dont get that politicised bullshit. (this is where i learned the term "elasticity of taxation"

Im honestly not keen on trudeau. I find him to mouch of an empty headed mouthpiece than anything else. He keeps saying dumb things and doesn't stick to it. He apoligsed for making a joke about russia invading ukraine after olympics, he made a comment saying albertans had to much say in our politics, and he also didn't even sit in to vote when the house was debating sending planes to fight isis.

Mulcair on the other hand has done a fine job as leader of the opposition. Further more im intrigued by his promise to establish an MMR voting system. Now personally i'm more taken by the STV voting system but mmr still has the advantage that by having 2 votes it reduces the need for strategic voting (which i think is abhorrent to democracy)

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 24 January 2015 - 04:14 AM

[Terez]

Andorion, on 22 January 2015 - 05:09 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 22 January 2015 - 02:53 PM, said:

Andorion, on 22 January 2015 - 01:08 AM, said:

Do Canadian elections ever take place after November? I would have thought it would be impossible to vote.

They give us heat guns to blast tunnel through the ice and the voting ballots are made of ice resistant polymers which we score with a curling iron-like device.

I assume this was a joke about cold Canadian weather. If it's not, please ignore.

Yup. Mainly because of my friend in Montreal who keeps on talking about what I am sure are mythical -23 C temperatures.

That is only about -10 F. We got colder than that in Illinois a couple of weeks ago.


PS: I am from Mississippi, which gets below 0˚C in the winter, but never below 0˚F. This is my first real winter.

This post has been edited by Terez: 25 January 2015 - 04:01 AM

[LinearPhilosopher]

Has any1 been following the cbc's latest personel scandal? To think i used to think of amanda lang as a good journalist (and i really enjoyed her recent book)

[cerveza_fiesta]

Wolf Ghost, on 23 January 2015 - 08:53 PM, said:

canadian politics are like watching school kids try to make decisions
Trudeau as a PM scares me, the liberals haven't bothered making a budget for their election platform two years in a row now so if electyre jued thest going to wing it just because his dad was a popular pm does not mean he will be any good. Harper may not be popular with everyone but he at least worked his way up through different parts of the govt before he became PM, trudeau is simply riding his dads legacy. what worked in the 70s and 80s wont work now.
if liberals get power theyll tax the hell out of everyone, bloat the govt even more , kiss quebecs ass even more , decimate our army even more, probably close some more small town hospitals and schools and theyll ignore the west like they always have.
look at British Columbia if you want to see what will happen to the rest of Canada if liberals get power. even though we have every type of tourist attractions and bountiful amounts of natural resources some renewable and some not we are a have not province. liberals brought in HST and then flipflopped costing taxpayers billions to undo it all even though it actually did save companies a ton of time and money in accounting. they run a knee jerk govt and have no vision for the future
and its cold too but thats ok

This looks a lot like one of the CBC comments I was talking about upthread...a lot of bites that sound good to say, but very little substance.

=================================

What do you think about the big news today that CSEC is tracking and screening downloads from file sharing sites looking for flagged files? I mean, we kinda knew they were doing something along those lines, but not at the scale that was reported...I mean it's wholesale warrantless spying on Canadians (and foreigners) any way you look at it, even though they're trying to downplay that aspect and call it something else.

I don't give too much of a shit personally because I'm not actively downloading terrorist cookbooks, or doing otherwise nefarious things online, but I can see why a lot of people would be very concerned on principle about the invasion of privacy, even though CSEC *promises* not to taddle on Canadians.

Wondering if folks think this will come up as a big issue in the election. The Snowden leaks have been a perpetual pain in the ass for politicians since they were first published - not because the politicians are directly responsible in every case, but because they are in a position to correct it. I feel like a party that campaigned heavily on reigning in the various security/spy agencies would strike a chord with the younger demographic they're all so depserate to enchant.

[cerveza_fiesta]

BalrogLord, on 26 January 2015 - 04:33 PM, said:

Has any1 been following the cbc's latest personel scandal? To think i used to think of amanda lang as a good journalist (and i really enjoyed her recent book)

I haven't been following it, but just got up to speed. Conflict of interest is a touchy thing, even if full disclosure is made of the conflict. You just can't get rid of the taint it spreads on your point of view.

I have to agree with the CBC decision on this. They are a respected news organization and if they're going to tell people their news is truthful and honest, then their talent can't be in any kind of perceived conflict with industry, government, or any other organization which they might have to report on in the future (Lang's RBC story for example).

The alternative is that you go "full disclosure" to the max and have some nobody sub-in for Peter Mansbridge every time an oil sands story comes up.

No, better just to not allow it. If they want to speak about something for altruistic purposes, then great. Journalists are allowed to have opinions and causes -- just not ones that pay tens of thousands of dollars into their personal bank accounts while they date RBC board members....ffs.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Anybody read anything about why John Baird resigned?

There's been a lot of speculation but I can't find anything reliable. Health problem makes sense for a snap decision like that, which seems to be the predominant theory, at least among reasonable journalists.

Among the more ridiculous news sources, conspiracy/scandal theories abound...I figure the poor guy just got cancer or something though.