Canadian Politics Megathread: That is simply not Trudeau

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canadian Politics Megathread: That is simply not Trudeau

«‹›675 »

Political Whores: Feb 13, 2012

The Globe and Mail largely sells to a specific audience that believes itself to be progressive, but still handwrings about the poors wasting their EI money on drugs. In short,

THC posted:

The Post sometimes has actual good articles, and other times it has something so completely awful it has to be parody. They always manage to keep me on my toes. The Globe is just the same bougie liberal garbage, week after week.

Which doesn't excuse them or anything, but they know specifically which market segment they are targeting with their bullshit. They're the Canadian newspaper equivalent of the Economist.

Political Whores fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jul 26, 2013

# ? Jul 26, 2013 19:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 19, 2024 23:19

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

The Globe essentially is trying to be the national newspaper that represents the Liberal Party's viewpoint, while the Post is representing the Conservative Party's viewpoint. The big difference is that the Globe has a long history while the Post doesn't (1844 vs. 1998). So the Globe has this long history of Liberal centrism, but then when the Liberals made their neoliberal turn in the 90s the Globe followed right alongside them, and now it's a poo poo neoliberal paper that still has a reputation of being a centrist national media source. The Post on the other hand never had any pretensions of following the old Tories since it was founded after they ceased being relevant, and has been able to follow the new neocon line pretty much from day one, which means its reputation actually matches the journalism it puts out.

Of note though, the Post still manages good opinions about things sometimes, like the number of articles they've had backing Trudeau's stance on legalization of marijuana.

# ? Jul 26, 2013 22:30

Justin Trudeau: Apr 4, 2009; There's a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime

The Globe and Mail strikes me as the kind of newspaper that will endorse whichever party they think is likeliest to win the election.

# ? Jul 27, 2013 04:47

PoizenJam: Dec 2, 2006; Damn!!!
It's PoizenJam!!!

Team THEOLOGY posted:

So basically, we will see this materializing in the later half of the century.

Does the bolded line refer to the LSVW or MLVW? I sure did love air-over-hydraulic brakes on the latter, and the most ear piercing squeeling brakes and turning system on the former, so they kind of both fit the description :downs:

PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Jul 27, 2013

# ? Jul 27, 2013 04:53

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

dethslayer666 posted:

The Globe and Mail strikes me as the kind of newspaper that will endorse whichever party they think is likeliest to win the election.

You mean like the time they endorsed Harper last election?

# ? Jul 27, 2013 05:21

Baloogan: Dec 5, 2004; Fun Shoe

Is this Junior Trudough serious about legalizing weed?

# ? Jul 27, 2013 06:27

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

Probably not but does it matter? People will vote for him solely on that issue. Wrap it up, Mulcailures.

# ? Jul 27, 2013 08:27

Tighclops: Jan 23, 2008; Unable to deal with it; Grimey Drawer

Trudeau will legalize weed just as soon as I quit drinking and the Americans return to the moon.

# ? Jul 27, 2013 09:38

Blade_of_tyshalle: Jul 12, 2009; If you think that, along the way, you're not going to fail... you're blind.

There's no one I've ever met, no matter how successful they are, who hasn't said they had their failures along the way.

I won't take JT serious on that issue until he shows up for Hitler's Birthday on the Hill to blaze with all the other Neo-Nazis :canada:

# ? Jul 27, 2013 14:03

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

Baloogan posted:

Is this Junior Trudough serious about legalizing weed?

Well this is a very recent change, he previously voted in favour of the Conservative Bill to put mandatory minimums on cannabis related drug crimes and opposed legalization at his Party's policy convention.

Also his only stated reason for changing his mind is that legalizing weed will somehow "keep it out of the hands of our kids."

# ? Jul 27, 2013 15:48

a primate: Jun 2, 2010

Well, contrast that with the NDP's apparent position, which is simply criticizing Trudeau for pandering and calling it a "complex issue".

I'm not a Trudeau fan, but he's at least paying lip service to sound, evidence-based policy, which is more than can be said for the CPC and NDP on this issue. Credit where credit is due, and all that. In the meantime, I'm convinced the NDP's position has more to do with centrist aspirations than a principled approach.

a primate fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Jul 27, 2013

# ? Jul 27, 2013 15:50

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

The NDP's position has been decriminalization for a long, long time and there position isn't very different if Trudeau is now saying decriminalization would be the first step.

# ? Jul 27, 2013 15:52

a primate: Jun 2, 2010

Here is Mulcair saying decriminalization would be a mistake due to the quality of weed or something, quoted in response to the Young Liberals coming out in favour of legalization. At this point I'm awaiting further clarification on the issue. The NDP should be in the news telling everyone where they stand, but all we've heard is The CPC's usual boilerplate.

# ? Jul 27, 2013 16:03

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

bunnyofdoom posted:

So, everyone's favourite parliamentarian Dean Del Maestro send out some 10%ers. And he included a braille message for all his blind constituents....which was printed on, not embossed..

I missed this post earlier, but it's hilarious. Nothing like failing to pander so badly. I wonder how many non-blind people fell for this poo poo.

# ? Jul 27, 2013 16:20

Pinterest Mom: Jun 9, 2009

Mulcair is super dumb on drug issues.

Man, if the Forum byelection polls are anywhere near correct, the OLP is about to get wrecked in the by-election.

They're leading the PCs 36-32 in Scarborough.
In third place, 40 points behind the NDP, in Windsor.
In third place with only 17% in London, with 36-31 to the PCs over the NDP.
Down 47-40 against the PCs in Etobicoke.
Down 48-34 against the PCs in Ottawa South.

Can you smell the Hudakmentum?

# ? Jul 27, 2013 21:44

Team THEOLOGY: Nov 27, 2008

Pinterest Mom posted:

Mulcair is super dumb on drug issues.

Man, if the Forum byelection polls are anywhere near correct, the OLP is about to get wrecked in the by-election.

They're leading the PCs 36-32 in Scarborough.
In third place, 40 points behind the NDP, in Windsor.
In third place with only 17% in London, with 36-31 to the PCs over the NDP.
Down 47-40 against the PCs in Etobicoke.
Down 48-34 against the PCs in Ottawa South.

Can you smell the Hudakmentum?

Yea things are looking pretty rosy on the ground in Ottawa south for us haha

# ? Jul 27, 2013 22:42

a primate: Jun 2, 2010

Pinterest Mom posted:

Mulcair is super dumb on drug issues.

Any chance we have sound policy coming our way at some point?

Pinterest Mom posted:

Can you smell the Hudakmentum?

Ughhh please tell me this is not a sign of things to come.

# ? Jul 27, 2013 23:25

Dallan Invictus: Oct 11, 2007; The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes, look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.

a primate posted:

Ughhh please tell me this is not a sign of things to come.

Premiers Adrian Dix and Danielle Smith tell me that early polls should never be doubted.

# ? Jul 27, 2013 23:38

brucio: Nov 22, 2004

I feel like if Hudak became premier this year, the CPC could kiss their Ontario seats goodbye in 2015. The stink of Hudak's PC's would have to rub off on the CPC.

# ? Jul 27, 2013 23:44

Political Whores: Feb 13, 2012

brucio posted:

I feel like if Hudak became premier this year, the CPC could kiss their Ontario seats goodbye in 2015. The stink of Hudak's PC's would have to rub off on the CPC.

I've spoken to people who don't seem to even realize that the collapse of the federal PCs even happened (they were Con voters too). For at least part of their voting base, the CPC is effectively wearing the PC's skin as a costume.

# ? Jul 27, 2013 23:51

Baloogan: Dec 5, 2004; Fun Shoe

The federal conservatives have a history that makes no sense. Still better than the so called natural ruling party though.

# ? Jul 28, 2013 00:06

Furnaceface: Oct 21, 2004

Hudak? As in the guy that literally ran on the Republican platform and is vocally in support of private prisons, right to work laws, and killing off unions?

This will surely end well.

# ? Jul 28, 2013 00:17

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Actually, for that exact reason I wouldn't count on this translating to Hudakmentum. By-elections are much more about the individual candidates and local issues than regular elections are, whereas regular elections are almost entirely about the party leaders and the overall provincial (or federal) policies. This is a fairly common and uniform trend. Add to that the fact that by-elections tend to favour the opposition, and what you get is a bunch of Conservative candidates that can win by-elections on their own merits combined with 'gently caress the Liberals' sentiment. In an actual election where Hudak gets to open his big mouth all the time and talk about privatizing the LCBO and OLC, selling off all our assets, private prisons, union busting, religious and private schools, etc etc, it's far from a sure thing even if early polls and by-election results may point otherwise. Remember Hudak opened with like a 20 point lead over McGuinty in 2011 and ended up getting his rear end handed to him because Ontario can't stand Tim Hudak.

# ? Jul 28, 2013 00:34

less than three: Aug 9, 2007; Fallen Rib

Bell took out a 2 full page :qq:

whinefest :qq:

in a few newspapers due to the threat of Verizon entering the wireless market.

quote:

Bell Canada is taking the unusual step of writing to all Canadians today. As the nation�s longest-serving telecommunications company, established shortly after Confederation in 1880, we would like to ensure Canadians clearly understand a critical situation impacting their world-leading wireless industry.

Verizon Communications, a $120-billion US telecommunications giant with 100 million wireless customers, is considering entering the Canadian market. A company of this scale certainly doesn�t need handouts from Canadians or special regulatory advantages over Canadian companies. But that is exactly what they get in the new federal wireless regulations.

Bell welcomes any competitor, but they should compete on a level playing field. Fair competition is something Canadians demand and something Bell expects too after 133 years of investment in delivering world-class communications services to Canadians.

Unintended advantages for American giants: How we got here
The federal government has recently taken an activist role in regulating Canada�s wireless industry. That includes giving various benefits to small startup wireless competitors. With Ottawa�s help, the new companies have become part of the vigorously competitive Canadian wireless marketplace.

But the government inadvertently left holes in the wireless rules that would give big US corporations the same extraordinary advantages as the small startups. And all Canadians are on the hook to pay.

Verizon has said it�s looking at taking advantage of this unique opportunity. We do not believe a US company 4x the size of Canada�s entire wireless industry combined requires special help from Canada. It�s profoundly unfair to all Canadians, and Ottawa needs to close the loopholes.

3 loopholes in the rules
Under federal regulations originally designed for startup competitors, Verizon would actually get these benefits�

Verizon would be able to buy twice as much of Canada�s airwaves as Canadian companies like Bell can in an upcoming auction of wireless spectrum � the airwaves that carry your calls and data.

These airwaves are a public resource, and access to them is critical to providing you with world-leading wireless services. When Ottawa auctions off Canada�s airwaves for use by telecommunications companies, it gets significant revenues. These are public funds. It is inappropriate for our own government to essentially reserve a public resource for a company like Verizon to the detriment of Canadian companies. In doing so, the government will also reduce federal auction revenue significantly � by potentially hundreds of millions of dollars. A loophole that gives US companies access to twice as much of our airwaves and at a lower cost is an unfair advantage, paid for by Canadians.

They get to piggyback on the networks of Canadian carriers wherever they don�t want to invest and build their own.

Under the rules, Verizon would have the right to offer wireless service using the advanced networks funded by Canadian companies and built by Canadian workers. Industry experts say a Verizon wouldn�t need to build its own network throughout Canada, invest in Canada�s rural communities, or support Canadian jobs like Canadian wireless companies do. Instead, they would concentrate on a few big urban centres, forcing Canadian carriers to do the same while potentially cutting jobs and slashing costs in order to compete.

Verizon can acquire smaller Canadian competitors � but Bell and other Canadian wireless companies can�t even try.

American players like Verizon can buy up new Canadian wireless companies like Wind Mobile and Mobilicity at cut-rate prices � including their existing spectrum holdings previously subsidized by Canadian taxpayers.

Yet Canadian carriers like Bell are restricted from competing to acquire these Canadian startups, even if the new companies want it to happen. That means Verizon gets them for below-market value. What did Ottawa get from the United States in return for this unprecedented access to Canada? Nothing. No reciprocity in the US for Canadian companies. In fact, can you even imagine Canadian wireless companies getting preferred access to New York, Los Angeles or Chicago?
3 straightforward ways to close the loopholes
The Bell team is ready to compete with anyone for your business on a level playing field. But big US companies taking advantage of rules designed to help Canadian startup is just not on the level.

To get wireless policy back on track, we propose that�

Canadian wireless carriers should be able to bid for the same amount of Canada’s airwaves as Americans can.

US operators entering Canada should roll out wireless service across the country, just as Canadian companies have.

If a small Canadian wireless company seeks a buyer, Canadian carriers should be allowed to bid, just as the Americans can.
US giants don�t need special help from the Canadian government, and Canadians shouldn�t have to pay their way into the country.

Instead, let�s give Canada�s own communications companies a fair chance to compete with them.

Of course they just casually forget to mention that Bell, Telus and Rogers already each received a large allocation of spectrum, for free. Reserving spectrum for a 4th competitor is moving towards levelling the playing field. Hell if you wanted to be just as equal I'd give Verizon the two blocks for free, because BTR each received 6 blocks for free from the government. At least Verizon will have to pay for the 2 blocks reserved for them.

Some great slides from Bell:

(Ignores that each Telco has around 8-10 blocks already, in addition to these two coming up for auction. In the past, this type of auction has led to Rogers buying one block, and Telus/Bell splitting the 2nd block based on region.)

Look at what this threat of competition is doing to OUR SHARE PRICES. YOU MONSTERS.

Furthermore, the telcos are comically inefficient at using their spectrum. In 2011 the CTIA compared the amount of spectrum with the number of wireless subscribers to determine how many subscribers are served per MHz of spectrum allocated. In a comparison of ten leading countries, Canada ranked last in spectrum efficiency. While the U.S carriers used one MHz to nearly 740,000 subscribers, the Canadian rate was 90,992 subscribers per MHz.

Each of the Canadian carriers is at the top (or near it) of spectrum held among countries in the world. I'm looking for that report and will post once I find it. They need the spectrum to keep out competition, not because they're running dry. If they need it to support future mobile frequences such as 1700 and 700MHz, they should be forced to give up some of the large chunks of 850 and 1900 that they are just sitting on.

less than three fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Jul 28, 2013

# ? Jul 28, 2013 01:16

bunnyofdoom: Mar 29, 2008; I've been here the whole time, and you're not my real Dad!

eXXon posted:

I missed this post earlier, but it's hilarious. Nothing like failing to pander so badly. I wonder how many non-blind people fell for this poo poo.

It's also on baird's one too. Its embarassing.

# ? Jul 28, 2013 01:50

Danny LaFever: Dec 29, 2008; Grimey Drawer

bunnyofdoom posted:

It's also on baird's one too. Its embarassing.

It's on Vellacott's as well and then he told me he's not running again in 2015 and I went blind. (temporarily)

# ? Jul 28, 2013 03:45

Blade_of_tyshalle: Jul 12, 2009; If you think that, along the way, you're not going to fail... you're blind.

There's no one I've ever met, no matter how successful they are, who hasn't said they had their failures along the way.

I just shook Dave McGuinty's hand :supaburn:

# ? Jul 28, 2013 18:18

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

less than three posted:

Bell took out a 2 full page whinefest in a few newspapers due to the threat of Verizon entering the wireless market.

Schadenfreude feels so good.

# ? Jul 28, 2013 18:51

MrChips: Jun 10, 2005; FLIGHT SAFETY TIP: Fatties out first

I just had to sit through an Economic Action Plan ad on MLB.tv. Truly nowhere is safe!

e: If these keep playing every loving half inning... :suicide:

MrChips fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Jul 29, 2013

# ? Jul 29, 2013 02:27

Reince Penis: Nov 15, 2007; by R. Guyovich

MrChips posted:

I just had to sit through an Economic Action Plan ad on MLB.tv. Truly nowhere is safe!

e: If these keep playing every loving half inning...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWEnqC1uPu0

Content: This shooting of an eighteen year old by police on a streetcar Friday night in Toronto is getting some traction. This one seems to have struck a chord with people, either because of location or the multiple angles on video.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 04:14

Darude - Adam Sandstorm: Aug 16, 2012

I just don't understand why the police even rushed on the streetcar in the first place when he was isolated and by himself on it. What threat did he pose outside of clogging traffic lanes?

# ? Jul 29, 2013 06:26

Political Whores: Feb 13, 2012

I don't understand how one guy with a knife could possibly necessitate multiple gunshots.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 06:36

bub spank: Feb 1, 2005; the THRILL

Cordyceps Headache posted:

I don't understand how one guy with a knife could possibly necessitate multiple gunshots.

Not just multiple gunshots, but four or five shots, then a 10 second or so delay while the kid probably fell down or something, and then another 6 shots for good measure. And then apparently a tazer.

bub spank fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Jul 29, 2013

# ? Jul 29, 2013 06:45

PittTheElder: Feb 13, 2012; Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

Yeah, what the hell happened there? It sounds like it was one guy, armed with a knife, alone on a bus, who was then shot by a bunch (one in a bunch?) of police officers. The video I watched was super hard to follow, but it looks like nobody is really moving at all, and then there's a bunch of shots.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 06:52

Paper Mac: Mar 2, 2007; lives in a paper shack

I think it was just the one officer firing, his or her pistol is obscured by the lightpost in the video I saw, but in the second round of shots you can see their forearms moving with the recoil.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 06:54

Blade_of_tyshalle: Jul 12, 2009; If you think that, along the way, you're not going to fail... you're blind.

There's no one I've ever met, no matter how successful they are, who hasn't said they had their failures along the way.

Sir, drop the knife! Stop! Do not move! Put down the knife! Do not move, sir! Sir! Sir, I will ask you again, to put down the knife! Do not move!

Suspect is non-compliant, lethal force authorized.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 13:17

Wistful of Dollars: Aug 25, 2009

less than three posted:

Bell took out a 2 full page whinefest in a few newspapers due to the threat of Verizon entering the wireless market.

You're going to eat your competition and you're going to like it.

Wait, they've already been doing that...

# ? Jul 29, 2013 13:37

Reince Penis: Nov 15, 2007; by R. Guyovich

PittTheElder posted:

Yeah, what the hell happened there? It sounds like it was one guy, armed with a knife, alone on a bus, who was then shot by a bunch (one in a bunch?) of police officers. The video I watched was super hard to follow, but it looks like nobody is really moving at all, and then there's a bunch of shots.

Something really hosed up went down. March/vigil tonight seems to have about 750 people saying they'll attend on facebook, but they've changed the original route (from the site of the shooting to the police station ~1 km) to Dundas Square to the site of the shooting ( ~3km through downtown in rushhour). Big strategic mistake if you ask me, the cops aren't going to let people block off major arteries in rush hour unless you have thousands in the street. Expect to see police violence on the 11 o'clock news.

Reince Penis fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Jul 29, 2013

# ? Jul 29, 2013 14:00

colonel_korn: May 16, 2003

burf posted:

Not just multiple gunshots, but four or five shots, then a 10 second or so delay while the kid probably fell down or something, and then another 6 shots for good measure. And then apparently a tazer.

Seems reasonable to me, a knife is much more dangerous than a stapler, after all.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 14:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 19, 2024 23:19

Scald: May 5, 2008; Can't post for 26 years!

colonel_korn posted:

Seems reasonable to me, a knife is much more dangerous than a stapler, after all.

Good luck decapitating someone with a stapler.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 16:43

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canadian Politics Megathread: That is simply not Trudeau

«‹›675 »