Canadian Politics

[GCn20]

8 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

I don't think you read your own link.  Just off the top, it assigns all anarchists to the far-left, which totally ignores the Boogaloo Boys.  It suggests that Bill Barr designating certain cities as "anarchist jurisdictions" is a legitimate (and not political) action.

But it does have some facts:

• "By certain metrics, such as human casualties and frequency of attacks, the violence committed by AVE actors in the past decade pales in comparison to other categories of violent extremists"
  • But then:  "Nevertheless, this dynamic is subject to change, 21 and ongoing trends in American society could lead to increased frequency and lethality of AVE attacks."  Do I have to explain to you that this is mere speculation?
• It cites 7 incidents between 2015-2019 and again lumps anarchists in with the far left without support.  One example is a couple that corresponded with far-right terrorist Dylan Roof.  Another incident is possession of a machine gun, but no plan to use it is cited.  A third incident mentions counter-protesting against a far-right group in Berkeley.
• And then you get this gem:  "Trend 3: Polarization in the United States may escalate lethality and frequency of AVE-related terrorism".  This is a both sides problem - not a far-left problem - and again - purely speculative.  This paper is falling apart....
• It keeps lumping anarchists and racially/ethnically motivated groups in with the far left.....aaargggghhhhh!

Please vet what you post.

I think it is a well researched and properly peer reviewed publication from a reputable university. Naturally you don't because it basically proves your bias. Whatever....and anarchists are primarily far left. You don't get to change that because it doesn't fit your left is morally superior narrative.

2 minutes ago, rebusrankin said:

@Mark H.made an excellent point, both the PCs and the NDP have weak pools to choose a cabinet from.

Yes, it is not good.

Edited December 13, 2022 by GCn20

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

34 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Anarchist - Left-Wing Violent Extremism in America.pdf

See the link below.

I don't think you have fully read that study.

It does mention the rise of the left wing terrorism as a direct result of right wing terrorism... 

 

I feel you are really trying to "both sides" this argument when in reality there is overwhelming amounts of examples of right wing extremism and RW domestic terror than the left wing brand of terror. 

[GCn20]

7 minutes ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

I don't think you have fully read that study.

It does mention the rise of the left wing terrorism as a direct result of right wing terrorism... 

 

I feel you are really trying to "both sides" this argument when in reality there is overwhelming amounts of examples of right wing extremism and RW domestic terror than the left wing brand of terror. 

Far right extremism is dangerous for sure. It has been suggested here that there is no far left terrorism or that somehow one spectrum's terrorist is more dangerous. My only point is that political based terrorism exists on both sides of the political spectrum and measuring how dangerous one is becomes purely speculative ergo opinion. It is complete idiocy imo, to even associate any of these wingnuts with any mainstream kind of political label. None of them represent any known part of any political spectrum, they exist in a different political ideological realm than the rest of us. Using far right/left terrorist as proof of concept against any political mainstream system is boogeyman politics.

Edited December 13, 2022 by GCn20

[blue_gold_84]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trade-minister-conflict-of-interest-1.6684025

Quote

International Trade Minister Mary Ng has apologized after Canada's conflict of interest and ethics commissioner concluded she placed herself in a conflict of interest through her involvement in a decision by her office to award contracts to a friend's company.

Ng's office signed contracts for media and communications training with public relations agency Pomp & Circumstance, co-founded and run by Amanda Alvaro.

The commissioner stated in his report, released Tuesday, that Ng and Alvaro are friends according to the definition in the Conflict of Interest Act. Alvaro is a regular panellist on CBC's Power & Politics.

The contracts were signed on behalf of the minister in March 2019 and April 2020. 

"Minister Ng twice failed to recognize a potential conflict of interest involving a friend, an oversight of her obligations under the Conflict of Interest Act," Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion said in a news release.

"There is simply no excuse for contracting with a friend's company."

In a statement posted to Twitter Tuesday, Ng apologized.

"I take full responsibility for my actions. I should have recused myself and apologize to all for not having done so," Ng said in the statement.

"At no time was there an issue of any personal benefit for me, nor any intention for anyone to benefit inappropriately."

A hollow and clownish apology makes it all better. How absurd.

[JCon]

1 minute ago, blue_gold_84 said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trade-minister-conflict-of-interest-1.6684025

A hollow and clownish apology makes it all better. How absurd.

Should lose her portfolio. 

[GCn20]

2 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trade-minister-conflict-of-interest-1.6684025

A hollow and clownish apology makes it all better. How absurd.

Unfortunate. It is pretty absurd.

1 minute ago, JCon said:

Should lose her portfolio. 

I am sure she will.

[Wideleft]

10 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Far right extremism is dangerous for sure. It has been suggested here that there is no far left terrorism or that somehow one spectrum's terrorist is more dangerous. My only point is that political based terrorism exists on both sides of the political spectrum and measuring how dangerous one is becomes purely speculative ergo opinion. It is complete idiocy imo, to even associate any of these wingnuts with any mainstream kind of political label. None of them represent any known part of any political spectrum, they exist in a different political ideological realm than the rest of us. Using far right/left terrorist as proof of concept against any political mainstream system is boogeyman politics.

Where?

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

12 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Far right extremism is dangerous for sure. It has been suggested here that there is no far left terrorism or that somehow one spectrum's terrorist is more dangerous. My only point is that political based terrorism exists on both sides of the political spectrum and measuring how dangerous one is becomes purely speculative ergo opinion. It is complete idiocy imo, to even associate any of these wingnuts with any mainstream kind of political label. None of them represent any known part of any political spectrum, they exist in a different political ideological realm than the rest of us. Using far right/left terrorist as proof of concept against any political mainstream system is boogeyman politics.

You are conflating extremist groups with acts of terror. 

Which is it? 

There are extremist groups on both sides, to be sure. what is being said here, correct me if I am wrong, is that there is far more examples of right wing terror acts than left wing terror acts. 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Wanna-B-Fanboy

[Bigblue204]

31 minutes ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

You are conflating extremist groups with acts of terror. 

Which is it? 

There are extremist groups on both sides, to be sure. what is being said here, correct me if I am wrong, is that there is far more examples of right wing terror acts than left wing terror acts. 

I don't think it can even be properly argued. The far right is and has been more of a threat for a while. As has been posted, thats according to people far more qualified than I. The left certainly have some nuts, but they usually stick to absolutely horrible policy/law/regulations type of stuff. A lot less violence from the left compared to the Right. 

People often point to "Antifa" as a left wing terrorist group. But as far as I know, there has been zero evidence that they are actually a organization on the level of say...the proud boys (lol). 

8 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

What a ridiculous argument. You just keep thinking that. Did my generation hover around our kids when they were growing up? Yeah, we did. But Newsflash, your generation is 100 percent as bad as mine was. Was this behaviour an overreaction? Yeah, absolutely.

You can type out a personal story all you want. 1 anecdotal situation proves absolutely nothing. Boomers are the majority of voters right now and have been for decades. Look at our society/our leaders. That's just one example. The world is in the position it's in (both good and bad) largely because of the boomer generation.

As for your story...you're missing the point. Yeah millennials etc. have their far share of nut bags...but who raised those nut bags?

[Wideleft]

1 hour ago, rebusrankin said:

@Mark H.made an excellent point, both the PCs and the NDP have weak pools to choose a cabinet from.

Head over here and you tell me you can't find enough for a much better cabinet than we have now (I know - low bar).  It is a diverse group with a variety of work, educational, community organizing and many with significant government experience.

https://www.mbndp.ca/ourteam

One with a Masters in Education

One with a Masters in Public Administration

One with a PhD in Natural Resources.

2 small business owners

1 University Professor (Chemistry & Physics)

7 teachers

1 Labour Activist

2 Lawyers

2 School trustees

1 Author/Musician/Journalist

3 former FN Chiefs

1 Paramedic

1 Youth Correctional Officer/Counsellor

2 Nurses

1 Co-founder of  Families of Murdered & Missing Indigenous Women

1 U of M Student Union President

1 Singer/Songwriter

1 Corp experience in Financial and Ag sector

1 Business Exec

Sitting MLA's include the first Black man, the first First Nations Woman and the first non-binary elected

 

[Tracker]

6 hours ago, GCn20 said:

I believe the far left has it's domestic terrorists as well.

The PCs lasted 2 terms and defeated morons. It's kind of *** for tat. I am totally in favor of this CONs government getting the boot. They are rudderless, and really haven't done anything worthwhile since setting the economy back in track in their first term. However, people still remember Selinger and his cabinet of buffoons as well. When the NDP start raising that tax spectre, as they inevitably will have to do, watch the polls. People aren't enamored by Kinew. The best he can hope for is to be tolerated and that doesn't leave him much wiggle room.

Raising taxes is not the be-all and end-all many would have people believe. The countries which have the highest taxes along with the attendant social programs like subsidized post-secondary education have the most stable democracies and the most contented citizens. When you contrast that against the right-wing governments such as the US, Chin and  Russia, where its everyone for themselves, the difference in societal behaviours are stark. 

The FBI has stated that the largest concerns in the US have arisen from right-wing groups  and I defy you to identify left-wing groups that have fomented violence to any degree. 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Tracker

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

4 hours ago, GCn20 said:

Far right extremism is dangerous for sure. It has been suggested here that there is no far left terrorism or that somehow one spectrum's terrorist is more dangerous. My only point is that political based terrorism exists on both sides of the political spectrum and measuring how dangerous one is becomes purely speculative ergo opinion. It is complete idiocy imo, to even associate any of these wingnuts with any mainstream kind of political label. None of them represent any known part of any political spectrum, they exist in a different political ideological realm than the rest of us. Using far right/left terrorist as proof of concept against any political mainstream system is boogeyman politics.

"... one spectrum's terrorist is more dangerous"

One side of that spectrum is pretty prominent with attempted insurrections, mass shootings, mass car-mowing incidents and so and so on. 

You shouldn't make false equivalencies here- it's not helpful to the dialogue- which is limiting these threats and how to mitigate them. 

It's not speculative... you can literally find the stats on that.

Here is a pretty good article on exactly that:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2021/domestic-terrorism-data/

 

 

[Mark H.]

4 hours ago, Wideleft said:

Head over here and you tell me you can't find enough for a much better cabinet than we have now (I know - low bar).  It is a diverse group with a variety of work, educational, community organizing and many with significant government experience.

https://www.mbndp.ca/ourteam

 

I didn't want to quote your entire post, but as far just their credentials are concerned, there are not that many differences

PC caucus

Nursing: 1

Career Politician: 1

Doctor/Vet: 1

Military: 1

Teacher: 3

Business/Marketing: 1

Healthcare Administration: 1

Agriculture/Environment: 5

Social Services: 1

Community Advocate: 4

Small Business owner/Municipal politics: 8

Financial services: 4

Technology Development: 1

School Trustees: 2

Education Administration: 1

Journalism: 1

A Metis MLA, the First ever black MLA, etc.  

https://pcmanitoba.com/our-team/

[SpeedFlex27]

12 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

I don't think it can even be properly argued. The far right is and has been more of a threat for a while. As has been posted, thats according to people far more qualified than I. The left certainly have some nuts, but they usually stick to absolutely horrible policy/law/regulations type of stuff. A lot less violence from the left compared to the Right. 

People often point to "Antifa" as a left wing terrorist group. But as far as I know, there has been zero evidence that they are actually a organization on the level of say...the proud boys (lol). 

You can type out a personal story all you want. 1 anecdotal situation proves absolutely nothing. Boomers are the majority of voters right now and have been for decades. Look at our society/our leaders. That's just one example. The world is in the position it's in (both good and bad) largely because of the boomer generation.

As for your story...you're missing the point. Yeah millennials etc. have their far share of nut bags...but who raised those nut bags?

Yeah, must be great to just wait out the previous generation so yours can take over & make everything right. No more war, no more poverty, no more inequality. You'll raise your kids right. The way I see it, your generation will **** up just as bad or worse than mine did. And yours will **** up.... it's guaranteed. Every other generation did. 

 

[WildPath]

14 hours ago, Mark H. said:

I didn't want to quote your entire post, but as far just their credentials are concerned, there are not that many differences

PC caucus

Nursing: 1

Career Politician: 1

Doctor/Vet: 1

Military: 1

Teacher: 3

Business/Marketing: 1

Healthcare Administration: 1

Agriculture/Environment: 5

Social Services: 1

Community Advocate: 4

Small Business owner/Municipal politics: 8

Financial services: 4

Technology Development: 1

School Trustees: 2

Education Administration: 1

Journalism: 1

A Metis MLA, the First ever black MLA, etc.  

https://pcmanitoba.com/our-team/

This was Pallister's "possibly most diverse cabinet in the history of the country"

The Metis "doctor" MLA is only part of the cabinet because the previous person resigned over Pallister defending residential schools, only for the the incoming minister to immediately defend residential schools. From connections I have, I'm aware these types of ignorant and racist views are well-known about Lagimodiere.

I'm not sure which party would be considered more technically qualified. It seems as though PC party is more skewed to business and finance where NDP members are skewed towards social services. Obviously, that's not shocking. What is pretty clear is which members are more representative of Manitobans.

In the latest byelection Kevin Klein had a narrow victory while the NDP and Liberals both performed well. I work in the area and there were tons of NDP/Liberal lawn signs for the same residence. I really don't see that very often. I think that is a pretty good indication Klein only has the seat due to vote-splitting of NDP/Liberals. I'm a fan of the provincial Liberal party, but starting to lean towards @JCon sentiments that they are allowing PCs to be in a position of power despite the desires of the general population.

[GCJenks]

I grew up in this riding and owned a home there until a couple years ago. I was saddened to learn that Klein won, I think it is an indication of some of yesterdays conversation. Can the NDP offer enough candidates that people recognize and are willing to put their X beside? Jim Rondeau didn't win three terms in this riding because of the party leader, he won with hard work and dedication to his constituents. The NDP needs candidates that will mimic those actions and be in the community. I never voted for Jim but I respected the man, never have I seen anyone work so hard to serve his community in any capacity he could. I can't count how many times he volunteered to service at the Fall Suppers of many of the community churches. I wish there was a candidate of any party that was as dedicated as Jim to his constituents to vote for where I am now.

[Wideleft]

I voted in the bye-election yesterday.  Both the NDP and Liberals ran a very strong ground game.  Even Lamont came to my door with Rhonda Nichol.  Oxenham came to my door as well and each had follow up door knockers and phone calls.  The Liberal/NDP split was something I strongly suspected was going to happen.  Just my opinion, but I think if Nichol was the NDP candidate, she would have won by 5 points.

I told canvassers that I would like their leaders to seriously consider a merge as I neglected to mention this to Lamont during our 20 minute conversation.

We had zero Klein signs on our entire bay.

[Mark H.]

55 minutes ago, WildPath said:

This was Pallister's "possibly most diverse cabinet in the history of the country"

The Metis "doctor" MLA is only part of the cabinet because the previous person resigned over Pallister defending residential schools, only for the the incoming minister to immediately defend residential schools. From connections I have, I'm aware these types of ignorant and racist views are well-known about Lagimodiere.

I'm not sure which party would be considered more technically qualified. It seems as though PC party is more skewed to business and finance where NDP members are skewed towards social services. Obviously, that's not shocking. What is pretty clear is which members are more representative of Manitobans.

In the latest byelection Kevin Klein had a narrow victory while the NDP and Liberals both performed well. I work in the area and there were tons of NDP/Liberal lawn signs for the same residence. I really don't see that very often. I think that is a pretty good indication Klein only has the seat due to vote-splitting of NDP/Liberals. I'm a fan of the provincial Liberal party, but starting to lean towards @JCon sentiments that they are allowing PCs to be in a position of power despite the desires of the general population.

Yes, those are fair comments.  They do both have some genuinely good people, but also some warts

Squires and Clarke, for example, I would consider solid people. Both showed they were not afraid to oppose Pallister - which you rarely see these days

At the end of the day, it is what it is.  I don't think we want either party in power for too long

 

[17to85]

When discussing the quality of political candidates it is extremely fair to say the quality is **** across the board across the entire country.

[Wideleft]

4 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

When discussing the quality of political candidates it is extremely fair to say the quality is **** across the board across the entire country.

Nah.  This is the same kind of generalization as "they're all crooks" which further leads to voter apathy.

[Mark H.]

6 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

When discussing the quality of political candidates it is extremely fair to say the quality is **** across the board across the entire country.

And I'll be completely honest: in this area for sure, they used to run much more spirited campaigns, at all 3 levels of government

The last decade of so, we get mostly 'token candidates' running against the incumbents.  They throw up some signs and post on facebook and twitter

 

[GCn20]

1 hour ago, WildPath said:

This was Pallister's "possibly most diverse cabinet in the history of the country"

The Metis "doctor" MLA is only part of the cabinet because the previous person resigned over Pallister defending residential schools, only for the the incoming minister to immediately defend residential schools. From connections I have, I'm aware these types of ignorant and racist views are well-known about Lagimodiere.

I'm not sure which party would be considered more technically qualified. It seems as though PC party is more skewed to business and finance where NDP members are skewed towards social services. Obviously, that's not shocking. What is pretty clear is which members are more representative of Manitobans.

In the latest byelection Kevin Klein had a narrow victory while the NDP and Liberals both performed well. I work in the area and there were tons of NDP/Liberal lawn signs for the same residence. I really don't see that very often. I think that is a pretty good indication Klein only has the seat due to vote-splitting of NDP/Liberals. I'm a fan of the provincial Liberal party, but starting to lean towards @JCon sentiments that they are allowing PCs to be in a position of power despite the desires of the general population.

There can be no merger between the Libs and NDP until the NDP changes how much power they give to organized labor to run their party. I cannot see a federal, or provincial Liberal base being dictated to by the unions. The two parties are not that different philisophically in many regards, but the NDP's organized labor roots in their party's power structure creates a massive chasm to bridge. Also, I don't think a 2 party system would be any more beneficial at all. 

Edited December 14, 2022 by GCn20

[JCon]

I'm in favour of ranked ballots. That would be a better solution than a two-party system. 

[Wideleft]

Just now, GCn20 said:

There can be no merger between the Libs and NDP until the NDP changes how much power they give to organized labor to run their party. I cannot see a federal, or provincial Liberal base being dictated to by the unions.

Then so be it.  Some unions are already endorsing non-NDP candidates at the municipal, provincial and federal levels.

[GCn20]

3 minutes ago, JCon said:

I'm in favour of ranked ballots. That would be a better solution than a two-party system. 

I agree. I see little merit, based on US politics, in a two party system doing anything very productive.

3 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Then so be it.  Some unions are already endorsing non-NDP candidates at the municipal, provincial and federal levels.

Very little of that happens. Outliers. The NDP is the party of organized labor, and is set up as such. 

Edited December 14, 2022 by GCn20