healthetank @ healthetank @lemmy.ca

Посты

6

Комментарии

163

Joined

2 yr. ago

I mean yeah, but Canada produces an ENORMOUS percentage of the world's potash.

Edit: checked the numbers. Canada produced ~38% of the worlds potash (25mil lbs), while Belarus produced 5-7mil lbs, most of which already goes to China, Russia, and India. Canada exports 46% of our potash to the US, meaning the US could buy ALL of belarus' potash and still not meet current supply.

I was hopeful when he got elected, and he fulfilled some promises, but he failed to move forward with proportional representation election overhaul, IMO a major flaw that could've been what he was known for in the future. He's also had scandals like any other PM. The Me to We charity scandal (where a charity was awarded a large govt contract. The charity had previously paid Trudeau and family to appear at its events) was ultimately cleared by the ethics commissioner. His SNC lavalin scandal where he attempted to directly influence our justice minister to intervene on an ongoing criminal case, then removed her from her position when she refused. SNC lavalin was also found to have made illegal party donations, which the liberals didn't reveal when the initially found them.

He was also the first PM in history to have been found to break the federal ethics rules by accepting a private vacation for his family from Aga Khan, breaking the conflict of interest rules.

He's always paraded himself as very progressive, but images circulated of him wearing brown face when he was slightly younger (but definitely old enough to know better).

Finally, a ton of people who were anti-mask were fed rhetoric that it was Trudeau's fault for the masking requirements, despite the fact that it was almost entirely Provincial restrictions. They also tried to cry overreach when Ford failed to remove the Ottawa encampment, and Trudeau enacted the emergency act to clear them, though again, reviews after the fact cleared him and agreed it was an acceptable use of the powers.

Overall, an enormous step up from Harper says of no transparency, but he didn't quite live up to what many had hoped, and they're angry at the current situation, and blaming him is an easy scapegoat.

Very much a stretch, as nothing has happened yet, but according only to the letter of the law, he could fall under the definition of Treason,

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada, ... (c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

And high treason is defined as:

        46 (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

  

... (b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

(Emphasis mine).

If you really wanted to make the case, Trump's talking about levying war against Canada would be classified as high treason (if he were Canadian).

Literally any communication between Trump and Musk about invading or taking over Canada could be construed as treason. I have a hard time believing they *haven't * talked about it.

To be clear, you think there would be an actual war with any safe space to store prisoners? The US would roll over Canada's military in any open conflict, and crush any official bases. Any war would be entirely guerilla warfare, in which case taking prisoners is entirely unrealistic

I mean it's a bit on the nose even for Trump - "you're in danger, from us, so we're going to invade you so we won't threaten you anymore".

Beyond that it doesn't matter what we do as a country for military funding/improvements. If the US wants to invade, they will. It's literally impossible for a Country 1/10th the size to defend and win an outright fight. It's the occupation/pacification/integration bit that Canada would fight back on with guerilla warfare and have a chance of keeping them out, but that has nothing to do with military funding/spending

I mean yes, but what are we in danger of? One main reason we've dropped our military numbers, as far as I understand it, is that we don't have any serious enemies that are close to home. Russia invading over the artic has been the only "close" enemy, and even then it's been totally unrealistic for that to occur.

Just so I can understand your position better, are you against any kind of carbon taxation (ie Cap and trade, etc.), or this one specifically?

FYI they made the Narnia movies from the most interesting and least convoluted boos. Lion witch and wardrobe is book 2, prince Caspian is book 4, and Voyage is book 5. I don't believe they ever planned on doing the rest of the books. Book 1 and 7 both are some heavy allegorical books that probably wouldn't translate well, book 3 has some serious questionable bits that would be seen as pretty racist these days. Book 6 could be decent, but doesn't include the main siblings, so probably less interest from fans of the main actors.

My problem with Ford has never been that he doesn't like Canada, or is a sellout. I honestly just feel like he's a very average small/mid business owner here, who got himself elected and is treating it like he'd run his own business, which is decidedly NOT how a government should be run. He seems to think he can get away with stuff like the Greenbelt development, or push his own viewpoints like the wind turbine cancellations, which are exactly the kind of short sighted/backroom deal I'd expect from a small business person.

That being said, I'd take him over Trump-esque any day.

I work in road construction. I could maybe see this being feasible in highly localized critical areas, but this kind of road method can't become commonplace. Canada just has too many roads.

Maybe a bridge along the DVP in Toronto that always has bad ice accidents, or a major bike arterial path, but the numbers don't make sense for anywhere else. If a road/bridge is truly that bad for accidents, the Municipality is likely cheaper to redesign the approach/descent angles or change the speed limit rather than try this.

I note they don't talk about how much road a 50 or 60 ton system would be able to serve, compared to the Vancouver budget, or what maintenance costs are on a system that size. The article they link to discussing the system costs is specifically looking at the costs of a BTES system for buildings/complexs.

Out of curiosity, what kinds of things would a federal government have done to make you feel this sense of pride you're looking for? Are there any governments anywhere that have accomplished that task?

Did you read the article? They talk about this one guy who says they should be privatized, then go on to talk about why that isn't feasible or the problems those examples are already having with their privatized systems, including the drastically different population density. Its pretty clearly a "this doesnt make sense to do" article, even ending with "who would even want to buy it"

I always feel a little confused by people using "populism" as a bad thing. The literal definition is "appealing to the masses who feel their concerns are being ignored by those in power." That is a good thing, provided they aren't lying about their goals. Cost of living is going up and corporations are raking in record profits, homelessness is on the rise, etc. These are all problems that I feel could be addressed better by non neoliberal policies that actually don't further entrench those in power.

Populism by itself isn't bad.

Ha, nope! That'd involve some introspection and realization that they're partially responsible for the change in Christmas.

All of it basically boils down to "Christmas used to be fun and have seasonal stuff and now it doesn't". Most of the genuinely decent sounding points they make about things they miss seem to be more attributed to a lack of social network in the area (ie no caroling, no groups of neighbours out around a fire, etc) or to a lack of time/money in the school system OR desired by the parents (ie less christmas concerts, etc).

They come VERY close, for NatPo, to commenting on the commercialization of christmas, but manage to swing it back around to being our fault (not the corps), so its still a blah, uninspiring article.

Even then, that would not make that businessman the most knowledgeable in the world about medicine

Good for them! That's one of the big moves to try and break up unions - a two tier system that pits the union against its own members

Every letter still requires paid postage. The problem is, if you set the cost to be actual cost incurred, then anywhere remote or rural will be ridiculously expensive, and no one will send stuff, making the packages/letters that do need to be sent even more expensive, and creating a death spiral. It's no different than a million other public services that we pay for despite not using (public rec centers are sponsored in part by taxes despite charging admission/membership fees, daycare facilities get partially paid by the government, universities get some tax money despite the crazy fees we pay, etc).

But regarding the pension, I disagree - I believe that every job should be sufficient for someone to live comfortably on - why do we have jobs if someone can't live on them? And the reason they pay well and have pensions is because they're unionized, aznd have fought for the pay and pension they have.

Side note, but I always hate how it's described as "losses". No shit providing mail delivery is a service. It's nice to aim to reduce the cost as much as possible, but when you're looking at something like Canada where there are countless remote and difficult to reach communities, regular communication and parcel delivery is going to cost money

I don't know if I'm naive and this happens all the time, but it feels like an import of our neighbours base partisanship against ANYTHING the liberals propose based on it coming from them and not from the cons.

Disappointed, but unfortunately not surprised.