Kudos to ABC News for not doing the usual “copaganda” thing and overusing passive voice.
It wasn’t so much about the socialism as it was about domestic (Iranian) control of domestic oil.
Socialism was just the icing on the interventionist cake.
Next time, don’t depose a democratically elected president at the behest British Petroleum, just because said president is too left wing and would rather like to keep his country’s oil wealth.
Also, don’t install an unpopular monarch in that left wing president’s place.
Finally, don’t continue to support said monarch such that his unpopularity inspires a fundamentalist counterrevolution.
It's self-hate for being a closeted sofasexual.
If you think Conservatives are going to pay for cops and courts and jails, I have a bridge to sell you. Oh, they'll talk a good game, but they won't spend a red cent.
Conservatives represent the rich. The rich can ignore this problem because they live and work in places where they're rarely, if ever, affected. They can afford to let the problem get really bad--especially when they're making bank on real estate and paying record-low taxes--so why would they pay for more cops or judges?
Maybe we'll get private prisons, but the US has shown that those actually cost more money, and it still doesn't address the gaps in the court system. Doug Ford could partner with Galen Weston on No Frills-branded prisons, where you can use your Optimum Points for, eg, smokes or rations, and even then it'd be a hard sell because other rich people aren't going to pick up the tab for the taxes needed to fund it.
That's what politicians should be doing, and it's certainly what advocates need to do, instead of tone-policing people who could be allies.
I've spent too much time around people who are addicts who got uppity about potential allies who referred to "safe injection sites" instead of "safe-use" or "safe-consumption. Like, that doesn't help your cause, all it does is push people away. I had one particularly smarmy person say she didn't care about how much the local SCS was helping the community because it wasn't for the community.
Like, how is that attitude in any way helpful?
Getting support for programs means building consensus, and all the progress that's been made is at risk of retrenching because we're failing to address the concerns of people in the community who aren't addicts, but at affected by the fallout from addiction. We're seeing this now as programs get cancelled because, frankly, we're not doing the hard and expensive part that's needed to support everyone.
The other post above puts it really succinctly: when you've lost the support of other homeless people, you have a serious problem.
“They can come down on you for a lot of things. They seized up the bank accounts for people who were protesting, the truckers. People who were donating to the truckers, they seized their bank accounts,” Rogan said.
One, this is normal. Large amounts of money moving in sketchy ways always gets FINTRAC's attention. The only reason this is getting traction is because white people got caught up in it--instead of Muslims or Tamils or suchlike--and white people finding out that laws apply to them is always funny to watch.
Second, wait until he finds out what Homeland Security can do. FINTRAC is actually pretty lightweight compared it's American equivalents.
The problem, at least from the perspective of people in the communities, is they're seeing people use drugs (and do all the things that people on drugs do, like theft, littering, leaving paraphenalia around, problematic behaviour, etc) anyway.
Source: personal experience. I live in a small Ontario city with a big drug problem. The SCS, while it helps with deaths due to drug use, doesn't appear help with the problems around drug use, especially for people who aren't addicts or people who care about addicts.
What they aren't understanding, is that the drug problem, as experienced by people who aren't addicts, doesn't really change as a result of safe-use sites. It stays the same, or at least get worse immediately around the area. The problem advocates have is that they don't (or won't) understand that people--and this hurts to hear--don't care if addicts die. They actually see that as a bonus: it means one less addict engaging in antisocial behaviour.
Governments really need to step up spending on the things that actually fix the problem of addiction from the perspective of people who are not addicts. This means large, comprehensive mental health facilties that are well-staffed. It means housing-first supports so they aren't using in parks. It means giving drugs away to addicts for free, so that they don't commit crimes. And--and this one hurts for advocates--it means involuntary incarceration for people who can't or won't benefit from the first three.
The problem, for governments, is that this is expensive, both monetarily and politically. It means spending a lot of money on people and buildings, which means taxes for the rich for things that benefit the poor. It means looking like jackbooted thugs when you arrest and detain people, which hurts their image among progressives, and it means giving addicts supports, housing and, honestly, free drugs, which pisses off conservatives. From the perspective of a politician, it's all-pain-no-gain. Except, y'know, solving the problem.
What does happen is that we do the cheap and easy part: decriminalization without supports (for Liberals) and tough talk without action (for Conservatives). Neither really helps much, unless you're rich, because the problems of drug addiction don't affect the rich.
I'd always heard "Onterrible" for Ontario, and I've definitely never heard anyone call it "the Heartland Province".
I'm sure we're not very far from Erdogan blaming a minority and maybe stirring up a small war.
There's a manual somewhere; "Despotism for Dummies" I think.
Can't find a fraction of of that to fix the Science Centre.
Can, however, spend a fifth of that amount to end the Beer Store contract early.
Finally, what's galling is that this is only the third or fourth most wasteful thing he's done, depending on if we count the attempted nine billion dollar Greenbelt Giveaway.
But yeah, Conservatives are "good with money".
How can someone be a die-hard Liberal? That's like being a die-hard Wonderbread fan.
If they were the kind of people to get tattoos, they'd read "Milquetoast4Lyfe"
If the polls hold up and the Conservative win people should realize that the LIberal’s could have changed things dramatically by implementing Voting Reform but refused to do so
They don't care.
If they lose, they know they'll be back in, depending on how bad the Conservatives do, on four to eight years, likely with a majority. Both parties are quite amenable to a periodic chair-switch.
However, if they had put through electoral reform, they'd never get another majority again. They'd have to share power with other, likely left-leaning, parties, which they wouldn't like. It would mean less power, less exclusive access to donations and reciprocation, and the ire of their donor class, who very much don't want to see a goverment that aligns with Canadians instead of the investor class.
The Liberals would ratther lose every seat in parliament than implement electoral reform.
He's a chameleon, but his favourite colour is green.
Again, the other guy is the son of a KKK member who took out the Central Park Five ad, and whose company was convicted of civil rights abuses multiple times.
Can we not with the centrist bullshit?
The media is desperate for balance. They're not able to say "this man is a deranged fascist who's harmful to the country and the world". They're fighting decades of professional inertia.
They just can't do it; their training doesn't let them. It's kind of like asking a scientist if they're certain that burning fossil fuels causes global warming: their training practically insists that they say "there's strong evidence that it does" instead of "yes, of course it does".
If they came out and said it, they wouldn't be "balanced". When you realize that the media cares more about balance than truth, it helps explain a lot of why we are where we are.
A lot of conservative supporters--especially the hard-core ones--have been influenced by Russian social media operations in the wake of Ukraine. The result is that internal party polling looks poor on things like "support for NATO".
The conservatives today aren't the conservatives of the 1950s and 60s. They're more like those of the 1920s and 30s: useful idiots at best, complicit at worst.
You want to fix this?
Start calling out right-wing terrorism. Including the stochastic bullshit that the CPC and it's pets in the media pull.
And it's pretty rich to see Poillievre crying about it since he's the one who's been courting this kind of stuff and whipping it up. Leopards, faces, etc.