Kichae

Well, further end, at least. There's been very little in the way of movement leftward in the last 40 years.

Giving a sliver of a shit about PoC and vulnerable minorities is not a shift leftward.

In most countries you need to be a party member to engage in internal party politics. The idea that the heneral public makes direct choices for private political organizations is, honestly, kind of weird.

But also, which states require you to be an actual card-carrying member to participate in the primary? I was under the impression that most merely required that you register with the electoral office as a party supporter.

Being a "registered X" is very different from being "a member of X". Members get to do things like go to convemtions where party policy is discussed and voted on. Members get to vie for party nomination. They're part of the internal machinery of the party.

Yhey're not just voters with a party banner.

Federal government has the means and responsiblity to persuade and cajole provinces in certain directions when it comes impacts of policies they are implementing.

I'm not going to defend Trudeau. Not on any front.

But this is a bad take. Any federal government taking a take-it-or-leave-it approach to the provinces is attempting to operate as a dictatorship, and it's something that should be actively resisted or rejected.

The problem right now is that there are a lot of Conservative Premieres, and they can taste blood in the water, so they're circling and stonewalling.

The Liberals have been unambiguously pro-business since Cretien. It's just which businesses have been the focus of their support that's changed somewhat over time. Neoliberalism has been at the heart of the party since the Red Book.

The current administration has been throwing all of its support behind big city "businesses businessing businessly" businesses. Think of Bill Morneau and his family enterprises, or anything B2B where it seems like something the client company could just do on their own, but they gain a lot of connections by working with the other business.

You know. Rich people bullshit.

Sounds like some corporate offices and some parliamemt buildings need to be burnt down

Remember folks, you have the right to strike! Unless doing so actually meaningfully impacts anything.

But these workers are not. These workers are fighting for their rights, and that's going to inconvenience everybody else. So, they're going to highlight that inconvenience, rather than the underlying cause.

Albertan minister, a Chamber of Commerce guy and a CN rail official. No union representation. This is a bit shameful from the CBC.

This has been par for the course for a while now, unfortunately. The CBC's most used lens is "How does this inconvenience the average Canadian?", followed by "How much does this impact shareholders?"

They just called the 5e charactersheet "overwhelming" wuth its, like, 8 numbers on it, and suggested players don't need to know pesky things like "rules", but you're going off on dice?

"Never trust other people," they say. I'm not sure I shpypd believe them, though.

Are we playing the "socialism and communism are different things" game today? Because that'snnever fun.

Authoritarians aren't communists. They're just appropriating the term.

I can't believe they spelled his name right for once.