Because it looks like the person using it is creating a fig leaf of an argument so an allied group will never be held responsible.
It's an attempt at bullshit. It isn't really about truth but is just an attempt to convince (or, more likely, just deflect and waste time long enough to dissipate actionable outrage) so what's the point in trying to get into a factual debate about it?
The person has revealed themselves to be a partisan.
What exactly is Newsom's selling point? If you want some charismatic Obama stand-in surely the party is full of many such pretenders who don't have absolutely awful records* and don't come across as a slimy cyberpunk mayor? They're all trying to be that guy now.
The Democratic party is still unpopular now despite Trump rampaging. People don't like what it stands for. Newsom is slick, but he can't actually change the past and what he did.
If it's just that Trump will have sunk the GOP's chances then charisma shouldn't factor into it (and presumably Democrats will pick someone they think the general public will vote for, like they did with Biden)
* Note that Obama himself had a thin resume and that was a good thing.
Tanista
5d ago
If the petrostate part of the petrostate isn't smart [or powerful] enough to prevent that, and content with losing elections for ever, then it will be so.
If that happens, you might end up with a legitimate secessionist movement (assuming the stink from Trump wears off).
It's treated as absurd, as if QC has the exclusive right to agitate so, but we'll see.
Tanista
5d ago
The Conservatives were in the Labour position: certain to win, so they decided to shut the fuck about anything controversial to avoid being tarred (as your AI says the Liberals are the natural governing party, the media is very favorable to them, every single conservative leader is prima facie suspicious and a possible Trumpite/American wedge to them). Whether they're leaving a highly motivated immigration voting bloc on the table or were right to avoid pissing off Boomers who don't want to be like America I don't know. But I think the latter fear is very reasonable.
But it isn't a Tory situation where people seem to actively want to punish them. Trudeau's handling of the immigration system was so over the top that even hardcore immigration restrictionists would likely welcome a turn back to Harper's already large numbers. And because they knew that, the CPC did nothing. Fuck were they going to do, vote PPC? Okay, maybe it isn't the late Tory situation.
The minute Trudeau dropped out though, the immigration argument stopped making itself and the CPC didn't want to touch it. PP's abrasive personality was also no longer a plus when it seemed like Trump was the only person it didn't apply to. But, then again, he wasn't in office and couldn't pull any stunts (like Doug Ford, another person you could consider an asshole at times who directed that at the US and scored some points, despite having to pull back on some of his stunts).
Beyond Carney's already noted talents, he is good at another thing and it's not doing anything radical while being seen to do stuff. Immigration has come down, especially temporary workers, but then there's also going to be a one-time speedup in PR for protected persons of about 100,000 (and he's assuming that the temporary workers let in by Trudeau will all just leave). Then the method of calculating the budget changed to split the operating budget and investment, which theoretically makes sense except Carney is in control of this distinction which has obvious consequences (like a supposedly balanced budget with a massive deficit)
On top of all of the right noises on interprovincial trade barriers and pipelines, I can see not only why he's popular but gaining defectors. If he's going to hang around for 5 years you might as well go to the popular party that can do something.
Anyways it seems like the era of third parties and spoilers may be coming to a close, so we may see Canada simply become a one-party two-bit petrostate.
A petrostate with a loud minority of people who loathe building infrastructure to support and sell oil.
Tanista
5d ago
What about delivering on prosperity? Has Carney actually lowered cost of living, made things more affordable?
Nope. But then, this war may bail him out of responsibility to do that.
Tanista
5d ago
In the context of romance, I don't see a problem with calling high standards unrealistic, since reproduction is necessary for the perpetuation of society.
So is friendship.
Even worse, the risk-takers in that demographic were already killed or jailed in the previous wave of repression.
I really don't understand why, if Trump was considering attacking, he didn't do so when the protests were closer to their peak and he threatened intervention if people got shot.
I've seen attempts to praise Trump for holding to his red lines, unlike a certain other President, but what good is it if you dither long enough that it doesn't matter? It was always a long shot that you could stop this stuff from the air (we apparently have to go through cyclical phases of optimism about regime change/victory via air power) but same goes for collapsing this regime.
A point that MattyY makes is that acts of civil disobedience work because they play on existing faultlines and sympathies. Which is why stopping traffic for Gaza does nothing. It's just a cargo cult licensing their Main Character Syndrome.
That is why they should care, insofar as they care about their cause at all and it's not an excuse to impose their will: you don't need to earn omw_68's specific respect, but you probably need to earn it from some segment of society if you want to make sweeping changes to very big systems or policies.
More options
Context Copy link