Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Canadian Politics] Takin' out the trash to replace it with... whoops.

145791063

Posts

  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    edited December 2018
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »


    We are in Civ again folks!

    I'm a bit late on this, but this is cool! I fuckin' love Civ VI.

    Unfortunately, the way I play Civ is not at all conducive with playing as Canada. I play as Macedon because there's no war weariness for......reasons..... >.>

    I'm the opposite. I always go for a diplomatic or tech victory mostly because I find the combat clunky

    I can't win without being a warmonger, at least on Prince or harder. I HAVE to take advantage of capturing cities so that I'm not spending resources on settling. I fall way, way behind otherwise. In fact, I couldn't play on anything harder than the first couple difficulty levels on any Civ until recently. I always lost patience with trying for Domination victories, as you say the combat is kind of clunky, and so I always went diplomatic or tech as well. I decided to force myself to push for domination from the get go in one playthrough. And found the advantage gained by going imperial as soon as you can marshal an army is enormous. So now when I play, I'm a merciless warlord who only makes nice while I bide my time before dropping the hammer on some poor, unsuspecting nation.

    That said, I still do cultural or tech victories as often as domination. But I generally only found 2-5 cities in total over any game. The rest of my nation is captured.

    Nova_C on
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    I don't play a whole lot of Civ V but I would agree with this. Its MUCH easier to build your nation by taking other peoples shit than it is to build it all yourself. I don't know who the computer opponents do it. :)

    I also find that if you are not building an army and using it to crush your opponents and hear the lamentations of their women, the game is a bit of a slog.

  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    sigh
    Hop on facebook. Oh, good, a post by BC Proud. Yep, war on Christmas alright. Liberals are so offended by the idea of Christmas decorations.
    ...
    Reports page knowing full well that despite easily breaking Facebook's community guidelines they'll never shut it down

    Man ...

    AridholCaulk Bite 6
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    I don't play a whole lot of Civ V but I would agree with this. Its MUCH easier to build your nation by taking other peoples shit than it is to build it all yourself. I don't know who the computer opponents do it. :)

    I also find that if you are not building an army and using it to crush your opponents and hear the lamentations of their women, the game is a bit of a slog.

    The computer cheats.

    No really, it's the only way to effectively ramp up the difficulty of an AI. Because a computer opponent AI is going to be fairly basic so that it doesn't bring your processor to its knees and really, it only needs to have the appearance of consistency.

    And the way I found this out was: In Civ V, I custom made a map where I would have every single strategic and luxury resource around my home cities, designing every advantage I could, and set it Deity difficulty.

    I found the first computer opponent in less than 20 turns. They had 8 elephant units already. Which is impossible.

    The computer cheats - the difficulty is set by how much the computer cheats.

    ShadowenCaulk Bite 6Apogee
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    sigh
    Hop on facebook. Oh, good, a post by BC Proud. Yep, war on Christmas alright. Liberals are so offended by the idea of Christmas decorations.
    ...
    Reports page knowing full well that despite easily breaking Facebook's community guidelines they'll never shut it down

    Man ...

    This was the inspiration for my post.
    My mom shared the bc proud video where there is some ridiculous war on Christmas.

    First off, that shit is happening in Victoria and that's not where you live and that guy isn't your council member and second, just Fuck Aaron Gunn.

    Disco11John C. Turbine
  • SwashbucklerXXSwashbucklerXX Swashbucklin' Canuck Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    sigh
    Hop on facebook. Oh, good, a post by BC Proud. Yep, war on Christmas alright. Liberals are so offended by the idea of Christmas decorations.
    ...
    Reports page knowing full well that despite easily breaking Facebook's community guidelines they'll never shut it down

    Man ...

    This was the inspiration for my post.
    My mom shared the bc proud video where there is some ridiculous war on Christmas.

    First off, that shit is happening in Victoria and that's not where you live and that guy isn't your council member and second, just Fuck Aaron Gunn.

    It's, like, two silly goose-style athiests and the HRC didn't reward them for warring on Christmas, but because the school kinda pulled a stupid while attempting to limit their grinchiness. I really don't blame the school, though. I would not want to deal with parents like that, and I feel like the school admin was starting to get desperate.

    Athiests who are that intolerant of cultural exchange are just as bad as the BC Proud people. Lobby against "God save our land" in O Canada, sure, go for it. Try to force a preschool not to celebrate any holidays because you don't like them? Screw you.

    Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
    Gnome-InterruptusCaulk Bite 6
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    The school fucked up by barring the child from attending. I don't see why they couldn't have just continued to display and discuss multiple cultural, religious and secular practices within the school.
    They say the dude was a member of the board but he was just one member. Overrule him and get on with it.


    I bet the parents lose that case if they let the kid attend and just say "no, sorry, we're going to keep having Christmas and Easter celebrations."

    I'm pretty anti religion but this is high grade douchebagerry.


    "I certainly hope that there will be no discussion of Santa Claus at BIMS. I am absolutely against anyone blatantly lying to my daughter," Mangel wrote.


    Get fuuuuuuuuuuuucked.

    Aridhol on
    Gnome-InterruptusDisco11LordSolarMacharius
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    I found the article pretty unclear on why exactly the student was banned and what the agreement was about.

    Aridhol
  • CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    The parents sounded like argumentative dicks, but the school's response pretty obviously touched on a protected class which is a big no-no. As Aridhol says, overrule them and continue, don't be dicks back at them.

    Aridhol
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    Argumentative dicks?
    For instance, when Mangel learned the school planned to include clay elf decorations in its December festivities, he wrote an email to the board objecting, and suggested some "atheist Christmas ornaments" that would better represent the views of his family.

    That included one that simply says "Skeptic," and another that depicted the World Trade Center in New York with the caption "Atheists don't fly airplanes into buildings."
    They were discussing the use of religious symbols at the school when the husband pointed out that children in public schools still sing the national anthem even though it includes the word "God."

    "Mangel responded, 'I'll sue them too' and then began doing the Nazi salute and marching around while he sung a different version of O Canada," Korenkiewicz wrote.

    These people sound like complete assholes and bigots. It's like the worst kind of aggressively shitty atheist, but in real life instead of just on the internet. But I guess eventually the odds suggest some of these pieces of shit had to get off reddit and go out and meet each other and breed.

    Fuck these people in the ear.

    shryke on
    TubularLuggagephysi_marcAridholGnome-InterruptusFencingsaxCaulk Bite 6HadesApogeeLordSolarMachariusKetBra
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    I'm confused by the idea of "atheist christmas ornaments". Every christmas ornament I've ever seen is a coloured sphere or a candy cane or a travel souvenir, all of which are inherently non-religious. Are there people out there decorating their trees with, like, dozens of crosses and icons?

    sig.gif
    Caulk Bite 6
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Technically, a Christmas tree is at least 33% Pagan

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    monikerDisco11ShadowenGnome-InterruptusBasil
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    In Soviet Russia all Christmas trees are atheist and Christ was born in January.

  • Caulk Bite 6Caulk Bite 6 One of the multitude of Dans infesting this place Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    I mean, Santa and the elves are already about as atheist as it gets, while still celebrating Christmas. A complete recontextualization of the holiday.

    Caulk Bite 6 on
    jnij103vqi2i.png
  • Those elves hold Jesus Christ dear in their hearts because they know what happened to the elves that refused baptism

    Caulk Bite 6RichyshrykeShadowenBouwsTBasil
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    The Christmas tree in my mixed terrible/agnostic Muslim & Jew-ISH household is entirely for Santa. The Jeebus holds no sway.

    Actually, now that my kid is learning about other religions in school he promoted my wife to bust out the Menorah. The candles part was ok.... but when she (horribly :) ) sang the blessing/prayer that goes with the lighting of the candles, I'm not going to lie, I was a little miffed.

    Our house is intended to be a religion friendly, but religion free household.

    Edit: The point I'm trying to make is that whatever you want to do in your own house is fine. But the kids need to learn what is out there (belief-wise) and that whatever it is that it out there is just fine for folks to have faith in. Golden Rule: Don't be a Dick.

    Steelhawk on
    ShadowBladeGnome-InterruptusAridhol
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    There were distinctly Christian decorations on our tree when I was growing up, but there were also the candy canes, glass spheres, etc.

    Like, for example, an angel was put atop the tree instead of a star. Although I could argue the star is religious as well.

    However, those people make the house sound incredibly joyless. Like, they don't celebrate anything?

  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    The SCC is doing its damnedest to grow my list of Interesting Cases to Post About in the Last Two Months, but the decision released today is legitimately important.

    In a 7-2 decision in R. v. Boudeault, the Court has ruled that victim surcharges are unconstitutional as they form a cruel and unusual punishment and thus violate s. 12 of the Charter. Moreover, the Court has ordered that the offending section of the criminal code relating to victim surcharges (section 737) is to immediately be of no force or effect, because the Crown did not meet the standard of showing there would be a "danger to the public or imperil the rule of law." In fact, the Court similarly noted that there was no need to engage s. 1 in their ruling (ie- they didn't need to do an Oakes test to determine if the infringement on s. 12 was justifiable) because the Crown did not provide any arguments regarding s. 1 justifiability in the case where s. 737 was found to infringe.

    I'm not sure if this last part meant that the Crown was sleeping at the wheel and didn't see this possibility coming, or whether they did (and agreed with how the Court was going to rule) and purposefully didn't provide any arguments so that it would automatically be struck down.

    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
    ShadowenGnome-Interruptus
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Could you give us a bit more context? I'm sorry to say I've not been keeping up with SCC rulings lately, and I'm not aware at all of what a "victim surcharge" is.

    sig.gif
    mrondeauCaulk Bite 6
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    Sure!
    Under s. 737 of the Criminal Code , everyone who is discharged, pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is required to pay monies to the state as a mandatory victim surcharge. The amount of the surcharge is 30 percent of any fine imposed, or, where no fine is imposed, $100 for every summary conviction count and $200 for every indictable count. Although sentencing judges have the discretion to increase the amount of the surcharge where appropriate, they cannot decrease the amount or waive the surcharge for any reason. The imposition of the surcharge cannot be appealed.

    The main issue being brought was that for low income individuals there was the distinct possibility you could never repay these surcharges. Moreover, failing to pay can lead to further imprisonment.

    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    I believe the mandatory surcharge was not defended because the Liberals are currently working to repeal that section which was added in 2013 by the Conservatives:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-victims-surcharge-1.4946018

    AegisLaOsCaulk Bite 6ShadowenGnome-Interruptus
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    I believe the mandatory surcharge was not defended because the Liberals are currently working to repeal that section which was added in 2013 by the Conservatives:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-victims-surcharge-1.4946018

    That would make sense for why there was defense on s. 1 grounds then!

    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • El SkidEl Skid The frozen white northRegistered User regular
    Okay so basically the Harper government took the existing surcharges law, which was optional (judges could choose not to impose them against poor convicts) and made them mandatory while also doubling the amounts.

    Every time I think I’m over Harper and move on, I find out something else they did that stokes my rage and brings me right back to cursing him again :-/

    mrpaku wrote: »
    my name is precisionk and i'm ten tanks

    wrath God fear traitor evil
    AegisSteelhawkSwashbucklerXXCaulk Bite 6ShadowenTubularLuggageAridholCanadianWolverineGnome-Interruptus
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    The other day I couldn't think of his name and realized that I'm just way more comfortable associating him with that "Rename Stephen Harper to The Calgary Airport" meme. Indeed, I tend to think of that name first now.
    It's maybe the most positive thing to come of his time in the spotlight. <_<

    Richy
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    El Skid wrote: »
    Okay so basically the Harper government took the existing surcharges law, which was optional (judges could choose not to impose them against poor convicts) and made them mandatory while also doubling the amounts.

    Every time I think I’m over Harper and move on, I find out something else they did that stokes my rage and brings me right back to cursing him again :-/

    He's totally our GWB. You knew he was bad but every time you learn more you find out that, guess what, he was actually even worse then you thought.

    RichyCaulk Bite 6ShadowenTubularLuggageAridholCanadianWolverineFencingsaxGnome-Interruptusmoniker
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    I believe the mandatory surcharge was not defended because the Liberals are currently working to repeal that section which was added in 2013 by the Conservatives:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-victims-surcharge-1.4946018
    shryke wrote: »
    El Skid wrote: »
    Okay so basically the Harper government took the existing surcharges law, which was optional (judges could choose not to impose them against poor convicts) and made them mandatory while also doubling the amounts.

    Every time I think I’m over Harper and move on, I find out something else they did that stokes my rage and brings me right back to cursing him again :-/

    He's totally our GWB. You knew he was bad but every time you learn more you find out that, guess what, he was actually even worse then you thought.

    I am shocked, shocked that the Conservatives passed yet another unconstitutional "common sense" law.

    hippofant on
    LaOsCaulk Bite 6ShadowenGnome-Interruptus
  • SwashbucklerXXSwashbucklerXX Swashbucklin' Canuck Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    El Skid wrote: »
    Okay so basically the Harper government took the existing surcharges law, which was optional (judges could choose not to impose them against poor convicts) and made them mandatory while also doubling the amounts.

    Every time I think I’m over Harper and move on, I find out something else they did that stokes my rage and brings me right back to cursing him again :-/

    He's totally our GWB. You knew he was bad but every time you learn more you find out that, guess what, he was actually even worse then you thought.

    When he was in office and my American friends asked me about him, I always said, "Imagine if GWB had been smarter and slyer." The response was, "Oh. Oh, no."

    Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
    BouwsTCaulk Bite 6ShadowenTubularLuggageAridholCanadianWolverineRichyFencingsaxmonikerLoisLane
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    I believe the mandatory surcharge was not defended because the Liberals are currently working to repeal that section which was added in 2013 by the Conservatives:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-victims-surcharge-1.4946018

    The Liberals have been in power since 2015. Why are they only now getting around to repelling this conservative bullshit?

    sig.gif
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    I believe the mandatory surcharge was not defended because the Liberals are currently working to repeal that section which was added in 2013 by the Conservatives:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-victims-surcharge-1.4946018

    The Liberals have been in power since 2015. Why are they only now getting around to repelling this conservative bullshit?

    There's a lot of bullshit to repeal, and it's considered bad form to pass a single law invalidating all pieces of legislation passed by the previous Government.

    BouwsTShadowenCaulk Bite 6KetBra
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    El Skid wrote: »
    Okay so basically the Harper government took the existing surcharges law, which was optional (judges could choose not to impose them against poor convicts) and made them mandatory while also doubling the amounts.

    Every time I think I’m over Harper and move on, I find out something else they did that stokes my rage and brings me right back to cursing him again :-/

    He's totally our GWB. You knew he was bad but every time you learn more you find out that, guess what, he was actually even worse then you thought.

    When he was in office and my American friends asked me about him, I always said, "Imagine if GWB had been smarter and slyer." The response was, "Oh. Oh, no."

    He was quieter about it because he had to be and thus was less damaging overall. Although GWB was himself actually quietly way worse then even most people realise. The shit he did on the downlow was real bad for the federal government.

    mrondeaumonikerGnome-InterruptusShadowenCaulk Bite 6SwashbucklerXX
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    I believe the mandatory surcharge was not defended because the Liberals are currently working to repeal that section which was added in 2013 by the Conservatives:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-victims-surcharge-1.4946018

    The Liberals have been in power since 2015. Why are they only now getting around to repelling this conservative bullshit?

    Because Justin Trudeau elbowed someone in the Commons.

    FencingsaxCaulk Bite 6
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    I believe the mandatory surcharge was not defended because the Liberals are currently working to repeal that section which was added in 2013 by the Conservatives:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-victims-surcharge-1.4946018

    The Liberals have been in power since 2015. Why are they only now getting around to repelling this conservative bullshit?

    There's a lot of bullshit to repeal, and it's considered bad form to pass a single law invalidating all pieces of legislation passed by the previous Government.

    Well I'm sure the people who were fucked over by this cruel and unusual punishment will take solace in knowing the government they elected to protect them from it did nothing to maintain good form.

    There being a lot of bullshit is not an excuse. You hire more staffers, have them go over every legislation passed over 10 years, and draft the not-that version. Then pass them one by one if you want to maintain good form. All this should, and could, have been done year 1.

    sig.gif
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    I believe the mandatory surcharge was not defended because the Liberals are currently working to repeal that section which was added in 2013 by the Conservatives:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-victims-surcharge-1.4946018

    The Liberals have been in power since 2015. Why are they only now getting around to repelling this conservative bullshit?

    There's a lot of bullshit to repeal, and it's considered bad form to pass a single law invalidating all pieces of legislation passed by the previous Government.

    Well I'm sure the people who were fucked over by this cruel and unusual punishment will take solace in knowing the government they elected to protect them from it did nothing to maintain good form.

    There being a lot of bullshit is not an excuse. You hire more staffers, have them go over every legislation passed over 10 years, and draft the not-that version. Then pass them one by one if you want to maintain good form. All this should, and could, have been done year 1.

    Yeah, because perfect is the enemy of good and if a government isn't perfect, fuck them for even trying.

    shrykeShadowenLaOsmrondeauGnome-InterruptusFencingsaxCaulk Bite 6CanadianWolverine
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    There is a general rule in democratic governance where you don't play hardball and run your government on a "repeal the precious government in it's entirety" agenda. It's not good for the stability of the system. (see - the US as the main example these days)

    mrondeauPsykomaJacobyFencingsaxDisco11
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    I believe the mandatory surcharge was not defended because the Liberals are currently working to repeal that section which was added in 2013 by the Conservatives:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-victims-surcharge-1.4946018

    The Liberals have been in power since 2015. Why are they only now getting around to repelling this conservative bullshit?

    There's a lot of bullshit to repeal, and it's considered bad form to pass a single law invalidating all pieces of legislation passed by the previous Government.

    Well I'm sure the people who were fucked over by this cruel and unusual punishment will take solace in knowing the government they elected to protect them from it did nothing to maintain good form.

    There being a lot of bullshit is not an excuse. You hire more staffers, have them go over every legislation passed over 10 years, and draft the not-that version. Then pass them one by one if you want to maintain good form. All this should, and could, have been done year 1.

    Yeah, because perfect is the enemy of good and if a government isn't perfect, fuck them for even trying.

    Calling this "perfect" may be an understatement. Perhaps fanciful or impossible would be more appropriate.

    Nova_CLoisLane
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    I believe the mandatory surcharge was not defended because the Liberals are currently working to repeal that section which was added in 2013 by the Conservatives:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-victims-surcharge-1.4946018

    The Liberals have been in power since 2015. Why are they only now getting around to repelling this conservative bullshit?

    There's a lot of bullshit to repeal, and it's considered bad form to pass a single law invalidating all pieces of legislation passed by the previous Government.

    Well I'm sure the people who were fucked over by this cruel and unusual punishment will take solace in knowing the government they elected to protect them from it did nothing to maintain good form.

    There being a lot of bullshit is not an excuse. You hire more staffers, have them go over every legislation passed over 10 years, and draft the not-that version. Then pass them one by one if you want to maintain good form. All this should, and could, have been done year 1.

    Could it?

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    There is a general rule in democratic governance where you don't play hardball and run your government on a "repeal the precious government in it's entirety" agenda. It's not good for the stability of the system. (see - the US as the main example these days)

    When the previous government was actively trying to destroy our country and fuck over its people, then hell yeah you revert everything they did first chance you get. Stability is not a virtue when it means keeping bad things bad for the sake of not changing things for the better.

    sig.gif
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    There is a general rule in democratic governance where you don't play hardball and run your government on a "repeal the precious government in it's entirety" agenda. It's not good for the stability of the system. (see - the US as the main example these days)

    When the previous government was actively trying to destroy our country and fuck over its people, then hell yeah you revert everything they did first chance you get. Stability is not a virtue when it means keeping bad things bad for the sake of not changing things for the better.

    They are changing things for the better though. Stability is absolutely a virtue here. The alternative is you end up in the kind of ongoing democratic crisis the US is living with.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    There is a general rule in democratic governance where you don't play hardball and run your government on a "repeal the precious government in it's entirety" agenda. It's not good for the stability of the system. (see - the US as the main example these days)

    When the previous government was actively trying to destroy our country and fuck over its people, then hell yeah you revert everything they did first chance you get. Stability is not a virtue when it means keeping bad things bad for the sake of not changing things for the better.

    What you're describing is revolution, not democratic transition. I've never seen anything like that except in a nation that was backsliding into authoritarianism.

    mrondeauNova_CBasil
  • DaimarDaimar A Million Feet Tall of Awesome Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    There is a general rule in democratic governance where you don't play hardball and run your government on a "repeal the precious government in it's entirety" agenda. It's not good for the stability of the system. (see - the US as the main example these days)

    When the previous government was actively trying to destroy our country and fuck over its people, then hell yeah you revert everything they did first chance you get. Stability is not a virtue when it means keeping bad things bad for the sake of not changing things for the better.

    They are changing things for the better though. Stability is absolutely a virtue here. The alternative is you end up in the kind of ongoing democratic crisis the US is living with.

    Or Ontario.

    steam_sig.png
    twitch.tv/kragaar
    BroloApogeeGnome-Interruptusphysi_marcAegisEtiowsaCaulk Bite 6SwashbucklerXXDisco11
Sign In or Register to comment.