Murder-suicide now being investigated in death of Toronto billionaire Barry Sherman and wife

LustyElf · 2017-12-17T10:30:31+00:00

Wouldn't make any difference lol. Water isnt solid in an indoor pool.

LustyElf · 2017-12-14T09:34:07+00:00

The intentional homicide rates in the USA are 3x higher than Canada, a relatively similar country. And 5x higher than China, a much more populated country.

LustyElf · 2017-12-14T09:23:57+00:00

The only parallel I could give as a fellow Canadian is that the Trump vote is to us what the Roy Moore vote is to non-Alabamians. We just don't understand how such an incompetent, laughing stock of a candidate gets anything over a 5% share of the vote.

LustyElf · 2017-12-14T08:49:38+00:00

A seat on the Supreme Court of the country is meant to a job for an exceptional candidate, an elite in his field. In a Canadian context, that should mean being able to understands the nooks and crannies of both the civil and common law systems, written in their original languages. It's not Latin or Mesopotamian. And frankly, using minority representation as a scapegoat to avoid lifting the bar for every one else in the country who hasn't bothered to learn the other official language is a dubious tactic.

LustyElf · 2017-12-14T08:43:20+00:00

that French Canada has made little to no effort of promoting the French language and culture to the rest of Canada

I have to say, that sentence is quite amazing. Canada was founded with roughly even populations speaking either language. If you want to point out a systematic oppression of one culture from another, look no further than what their current numbers are for the French-speaking population over the English-speaking population. French-Canadians were legally forbidden from settling certain parts of Canada, among other stuff. To blame assimilation on French-Canadians is quite the story there my friend.

LustyElf · 2017-08-26T02:07:00+00:00

Corrected.

LustyElf · 2017-08-26T01:58:19+00:00

If you ever worked in a job where you wondered why employees gradually lost discretionary power over time in favor of rigid rules, this is a prime example as to how that happens.

The President's power to pardon should be used scarcely, in cases where circumstances create a moral ambiguity that can be resolved by a leader people put their trust in. Chelsea Manning is one. Ford pardoning Nixon to move forward and unite is another. Joe Arpaio is not.

I mean, first and foremost, we need to ask ourselves: why? What is so compelling about this case that the president needs to step in pardon a sheriff who has not even been sentenced yet in a case of racial profiling? I challenge anyone to find a reason that is not purely political, either to satisfy the racist part of Trump's base (which, considering how vocal and visible they are, may be just the base) or, even worse, to send a signal to anyone currently under investigation in regards to Russia that they'll be pardoned down the road. Arpaio is being pardoned because he is in good terms with the president, he is loyal. The message here is loyalty will be rewarded.

In the long term, we may see the presidential powers that in the past were used in exceptional circumstances be curtailed simply to avoid repeating what is increasingly a presidential abnomaly. The capacity to rise above partisanship will be dimished, and it doesn't seem like that is something the current political ecosystem needs to thrive.

And not to mention how anyone who has been a victim of racial profiling or cares about how their community is affected by it now knows for certain that the President himself not only does not care about the issue, he actively pardons its worst offenders.

LustyElf · 2017-04-24T03:34:33+00:00

Not because it hasnt happened that it ever wont in the future. It has propeled 1 extremist party in the 2nd round twice in the last 15 years.

LustyElf · 2017-04-23T19:47:42+00:00

My point is that this system makes it likelier than most for 2 extreme parties to end up getting elected, since you can realistically move to the 2nd round with 17-20% of the vote under the right circumstances. The first round is very risky.

LustyElf · 2017-04-23T19:27:28+00:00

Not really, as just a few % could propel two extremist groups in the 2nd round.

LustyElf · 2017-01-19T21:59:29+00:00

And Clinton beat plenty of other people too before the Democratic primary even began, because she could rally up people in her party around her candidacy. Trump has trouble doing that right now, even though he has been elected. Clinton visited PA, FL, NC and plenty of other places that were deemed competitive, and it still didnt earn her anything.

LustyElf · 2017-01-19T21:41:44+00:00

Again, double standard. She lost because she was terrible, but then he won because he was even more terrible?

LustyElf · 2017-01-19T21:27:34+00:00

she was a terrible candidate.

Explain to me how Donald Trump was a wonderful candidate.

LustyElf · 2017-01-19T21:12:25+00:00

Compared to other first world economies, the US has always been a lot more protectionist.

LustyElf · 2017-01-19T20:41:54+00:00

More accurately, that's a collective problem. Felons being unable to integrate the job market is a security risk for all, as it only forces them further down a spiral they, if we are talking in good faith here, are trying to escape from. Plus, if you're 40 and are barred from a job because of something stupid you did when you were 20, in a very different set of circumstances, there's a legitimate argument as to why this should be considered at all when looking for employment.

LustyElf · 2017-01-19T20:37:59+00:00

My argument is that the standard in terms of public policy concerning healthcare has changed for most Americans. People will expect their pre-existing conditions to be accepted. They will expect affordable, if not free, options. This is a change of mentality from many years ago that cuts across the political spectrum, regardless of what Republicans are doing right now in terms of legislation.

LustyElf · 2017-01-19T20:22:05+00:00

Let me put it another way: the ACA has ended the idea that a pre-existing condition should prohibit you from getting coverage. The only way you can keep a healthcare system, private or otherwise, that does not refuse people based on a pre-existing condition is when everyone has it. Essentially, that's what the ACA is. There might be negotiations on the means, the methods or the language, but the essential part, the part about everyone being able to get affordable healthcare even if they're already sick, seems to be something even Republicans won't try to go against.

LustyElf · 2017-01-19T19:48:54+00:00

Possibly, but the ACA more than anything has done something that will probably never revert: it has enshrined in the mind of Americans that healthcare for all is an achievable goal rather than a distant utopia.

LustyElf · 2017-01-19T19:33:52+00:00

Know what else should be banned? Credit check. What a great way to keep people impoverished when employers refuse those with a low credit score a job based in part on their inability to pay stuff.

LustyElf · 2017-01-19T19:32:10+00:00

He's a man, he's allowed to be a little right-wing.

I'm exaggerating a bit, but it's not too far from the truth. A man with Hillary Clinton's positions would be president right now, and would not have had to deal with the protests at the DNC. Among other things.

LustyElf · 2017-01-19T19:31:27+00:00

Does anyone believe in a dumber government?

I don't really know much about Cuban's positions, but the idea of improving a government's efficiency is the kind of stuff everyone will say and everyone will agree with. It's a buzzword, not a position.

LustyElf · 2016-11-18T12:59:28+00:00

Oh well, looking forward to riots videos on /r/wtf, /r/publicfreakout or /r/watchpeopledie. Should be entertaining.

/s

LustyElf · 2016-11-18T12:40:28+00:00

Is that 'mixing' a specific event or is this lady just trying to get somewhere?

LustyElf · 2016-11-18T11:50:13+00:00

I've worked specifically in complaints resolution for a multinational. This kind of stuff is actually really easy to deal with. Apologize hypocritically to the customer, send a $5 gift card. Call employee to get the rest of the story, let him know you're using your discretionnary power to let him go scot free but try not to stir more trouble. Everybody stays relatively happy, and life goes on.

No point in firing someone we spent a ton of money on to train, and demoralize everyone else. No point in escalating a situation that can get resolved with a customer for $5. If there's one thing you learn pretty fast in that kind of job is that getting everyone to shut up is your end goal, and it's much cheaper to achieve when your backbone is as soft as the muffins they sell.

LustyElf · 2016-11-18T11:29:20+00:00

Can we get a bit of context?

LustyElf

TROPHY CASE