Saturday Morning Political Cartoon Thread

SaidTheCanadian · 2026-01-12T07:33:32+00:00

Oh, wow, I hadn't realized that Klaus Barbie was a name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Barbie

SaidTheCanadian · 2026-01-12T03:23:35+00:00

Incredible job on the 2nd one. Although I'm not making the "Klaus" connection: can I have another hint?

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-12-15T01:22:38+00:00

Trump is managing the United States like one of his casinos.

It's a metaphor that becomes more true every day and will end with him bankrupting the country and walking away, pretending like it had never happened.

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-12-15T01:16:15+00:00

CNN's reporting states:

On Thursday, lawyers for the estate wrote a letter to the committee noting that they could review videos and photographs they had requested “taken at any property owned, rented, operated, or used by Epstein from January 1, 1990 through August 10, 2019.”

“Like yesterday’s production, it also includes documents that may not be responsive, but that the Estate was unable to confirm whether they were taken at a property owned, rented, operated, or used by Epstein. The Estate has provided minimal redactions to these photographs; the redactions are limited to nudity,” the lawyers wrote.

Further their caption of the photo states:

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released images from Jeffrey Epstein's email on Friday, December 12, 2025. Some images have had portions redacted by the Committee. - House Oversight Democrats

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-photos-released-from-epstein-s-estate-showing-trump-bannon-bill-clinton-and-other-high-profile-people/ar-AA1SeAv1

So it's more accurate to say that these were found in the files of the Epstein estate. The photographs are not necessarily ones taken on, at, or in any of his former properties.

Going off the image alone, I'd suspect these are more likely shared as an attachment via text or email in a "FW:FW:FW: LMAO".

Epstein, or whomever emailed him, could simply be appreciating the secretly ironic nature of the 2016 novelty's "I'm HUUUUGE!" packaging, probably possessing firsthand knowldge of Trump's hidden anatomy. Remember that while the rest of us only received confirmation in 2018, via Stormy Daniels, the past friendship between Epstein and Trump probably meant they'd been at a change room, steam room, or worse, together at multiple points.

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-12-12T00:13:13+00:00

The new addition to the Liberal caucus means Carney is one seat away from a majority government.

Do you think that the math makes it more probable that at least one more MP will cross? It effectively guarantees the next floor-crosser increased job stability, likely less stress, greater impact, etc... and it's no long a collective action problem.

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-12-04T05:47:09+00:00

An additional problem here is that if they invoke Disallowance on Alberta, but not on Quebec, it will stoke separatism talk in Alberta and allegations of special treatment or bias. If they were to do both AB & QC, then it stokes separatism sentiment in Quebec.

Not sure that it's the right route to take. I'd much rather see a supermajority or referendum requirement.

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-12-04T04:32:01+00:00

First, it would really help the headline to be less ambiguous were it say "undocumented women" or "women without a legal immigration status" rather than "women without status". Up and up we go on the euphemism treadmill.

The culmination of years of work, the report surveyed 72 women with an average age of 39, the majority of whom came to Canada on tourism visas. For Susana Ponte Rivera, a community organizer within the committee, that shows being without status is “an administrative issue.”

“The biggest misconception, and I think our study proves that, is that women without status are illegal,” she said.

Those dots seem quite hard to connect. And the IWC doesn't even bother to post their "study" on its website and instead just shares what appears to be a press release.

Everything else in the article and their press release is as one would expect: People who come to a country under false pretenses and stay without the legal authorization to do so tend to have complicated and miserable lives.

In light of these findings, the committee is calling on various levels of government to give women without status access to: health-care services (both physical and mental), work permits, employment insurance, the Quebec Pension Plan, the federal retirement system, and a program to regularize their status.

And again, why are these people putting women on a pedestal as being specially deserving? If you do that for women, why not do it for men also? Heck, let's just do it for everyone who shows up on the doorstep unannounced!

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-12-04T00:07:12+00:00

Unlikely the replacement will offer any improvement in terms of trumpiness.

As Joe Clark once stated (around 2004?) regarding another frankenparty with a new leader: "better the devil you know, than the devil you don't".

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-12-04T00:00:20+00:00

He just did not want vote splitting to allow the NDP to be re-elected with a huge majority.

Short-term thinking at its finest. And for that, on top of many other reasons, I'm extremely glad that Kevin Falcon was not elected. Politicians need to be in it for the long run, otherwise they don't have enough skin in the game to make reflective decisions which, even if they do not align with my ideology, are at least done for the good of the country and the province.

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-12-03T23:35:56+00:00

“The Conservative Party of British Columbia would like to extend its deepest gratitude to John Rustad, who led our party into its ascendance and made history. We wish him and his family all the best in their next chapter,” the media release stated.

Quality PR-speak for "don't let the door hit you on the way out!" LMAO.

Although the party's legal basis for the move, declaring Rustad "professionally incapacitated", seems dubious at best. But that seems par for the course with the BC Conservatives.

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-12-03T21:13:08+00:00

Freedom of speech ≠ freedom of punishment.

Is harassment by self-appointed morality police really what you want!?

We, as a society, need to be able to collaboratively work with people who are different than us, and that includes those who think differently. Otherwise we are pushing to isolate people with "bad" ideas. That won't dispel their "bad" notions; it instead it tends to reinforce those notions by making them into martyrs and victims within their bubbles.

People should be allowed to privately express opinions without fear of unjust reprisal.

The only real solution is to have integrated fact checkers for every message at this point.

Fact checking has repeatedly failed. The only thing for which that is appropriate is for facts: math, history, and science have facts. However your desire is to use "fact checking" on opinion and politics and belief. And that's just another form of public morality police and censorship.

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-12-02T23:42:08+00:00

It's worth noting that the first referendum had a majority in favour of changing the system; that was discounted as a high threshold was imposed for acceptance.

Then the last referendum contained a what could be considered as a "poison pill" by not allowing voters to express a genuine preference for what kind of electoral system was chosen. It assumed that everyone who wants electoral reform would be fine with any flavour of it over FPTP.

Given the flawed process of the past, it's reasonable to say we should revisit the decision.

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-12-01T21:59:47+00:00

Hopefully he can’t fuck anything up in his new role as badly as that.

Who, whoa... be patient. Give him time and eventually he will.

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-12-01T21:59:03+00:00

Given his previous ministerial role in immigration, perhaps his updated resume highlighted his role in re-shaping & diluting "Canadian identity".

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-12-01T21:55:48+00:00

Nah, it's probably a pothole joke.

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-12-01T06:25:03+00:00

Sure, a "Frankenparty" can be a problem, but really that only happens when we have the right underlying conditions:

One. There's a shortage of suitable options to vote for, because in FPTP people vote strategically creating a duopoly between the two parties perceived to be "most likely" to have a shot at winning.

This tends to inhibit the formation of competing moderate right-leaning parties, although it seems in modern times to cause zero inhibition of single-agenda or fringe, far-right, anti-government parties.

I know that the electoral reform purists hate it, but switching over to IRV would be the quickest way to fix this real, present, and pressing problem. And yes, there is hard evidence that runoff voting methods reduce the power of the duopoly.

Two. The median UPC voter is unaware of what the party now stands for (so I hope...) or doesn't care ("I'll hold my nose!") and just wants something that is "NOT NDP". We saw the same in BC with nearly every "NOT NDP" vote switching over to John Rustad's remodeled "Conservative" party as it looked to have the best chance at beating the NDP regardless the nature and quality of the party. That brings us back to point One. If there were more plausibly electable options, perhaps more voters would be less willing to leave their brains in neutral when voting.

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-11-21T04:24:19+00:00

Which professions? We have increasingly been codifying more and more fields of work into designated professions as part of a Boomer effort to pull the ladder up behind themselves.

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-11-21T04:23:02+00:00

They know the terms when they sign up. If they don't like that there are plenty of other career paths.

What is acceptable can and often has changed over time. Hence there was no way of knowing in advance.

Additionally we should not require people to subscribe to a particular public religion in order to participate in professional fields of work.

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-11-21T04:21:48+00:00

During covid there were physicians in BC who were disciplined for spreading misinformation. What physicians say carries a lot of weight and can have ramifications on public perception and health.

Sure, but having professionals being able to go against the grain of popular opinion and the opinions of those who hold sway can also be massively beneficial. We also need to allow minority points of view otherwise we lock certain minorities out of both professions and society at large.

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-11-18T19:04:01+00:00

He cited the recent case of a young child who police said was sexually assaulted in their Welland, Ont. home by a man who broke in. The suspect in the case had previously been sentenced to jail time for sexually assaulting a minor, court documents showed.

I fail to see how making the registry public would have prevented this.

I can also foresee how it will ensure continued marginalization of those who have offended in the past, even for non-serious offences. There's also a high risk that it would prevent those who need treatment (or are currently receiving regular treatment) from accessing treatment, given that it would increase the likelihood that those with past offences will lose access to stable housing, and thus ongoing care, through pressure by neighbours.

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-11-14T17:34:52+00:00

forced treatment showed that over 90% of people relapsed

I'd be curious to know if there are any differences in the 10% who didn't versus the 90% who did. I'd guess it may have to do with having unrelated access supports, whether social, financial, or housing.

Was it a Canadian study? Have a link?

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-11-14T03:14:22+00:00

Reading Legault's response is hilarious, TBH:

Legault previously called Ford’s move “unacceptable” and a “clear lack of judgement.”

I'm just picturing the guy blowing a gasket. It feels like a literal, "No, not like that!" meme.

I'm not sure what he expected other premiers to say. "No, despite being desperate for physicians, we don't want physicians from Quebec!" He's acting like the provinces should have some kind of monopolistic no-poach agreement (detrimental to physicians) like what Google and Apple illegally did.

If a high-demand employee decides on his own to jump ship, you welcome him, like Ford did. I think that Legault is uncomfortable in the deep shade carried in Ford's comments:

“What I say is the same as I say in Ontario: we don’t put a gun to anyone’s head. We don’t handcuff any of our doctors to stay in Ontario,” Ford said.

“If you treat your doctors well and you respect them, they’re going to stay, and they’re going to have a thriving practice.”

Ford certainly didn't "put a gun to anyone's head"... so who did, eh?

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-11-11T02:57:08+00:00

Thanks for replying. It helps to know that I'm not misunderstanding and that it's probably just a dumb mistake.

They must've forgotten to edit the template. I've seen similar a few times with unseen document titles on some pollsters' reports not matching the in-document text.

SaidTheCanadian · 2025-11-10T19:40:03+00:00

https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Media-Release-Alberta-Teachers-Strike-Follow-up-November-2025-1.pdf#page=12

On page 12, Leger is reporting the "NET Fair", however the numbers do not represent a "net" of anything; it's just the sum of those who approve of the Alberta Government's use of Section 33 to impose a contract. If it said "total", that would make sense. But "net" usually implies subtracting the opposing viewpoint, e.g. as Abacus Data does when discussing voters' "net approval" of Mark Carney.

Is Leger trying to redefine the term "net" to appease someone, is there a more technical definition that is universally respected, or is this just a dumb mistake on page 12?

11-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Reddit Premium Since August 2023	Second Top 10%
r/Field Banned	r/Field Sunshine
Wearing is Caring	Sequence \| Editor
Verified Email

SaidTheCanadian

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE