Politics

Tubby’s Canteen said:

Ask me tomorrow spike I’ll write you a book about it, This morning I got a wicked hangover. I’m going to practice my Chinese and take my guns for a nice quiet boat ride.

Click to expand...

Looks like the reason..too many others registered in his area to dilute the vote..

spike.t said:

Looks like the reason..too many others registered in his area to dilute the vote..

Opposition leader Pierre Poilievre loses seat in Canadian parliament, CBC projects

The Conservative is expected to experience a personal defeat, after his party was bettered nationwide by the Liberals.

www.bbc.com

Click to expand...

Other candidates totalled 1160 votes and PP lost by 5k. Personally, I think he makes a great attack dog, but wouldn’t have a clue what to do if he actually got into power with no villain to go after.

spike.t said:

Seems they are saying too much reliance on wind and solar contributed to the massive power collapse in Spain and Portugal....

Access Restricted

And this one saying uk better watch out as with the government same bullshit it will happen there....

Access Restricted

Click to expand...

Yes, the problem of too high solar penetration in a specific grid is the lack of spinning assets (anything with a turbine), as those help to stabilise and maintain the frequency of the electricity grid. Too big of a frequency deviation and the whole grid goes down. Which is what happened in Iberia.

Corey0372 said:

What destabilization efforts are the Iranian's responsible for in the Muslim regions in Russia? Are they suddenly pro-Salafist, but only in Russia?

Terrorists like Ibn al-Khattab and Abu al Walid didn't get their ideology from Iran, they also didn't learn to fight or build their network with the help of Tehran. They developed these skills fighting Russians, with arms provided by the West, and an ideology that comes from countries we arm.

If anything, blowback and second order effects caused by Western (mostly US) operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East fostered the environment that led to the militant movements in the Caucasus in the post-Soviet era (which I'm sure the West was just aghast at seeing unfold).

What would help from the West to deal with problems with the Muslim population of Russia look like? Would it look like when we supported Al Nusra Front and the current terrorist in charge of Syria? Or when we supported the Albanian criminals of the KLA?

We may not like it, but Kadyrov is probably the person best equipped to deal with Salafists inside Russia. He's a brutal gangster, but he doesn't support this ideology, and the only person he answers to is Putin, who also doesn't support it.

Click to expand...

That is a fair point. I should have used the word influence. Persia has a long history of viewing the Caucuses as part of its regional area of influence or control. Yes, it has had limited success among the non-Shia population.

The last open conflict with Russia were the Russo-Persian Wars of the first quarter of the 19th century. Post the Russian revolution, religious leaders in Persia (after 1935, Iran) fervently denounced communism. Following the revolution in Iran in 1978, every known communist, Soviet agent, and sympathizer was arrested and summarily executed with the same fervor as members of the Shah's regime.

Since then and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Iran has exploited "soft power" in the Caucuses - both the Russian north and independent south. The Ukrainian War has been an opportunity to expand those soft power initiatives. Along with the protection of a military support relationship with Moscow, Iran has carefully exploited now regular engagement and attendance at trade and cultural meetings and exchanges across the region like the recent one in Grozny.

Long before the Ukraine invasion, a number of Russian scholars have warned of this insidious effort. Some of the analysis by Radzhab Safarov and Akhmet Yarlykapov has found its way into English. I am sure there are others since I was involved in studying this subject.

I think your point with respect to Kaydrov is correct but with a somewhat different twist. I do not believe anyone would seriously argue that Kaydrov hasn't proven himself the ultimate opportunist. Should the Dutchy of Moscow again find itself falling into Yeats world where "Things fall apart, the center cannot hold," Kaydrov will be center stage to exploit that opportunity. Iran too is in a far better position to do so than it was in 1991 when it was still recovering from its long war with Iraq. A militant pan-Islamic movement led by someone like Kaydrov and sponsored by Iran would hardly be a fantasy in such an environment.

No, my head would not rest easy in the Kremlin.

A California lawmaker has introduced a bill that would decriminalize welfare fraud under $25,000, and attempted fraud under $950.

Democrats and fraud are synonymous

Hopefully they get this passed this time. Making it illegal for congress members to do what would land us in Jail and property confiscated.

BTW, the name PELOSI Act is priceless.

"Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act"

Scott CWO said:

Perhaps the Russians saved up for a while or got caught up from previous exchanges. I didn’t realize you were there and know the timeframes?

Click to expand...

The last body exchange was the one I posted where Ukraine received the bodies of 909 Ukrainian soldiers, while Russia received the bodies of 43 Russian soldiers.

The second last exchange took place in November of 2024:
https://meduza.io/en/news/2024/11/0...illed-soldiers-return-to-ukraine-37-to-russia

Where Ukraine received the bodies of 562 Ukrainian soldiers and Russia received the bodies of 37 Russian soldiers.

These body exchanges are one of the few points of co-operation between the Russian and Ukrainian side and they are held fairly regularly.

Now part of the reason why the Russians are getting so many Ukrainian bodies is that they are advancing all across the front line. So they are getting into the trenches where the Ukrainian dead are. The Ukrainians are being pushed back across the front line so they have less access to the Russian dead. But still these numbers definitely call into question the claimed 5:1 casualty exchange ratio in the Ukrainian favor.

Corey0372 said:

What destabilization efforts are the Iranian's responsible for in the Muslim regions in Russia? Are they suddenly pro-Salafist, but only in Russia?

Terrorists like Ibn al-Khattab and Abu al Walid didn't get their ideology from Iran, they also didn't learn to fight or build their network with the help of Tehran. They developed these skills fighting Russians, with arms provided by the West, and an ideology that comes from countries we arm.

If anything, blowback and second order effects caused by Western (mostly US) operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East fostered the environment that led to the militant movements in the Caucasus in the post-Soviet era (which I'm sure the West was just aghast at seeing unfold).

What would help from the West to deal with problems with the Muslim population of Russia look like? Would it look like when we supported Al Nusra Front and the current terrorist in charge of Syria? Or when we supported the Albanian criminals of the KLA?

We may not like it, but Kadyrov is probably the person best equipped to deal with Salafists inside Russia. He's a brutal gangster, but he doesn't support this ideology, and the only person he answers to is Putin, who also doesn't support it.

Click to expand...

How can you call Ibn al-Khattab, Abu al Walid, Al Nursa, and the KLA terrorists and criminals? These are brave freedom fighters! haha

I have noticed a trend, most of these Salafist groups tend to get their funding from the Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia. Many prominent Salafists are also Saudis. But hey since Saudi Arabia is a key strategic ally of the US I guess they get a pass for polluting the world with this filth...

Dragan N. said:

The last body exchange was the one I posted where Ukraine received the bodies of 909 Ukrainian soldiers, while Russia received the bodies of 43 Russian soldiers.

The second last exchange took place in November of 2024:
https://meduza.io/en/news/2024/11/0...illed-soldiers-return-to-ukraine-37-to-russia

Where Ukraine received the bodies of 562 Ukrainian soldiers and Russia received the bodies of 37 Russian soldiers.

These body exchanges are one of the few points of co-operation between the Russian and Ukrainian side and they are held fairly regularly.

Now part of the reason why the Russians are getting so many Ukrainian bodies is that they are advancing all across the front line. So they are getting into the trenches where the Ukrainian dead are. The Ukrainians are being pushed back across the front line so they have less access to the Russian dead. But still these numbers definitely call into question the claimed 5:1 casualty exchange ratio in the Ukrainian favor.

Click to expand...

As you said, the Russians have been slowly advancing and therefore finding more Ukrainian bodies. The Ukrainians are not going to find Russian bodies inside their lines. I think the 5:1 casualty rate still holds fast. The Russians are out of armor and using golf carts and dirt bikes.

spike.t said:

You think someone would sacrifice themselves?

Click to expand...

That's what usually happens. An MP close to retirement, or one that has already hit pension and then wants to jump into private sector and sit on a board or two, etc.

Technically even the PM doesn't require a seat, but it does impact your standing in the House of Commons. King didn't win his seat on two occasions when the LPC still formed government. Turner became PM before the election and had to sit in the visitors gallery in the House because he had no standing.

OxfordTheCat said:

That's what usually happens. An MP close to retirement, or one that has already hit pension and then wants to jump into private sector and sit on a board or two, etc.

Technically even the PM doesn't require a seat, but it does impact your standing in the House of Commons. King didn't win his seat on two occasions when the LPC still formed government. Turner became PM before the election and had to sit in the visitors gallery in the House because he had no standing.

Click to expand...

The classy thing for PP to do is to ride off into the sunset with his pension. Could you imagine the screaming he would be doing if Carney stayed on as leader without winning a seat!

There’s nothing I hate more than being inconsistent with which rules apply when and to whom.

Not seeing these kind of stories in the main stream media as it doesn't support their narrative.
Still in buy mode.

VertigoBE said:

Yes, the problem of too high solar penetration in a specific grid is the lack of spinning assets (anything with a turbine), as those help to stabilise and maintain the frequency of the electricity grid. Too big of a frequency deviation and the whole grid goes down. Which is what happened in Iberia.

Click to expand...

And it will happen again, as our Government (socialist/communist, backed by separatists), has decided to close the remaining nuclear power plants, coal is already gone, and gas will be phased out, all in favor of totally green energy. Solar and windmills.

Woodcarver, if

1. the Ukrainian war ends with a contested cease fire. ( Ukraine contesting but still signing the cease fire. The border will remain as it was during Obama’s and Biden regime and is currently.

2. Tariff deals start coming through

3. The Big beautiful bill gets signed.

The economy will go on a tear. It’s been pent up.
so it will go gangbusters.

I think this uncertainty will all be gone by June or July.


If Putin doesn’t get serious and agree to a lasting cease fire. Trump should give Ukraine anything it wants and needs.

And Zelenskyy should never agree to Putins parade truce. He should actually attack during that parade.

Aaron N said:

The classy thing for PP to do is to ride off into the sunset with his pension. Could you imagine the screaming he would be doing if Carney stayed on as leader without winning a seat!

There’s nothing I hate more than being inconsistent with which rules apply when and to whom.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, Carney was Prime Minister of Canada, attending international conferences, making major decisions, without having a seat . . .

Hank2211 said:

On the other hand, Carney was Prime Minister of Canada, attending international conferences, making major decisions, without having a seat . . .

Click to expand...

You’re right, and what did they say about that. I’m not saying carney was right. I’m saying no one should be leading a party unless they hold a seat in parliament at the time.

Nyati said:

all in favor of totally green energy. Solar and windmills.

Click to expand...

which isnt actually green at all...

it takes more crude to manufacture and maintain wind power than it does to just use the crude to generate energy in the first place.. then you have to deal with disposal once the system wears out....

at some point solar and wind will very likely make sense.. both are far more efficient than they were 25 years ago... and continue to gain efficiency..

but today I think its a very, very bad move...

in my very best billy bob thornton voice... if wind was the future exxon would be putting windmills all over the fucking place... (they arent... which should be a very, very big indicator)..

Normally, I'd agree with you, but I think this may be a special case:

1. The Conservatives got more votes overall than they have for many elections. What killed them was the collapse of the NDP, with likely 100% of those voters switching to the Liberals (they aren't likely Conservative voters in any scenario). Had that not happened, we would likely have seen a Conservative majority. Points for Poilievre.

2. Some say that they voted Liberal because they thought Carney would do a better job fighting Trump. But - you can't really fight Trump, at least not without doing (more) material damage to an economy which is so dependent on international trade and US trade in particular. And fighting Trump may just make things worse, which people may come to regret. People may come to see in pretty short order that Poilievre's approach may be the better one. More points.

3. Most importantly, in a minority government situation, we have no idea how long Carney will last, but it's likely not four years. To get a new leader elected and up and running could take too long, especially since there's no other realistic or waiting-in-the-wings number 1. So keeping Poilievre in the spot may make sense, at least for the foreseeable future. If we had a majority, I would agree with you.

4. Canada is the most divided than at any time I can recall (and I'm well into my 60s). If Carney continues with Liberal policies of the past, that will only get worse and again, people may wake up and see that the country is at risk not from external threats, but from internal ones. Poilievre would have been a better choice there.

5. Carney adopted an old Liberal trick - if your opponent has policies which are attractive to the electorate, take them as your own. He took Poilievre's two main policies - the carbon tax and the increase in the capital gains inclusion rate - and adopted them as his own. So the Conservatives had the right policies, they just couldn't make people see that those who adopt policies against their will are likely of the same opinion still. Points to Poilevre for reading the electorate here (but loses points for not being able to overcome the tried-and-true Liberal campaign tactic.)

Overall, I think that Poilievre did a reasonable job, given the very unusual circumstances of this election. I hope (and pray) that my fellow Canadians will soon wake up and see that re-electing those who are responsible for Canada's "lost decade" wasn't the bright idea they may have though it was yesterday. I'd give Poilievre a year and if Carney remains a likely winner between the two, then I'd push for a change. In the meantime, Poilievre needs to become and appear to become more "statesman" like.