Giving the highest possible benefit of the doubt - what could Poilievre’s angle possibly be by saying this? What does he think it gains him?
Wouldn’t a better political move be to say something like “run whoever you want. x, y, and z policies are what matter and that’s what our party is going to fight for”? I mean, even if it’s a lie, wouldn’t that be a much more politically savvy thing to say? Off the top of my head I can think of 3 or 4 other angles to take that seem a lot better than “the Liberals have a moral responsibility to keep their current leader”. That’s like, high school debate level shit.
Poilievre has been on Parliament Hill for 20 years. I’m just continually baffled by what appear to me to be obvious blunders in a game he should know very well. Is there something I’m missing?
edit: Is it possible that this is an ego thing for Poilievre? Is there some thread here that, he wanted to be the one to take down Trudeau, and if internal Liberal party operations accomplish that instead, that takes away some kind of marquee victory that Poilievre wanted for himself?
Not sure where you are, but where I live, college and community radio stations are still old school, and very worth listening to. Most if not all now stream online too, so, they’re around if you’re looking for that hit of the olden times.
Nice!
Been hunting for an old tube state radio ever since I heard one last year - it blew my fucking mind how deep, rich, and punchy FM radio came through on that little thing. I couldn’t believe how good it sounded.
Thank you!
I don’t want to call anyone out individually. But I have come across accounts with 7-8k comments in the span of a few months. I don’t really think it’s worth reporting them, and don’t have the time or energy to research and block them individually, I’d just rather have them automatically muted on my end via a tool or plugin.
I assumed this would be something I’d have to program myself, just wasn’t sure if it was clearly not possible or practical for one reason or another.
It’s not obscure, but, for me, Wikipedia is the ultimate example of the old internet that still persists today.
Free to use, no account required, ad free, non-corporate, multilingual, heavily biased toward text, simple and utilitarian design. Hyperlinks concatenate relevant pieces of information, which serve as the means to navigate the site. The code is very simple (seriously, view the page source of a wikipiedia article). It’s based on the human desire to learn and share knowledge with others, and has remained resilient to corruption by commercial interests that pervert that desire for monetary gain. It’s a beautiful thing.
One of the strangest elements of this story is that the Village People and Rufus Wainwright are on the Trump campaign playlist.
PP is going ‘young, hip’
Such a laughable turn. I think it’s a marker that literally anybody could be in his shoes, doing and saying anything at all, and they’d be polling well.
Freeland is incredibly capable - but can be tied, hand in glove, with everything Trudeau
Yep. Liberals are zugzwanged.
FWIW, in terms of % of the popular vote in 2021, Alberta voted NDP at a higher rate than Ontario. So I think the results of a FPTP election obscure the diversity of views in Alberta.
What I mean to say is not that the LPC’s choice for leader would be bullshit, but that, whatever their choice is, it’s hard to imagine how they would be able to credibly separate themselves from what has made the LPC so unpopular.
So for that reason, I’m not sure why Freeland would be the obvious choice. If the Liberals want to win a federal election, I think she’d be a poor choice for party leader. Any barbs that could be directed at Trudeau could be easily directed at Freeland. From an optics standpoint, I don’t think it’s possible to differentiate Freeland from Trudeau, and the Liberal party of the past decade. That’s a problem that I think would override who she is or her credentials, at least in the public eye.
Even if the Liberals somehow manage to find a credible, electable leader that doesn’t end up being a Michael Ignatieff 2.0, I see no reason to trust that they won’t deliver more of the same bullshit.
When it comes to leadership in American politics, it’s said that democrats fall in love, and republicans fall in line.
I don’t want to fall in love. The past decade of Canadian politics has been a parade of ‘charisma’ and it hasn’t gotten us anywhere. I want a sincere and straightforward leader, who won’t get embroiled in scandals, has a strong stance on foreign policy, a plan for foreign interference, the housing & affordability crisis, and an ability to deal with issues in a straightforward and policy-focused way. I guess what I’m trying to say is I want a prime minister with a short skirt and a long jacket.
An election must be in the air, he’s saying the thing again.
I know Bruichladdich has said they do this for the Laddie Classic (a bottling I really love). Source: just trust me bro. I don’t recall when or where I heard that. Possibly they do it with other bottlings, and surely other distilleries are doing the same thing. Bruichladdich didn’t invent the process. But it’s not a well studied, documented, or promoted element of whisky ageing, because, I think, it’s not as sexy as infusion and evaporation. Among other reasons. If you’re curious, I could spin a yarn.
Any distillery that chooses to do this, certainly does it for a reason. Disgorging and re-casking a batch is a massive pain in the ass, and holds up warehouse space & production timelines - two things a bean counter with no sensitivities to flavour would be happy to cut out.
Could be! From my experience, high strength Bourbon is better a couple weeks after being opened. From a flavour standpoint, gin also benefits greatly from resting for a few weeks after distillation.
In fact, one of my favourite Scotch Whisky distilleries will blend a production batch, and then re-barrel the blended volume in casks and let it rest for 6 months to allow the flavours to harmonize.
There is definitely some magic that happens after spirits are blended/bottled, and it’s not very well understood, but the changes are detectable, and in general, they’re positive.
What we know as whisky maturation is a dance between 4 interrelated processes - infusion, evaporation, oxidation, and other chemical reactions. These all happen together, and very nicely, when whisky sits in oak barrels for an extended period of time.
Colour, and oak flavour are infused into the whisky simply by sitting in the barrel. The whisky will slowly evaporate while inside the barrel as well. Volatile compounds evaporate, making the whisky smoother, deeper, and more complex with age. Fascinating chemical reactions happen between compounds in the wood, and in the whisky. As ethanol degrades lignin, for example, it creates new compounds, which themselves interact with other molecules and compounds in solution.
The age statement on a bottle of whisky refers to the time it spent in a barrel, doing those lovely things.
Common wisdom is that the whisky is done changing when it goes into glass. Certainly, infusion and evaporation are finished. But! Oxidation, and reactions between compounds in the whisky itself will continue, even in a sealed glass bottle. Usually this happens too slowly to notice, or the bottle gets drank before a change can be observed, but change certainly happens.
Long story short - whisky won’t go bad. In fact, sometimes it even goes ‘good’! I had the chance to try a young single malt, that was bottled in the 1970s. It was wonderful, and had signature aroma and flavour characteristics of a very old whisky. This is due to slow oxidation, and the glacial interaction between esters and congeners over time, which will happen no matter what vessel the whisky is in.
Whisky that has been exposed to too much oxygen, like if the bottle sits nearly empty for a long time, or has a bad seal, will often end up tasting flat and bland. But ‘good’ or ‘bad’ at this point, is a subjective matter. Only one way to find out!
This is the sort of thing that the old internet could really deliver on. Chances are, a search query could lead you to some guy’s hoodie blog, and he just liked hoodies, and posted honestly about them.
Now, it’s all a mess of SEO pumped affiliate link lists filled with crapware. If the query is even thinkable, there will be AI generated pages stuffed with sponsored links, ready and waiting for you. And with search engines preferring recent results, that’s the type of page you’ll be served.
I’ve had decent luck using marginalia search to seek out some of those old internet type results. Obscurity works as a barrier to corporate infiltration. Plus you get page results that don’t have a million tracking and analytics scripts running on them, which is refreshing.
Also, I can see from the NDP perspective, the view that the Liberals weren’t holding up their part of the deal to advance NDP policy. In this circumstance, it’s not like quitting a job. Trudeau wasn’t Singh’s boss. They had an agreement that the NDP said was mutable from the start based on their discretion. For Trudeau to bellyache about it all now is, I think, a bit silly, considering the essentially cost-free benefit his party gained from the agreement for years.
Could be. Even then, it’s still so odd. He’s in this political win-win situation, where he has an advantage if Trudeau stays on, and he has an advantage if the Liberals make a last-minute change and roll into the election (that we all know is lingering) with an untested newbie.
Although, the CPC and Poilievre didn’t earn this excellent spot on the chessboard by any strategic triumph, so maybe it’s not so surprising that he appears to have no idea how to work the pieces.