Nathan (not Nate)

Does the pull-up bar come with a selfie stand? That would make it even more convenient for those who want to use it

Nope. We work with loonies and toonies on this side of the pond

Canadian here. Your denominations make zero sense to me.

I think the MOU was more about putting responsibility on Alberta to find a proponent and to stop Smith from continuing to blame the liberals. Look at the reaction at the UCP convention - divisions in the party appear when the common enemy is removed

I'm trying to understand your point. Businesses make money by being paid more for products/services than it costs to produce. Tariffs are an additional cost that skew the math, so businesses either make less money or increase prices. The Repubs claim to be pro-business, but cheer for Tariffs?

Who do businesses collect them from? And what do they do with the tariffs they collect?

Does he realize he is also making the case for a higher corporate tax rate?

Not sure if it was done for this reason, but Carney accommodating Alberta's demands has removed the common enemy that united the right, and is forcing the big tent party to do some internal reckoning.

If a private company thinks there's a business case, they can build one at no cost to the feds. I think the whole point is to mute a conservative attack (same reason the carbon tax was cancelled). Even Danielle Smith is being friendly now.

Well, if people would stop re-electing shitty provincial governments, maybe we could fix our own messes.

I'm from AB and lukewarm about another pipeline. However, there is a perception that big projects can't happen anymore, and this causes angst here in AB. I think showing willingness to support a big project (conditional on consultation, environment, etc.), is important.

Where was he when Blockbuster was in trouble? Another commercial casualty of the radical left...

From a political perspective, is this even possible? Seems like it would be toxic for anyone to touch it

I mean, D's argue about the pros and cons of the filibuster, while R's win because they say, "They're stealing your jobs and eating your cats!" Don't get me wrong, debates about the filibuster, etc. matter. But they don't win elections, and right now, D's need a win.

I see your point, and maybe you're right. Maybe R's would have backed down. But maybe they wouldn't until a bad situation got even worse. I think the real problems are (1) bad cadidates win primaries, and (2) D's keep losing elections.

My main point is this - the problem was created because the R's control all three branches. Blaming the D's for picking a bad one of the bad options is pointless. Real change happens at the ballot box (including the primaries for weak-ass senators)

If you want a metaphor, how about a gun, but being told to pick one of your kids. The longest shutdown in history has a real human cost, as will the loss of healthcare. It's a bad situation either way.

This isn't a hostage situation. It's a game of chicken where the other side doesn't care about the human cost. I don't know what a win looks like when people are harmed either way. The real issue is Rs control the house, the senate, and the presidency. That needs to change.

If this galvanized support for more progressive leaders, then by all means.

My point was not about the filibuster (Jesus, we're like dogs and obscure points are the squirrels). Who's fault is it that Dems were forced to choose BTW starving children and healthcare?

I get the anger, and I'm not saying D senators are blameless. But when you are fighting someone who is immoral and ignores the law, I'd focus my anger on that, and not those who faced a bunch of bad choices and picked a bad one. The only way to really fight bad is through elections.

Yeah, I mean, elections have consequences. That's where the real battle needs to happen.

So, how long do you think it would have taken for R's to cave? Another week, maybe a month? Maybe never? And how many kids would go hungry to make it happen? The R's are the real enemy, they created this situation.

See, this is what happens. D's get all pedantic and start infighting. R's blame D's for all bad things and proceed to raid the cookie jar. D's then blame their own for not solving an impossible scenario created by R's. Absolutely hold your own to account, but don't forget who the real enemy is.

Nah, Republicans were like, "Starve poor people AND take their health care? This is great. And the dems will blame themselves however it come out." Let's stay on target and go after the real villains

Stacked Supreme Court says wut?

The leverage, though was people not getting food or pay, and the risk was the end of the filibuster. I'm not happy with the way it ended, but it's still a tough call.

"It wasn't working... according to my donors"

I think SNAP helps relieves some tension between the employer's desire to minimize costs and the worker's desire to feed their family. If it wasn't there, you might see more unrest

That's my MP. I always thought he was one of the good ones, even if I don't like his choice of party.