The Liberals and the #SummerOfScandals

Its a slow news day

This summer has taught us all a lot abut politics. Oh wait, that was another summer. This summer has taught us that even during the slowest political news seasons, there is still a lot that can go wrong.

First we learned Justin Trudeau, has difficulty keeping his shirt on when he’s not in Ottawa. While this itself was received in good spirits, there is an inevitable comparison to be drawn with a politician who was endlessly mocked for doing the same.

(Shirtless leader of Canada Trudeau)

(Shirtless leader of Russia Vladimir Putin) 

I have no doubt that shirtless selfies will do more to hurt Trudeau’s credibility in the long run, but at the time they happened, there wasn’t much else in the way of scandals, leaving Liberal supporters to pop boners unabated country wide.

That was quick to change however. ( The lack of scandal not the boners)

Shortly after we  found out two things about Minster of Health Jane Phillipot. Firstly that Jane is probably the epitome of Liberal entitlement - spending ludicrous amounts on a car service owned by a Liberal supporter who worked for her campaign. Secondly we learned that Jane can’t tell a car from a limousine as her story changed practically daily after the story broke.

After that we had Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna spending more than most spend on there wedding photographer with a $6000 budget line for photographs taken while she was representing Canada at the Paris climate change talks.

What began to emerge after that was even more crazy spending from Liberal bureaucrats in Pairs. It became revealed that three individuals spent a total of $12,000 on food over 16 days in paris. The worst offender being Max Guenette, a senior communications bureaucrat in McKenna's department. Over his time in Paris he spent some $4,599 for food alone. This works out to about $288 a day

So what’s the conclusion to all this? Well maybe its a slow time for political news, maybe the honeymoon with the Liberals is over.

I’d prefer to believe however, that this crop of Liberals is just as entitled as all those who came before them. That’s why I’m choosing to ignore the possibility or reasonable explanations, and instead dub this the #SummerOfScandals.

Lets get this trending people!

Edit : Someone pointed out to me that I completely forgot Hunter Tootoo being kicked out of Cabinet after boning one of his staffers sorry folks but its hard to keep track of all the scandals !

Justin Trudeau and the Liberals need to buy a dictionary

The Liberal government have stated they intend to study the idea of creating exceptions to the Conservative parties controversial mandatory minimum sentences.

For those unfamiliar with the issue the former Conservative government passed a series of laws mandating jail time for offenders of certain crimes, such as:

selling a large volume of contraband tobacco, six months for distributing child pornography and five years for trafficking someone under age 18.

Although this sounds nice, much like the Liberal’s other nonsense consultations sounded nice (see my write ups on the Marijuana task force, and the Defence consultation review)the idea of studying “exceptions to mandatory minimum sentences”  is a completely contrary move. 

Without being pedantic, the legal definition of mandatory (as shown at the top of this article) does not permit an option to be disregarded or modified. So from a purely semantical point of view, to add a standardized set of exceptions to a mandatory law is ludicrous. The original law is no longer mandatory if it has exceptions, making a mockery of the entire definition.

There’s more problems with this plan aside from the semantics however. The first is the lack of study on the repercussions of the original Mandatory Minimum Sentences. The original intent of Mandatory Minimums was to take a “tough on crime” approach to reduce crime levels. Critics of the “tough on crime” approach state that it doesn’t work. However, without comprehensive study on the repercussions of enacting the Mandatory Minimums specifically in Canada there’s no objective way to determine whether being tough on crime reduces the rates. Not only does shifting the law make it impossible to study repercussions, it allows critics to subjectively say that the approach doesn't work. 

This relegates the debate over approaches to crime to purely subjective opinions. At best critics will form objective opinions using evidence from other countries, making their conclusions pretty inconclusive. At worst critics of tough on crime will baselessly critique the narrative reducing the overall debate on the issue to mud slinging.

The other major problem is how redundant this move is. The supreme court has already set precedent for exceptions to mandatory minimums. They have done it on two occasions. Without getting into the specifics of cases, the judges that overturned the rulings have created a situation where “ thousands of people each year will serve less time in jail”. 

The reason the Trudeau government is eyeing changes to Mandatory Minimums has a lot to do with PR. Justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould has said:

“The government supports the use of mandatory minimum penalties for the most serious crimes, and crucially, only where they are consistent with the Charter.”

even though the Liberals support mandatory minimums, they don’t want to be put in a position where they have to defend a previous government's law. This is simply because there’s no benefit for them politically. 

If they successfully defend mandatory minimums they will appear like they support Conservative rhetoric on crime, blurring the crucial distinction between the parties that won the Liberals the election.

 If they unsuccessfully defend Mandatory Minimums the Supreme Court could force a review of the legislation creating a PR headache for a government who now has to craft legislation against something they support, while having lost a legal battle that would likely be in the publics eye. 

Unless the Liberals can present evidence regarding Mandatory Minimums one way or another, they are in for a lose lose situation of subjective politicking and lawmaking.

CBC has an unpaid Intern problem

and they won’t admit it. 

CBC revealed this week that the government is not paying its interns ! 

STOP THE PRESSES !

(I couldn't find an imagine sarcastic enough - deal with it)

So you’re telling me even though Canada has a law against unpaid internships, people have found a loophole? Well I wonder how tricky that was

Unpaid internships are illegal unless the internship falls under one the three narrow exceptions listed in Ontario’s Employment Standards Act:internships that are part of a program approved by a secondary school board, college, or university;

Oh, so it wasn’t hard at all. 

Everyone i’ve ever known to apply for an internship has done it through post secondary education. Making one of the three “narrow” exceptions, pretty fucking broad.

(This low quality image making an unpaid intern joke
truly shows just how broad the exception is)

I noticed something funny as CBC was criticizing the government over their use of unpaid interns. In every article CBC wrote on the subject, they admitted that the CBC also hired unpaid interns. This guilty conscious struck me as odd. Since the narrow unpaid internship requirements are as I already pointed out, pretty broad, its really no surprise CBC, or any other large company, has interns, why did they feel the need to point it out? Why do they seem to feel guilty about interns?

Two of the big criticisms CBC had of the government’s unpaid internships was that the government was abusing the free pool of labour by hiring 1000 unpaid interns, and that the interns were being “groomed” for the public service.

To corroborate CBC’s claim the the Feds are abusing the free labour pool lets compare a few numbers. 

The federal government employees about 257, 034 (2015 numbers) people. Thats quite a lot. If we assume CBC’s numbers are correct, Ottawa hires about 1000 interns per yer. This works out to about 0.004% of their total labour pool, or a little less than half of one percent.

lets compare this to CBC who as of 2014 had 8,182 employees. CBC employed 100 interns which means they would make up 1.2% of CBC’s total work force. While 1.2% doesn’t seem so bad , CBC is the one criticizing the feds for abusing the pool of free labour when they themselves employ based on percentage, THREE TIMES AS MANY INTERNS as the federal government.

So CBCs first claim is hypocritical, if not baseless. No surprises there, lets move on.

On the second point that the government was hiring interns “with the expectation they would eventually join the federal public service full-time.” I’m not sure why they are trying to generate controversy about this. Of course you would want an intern you just spent months training to take a job with your company. In fact in the list of requirements CBC has for its interns we find that

• “You must be eligible to work in Canada at the time of the application and for several months after the conclusion of the internship. Although interns are not paid, we need to ensure that you could be employed following your internship.”

So it turns out this criticism is also pretty hypocritical.

So as i’ve already shown, CBC employs a higher percentage of interns than the feds, and just like the Feds they also demand you be available to work for them after your internship. 

As a side note, when googling “CBC internship” the most common articles to come up are ones where interns were warned not to intern at CBC’s “Q”  because of Jian Ghomeshi.

• “University of Western Ontario journalism students heard interning at Q was “off limits” over concerns about host Jian Ghomeshi’s “inappropriate” behaviour.”



(CBC, remember before you write this crap this crap, you let this guy hire interns
giving you a pretty shaking track record) 

CBC needs to get off their high horse and admit their intern problem is a whole lot worse than Ottawa’s. The unpaid internship is clearly effecting both the feds, and CBC. Contrary to their reporting, CBC has it worse though, and at least in Ottawa paid staffers are having consensual sex with their boss. Whatever happened to the first crop of interns who worked over at “Q”, I would bet they weren't paid, and it wasn't consensual.

CBC, watch out with those rocks, you’re in a glass house on this one.

Nova Scotia's NDP are losing their minds !

Pulling up signs and ignoring political convention is a sure sign of a desperate party 

(A stock photo interpretation of the Nova Scotia NDP's supporters)

A story from the east coast caught my attention this week, regarding a provincial by-election which is being held in the “Needham” riding of Halifax Nova Scotia, and provincial NDP supporters stealing their opponents election signs. Before we get into the meat of the issue a little context is necessary.

The NDP in Nova Scotia had for a long time played third fiddle to the provincial Liberals and the NS Progressive Conservatives. Starting in the early 2000’s they started capitalizing on the urban support in the developing city, and by 2003 though they came third in the popular vote, but still won more seats than the Liberals making them the official opposition. This catapulted their popularity, and by 2009 for the first time in Nova Scotian history the NDP formed government, and a majority government at that. The NDP bubble wasn’t built to last however, and after a series of bad PR moves, and an inability to follow through on large campaign promises the urban support for the party absolutely collapsed. Proof of this came shortly after in the 2013 general election. Although the NDP’s support only went from 31% to 26.8%, in terms of seats they went from holding enough for a majority government  (31 out of 52 seats), to holding the same number of seats as a standard minivan (7 out of 52 seats). The leader of the party Darrell Dexter, was one of the many NDP members to lose his seat, essentially spelling the death of the party.

The last two bits of context we need are from April when the NS NDP elected a new leader, and one of the few people to survive the 2013 election, interim NDP leader Maureen Macdonald retired from the Halifax Needham riding she held for the last 18 years.

The problem with Garry Burrill is pretty simple, he isn't currently an elected MLA. Now this isn’t crazy, parties do sometimes elect a leader who doesn’t have a seat, and even if it appears his caucus doesn't support him, i’m sure that won’t be a big deal, so lets move on for the moment. Ms. Macdonald retiring from her long held (and presumably safe) riding shortly after Burrill was elected seemed like a perfect twist of fate. Most assumed the party would adhere to political convention and parachute their leader into the first available seat? Nope. Turns out the NS NDP isn’t even together enough to do that. Here’s a quote regarding Maureen Macdonald and the newly elected leader running in her former riding:

“At her resignation announcement, MacDonald didn’t directly endorse Burrill for her seat, and also wouldn’t commit to campaigning for him”

If you don’t get the subtext, the NDP MLA who held the riding, one of the only MLAs to hold her riding when the NS NDP collapsed electorally in 2013, won’t commit to campaigning for the newly chosen leader. If that doesn’t show a lack of faith and reek of a desperate party, I don't know what does. 

Lack of support from the former MLA aside, the party itself is taking the diss to their leader and choosing not to run their leader in the first election available (as is convention) but rather to wait till the all but assured fall general election. That's their defence of this action anyway.

However NDP insiders see what has really happened: the party has no faith it can win ANY NS riding, even a "safe" riding its held for eighteen years. 

Former NS NDP Finance minster Graham Steele wrote an entire op-ed for CBC basically saying the same thing. It was titled “Win or lose, Liberals win in Halifax Needham byelection”. The most interesting part of the article is where Mr. Steele drops the fact that the candidate who is running in the Needham by-election, Lisa Roberts, was the only candidate to be nominated. Here’s the quote from the article:

“It's not a good sign that the NDP, unlike the Progressive Conservatives and Liberals, couldn't even generate a contested nomination. Contested nominations are healthy and give would-be candidates a chance to show their chops.”

What this means is that interest in running in one of the safest NDP ridings on the east coast was down to literally one person - a political newbie/former CBC journalist with nothing but being a mother, and some community organization under her belt. The leader of the NS NDP himself, had no interest in legitimizing his status by running in the formerly safe Needham riding. In my opinion, the NS NDP absolutely reeks of a desperate, dying party.

When the party as a whole reeks of desperation, its not surprise that  desperation begins to trickle down to their supporters. The man pictured below is named Ken Clare, and he has recently decided to commit several acts of vandalism, in the name of the NS NDP 

(You can see Ken's subtle affiliation with the NS NDP
in one of his Facebook profile pictures)

Ken has taken it on himself to steal and presumably dispose of Liberal party election signs he feels aren’t legally placed 

(In this Facebook post, Ken brazenly admits to interfering with the Needham by-election)

The problems with his action being first of all, he's wrong :

“Halifax spokesperson Tiffany Chase said in addition to private property, signs are allowed on municipal right-of-ways — which includes sidewalks, roads, and grassy medians in between.”

Not only that but as can be seen in the previous image, Ken worked for the NDP and therefore should have some idea of the legality of what he did.

The Nova Scotia NDP refuse to abide by political convention and run their un-elected leader in a by-election partly because no one wanted to run in the “safe” riding, and partly because the former NDP-er who held said riding refused to endorse the un-elected leader. 

To top it off, party supporters have become so desperate that they have taken to committing acts of vandalism in the name of their party.

This is clearly the death rattle for the Nova Scotia NDP. On August 30th when the by-election occurs, and the NDP lose their “safe” seat we will see the beginning of the end of the NS NDP. 

When the general election occurs and the party slips from a minivan’s worth of seats, to the same number of seats as a smart car, maybe without even finding a seat for their leader to win, that will be the final sign the NS NDP is dead. In the meantime, their supporters will continue to go crazy and commit vigilante acts that attack free and fair elections.

Its not the thousand dollar limo ride...

Its about who owns the limo that drove Jane Philpott around

People love it when politicians spend crazy amounts of money on trivial things.

Er well rather, people love to complain about politicians who spend a lot of money on trivial things. This is one of the few areas where most people who follow Canadian politics can agree party doesn’t matter. Tory, Grit, NDP-er, regardless of who you vote for, when someone spends more than you do on a car ride, flight, or glass of juice it is an issue that demands outrage.

(A similarly expensive glass of  OJ, that was bought by a soccer player with limited controversy)

In 2011, then Minster of Development Bev Oda was widely criticized for upgrading her already high level accommodation, spending to much on transport, and in what became the keystone of the argument, spending $16 on a glass of orange juice. The most amusing thing about this in retrospect, is how Liberal Nova Scotian newspaper “The Chronicle Herald” described Ms. Oda’s other expensed line items:

“Oda needed some form of local transportation. As no ordinary London taxi should be used to ferry the well-heeled patrons of the Savoy, a limousine was chartered for the princely sum of nearly $1,000 a day.” 

“one only has to go back to 2006 when Oda was chastised for spending nearly $6,000 in just four days on a limousine service in Halifax while attending the Juno Awards.”

If you do the math, Bev Oda’s limo in London England was cheaper than Ms. Philpott’s Toronto limo, and Oda’s Halifax limo was about $1500 a day, or just shy of $200 more expensive than an afternoon in a limo touring the GTA.

Another example is from 2014, when former deputy leader of the NDP Megan Leslie was criticized for spending some $6,300 on a flight to Ottawa when a Conservative MP from the same area spent a hair over $1000.

While you can say what you want about the specific incidents, what is clear is that no party is immune from criticism over expenses. However there is something that the two previous examples lack, and that’s exactly what sets this case apart.

Jane Philpott’s case is different from other expense scandals. Its not just an issue of over spending, its a much more serious issue of backroom election promises. One would think after the Liberal sponsorship scandal that decimated the party ranks in the 2006 election that as a party they would be more careful about lining the pockets of Liberal supporters. Luckily for those who like to be outraged at politicians, the Liberals were not careful. Minister of Health Jane Philpott spent $1700 for a limo ride around the GTA and in an effort to repeatedly shoot their boss in the foot, Ms. Philpott’s office revealed this wasn't the worst line item from the minister’s finances.

“While the Tories demanded Philpott repay the $1,700, her office revealed even higher expenses paid to the same limo service including a $1,994 bill for a car on the day the minister spoke at a July gathering of the Assembly of First Nations in Niagara Falls, Ont…The minister also paid the company $3,814 for 20 trips to Toronto's Pearson Airport before flying to Ottawa for ministerial business.”

I’m not sure you’re helping, Philpott constituency office. 

However, it gets even worse. Remember when I mentioned the sponsorship scandal, well here's why I dropped that gem into the mix.

“The limo service is owned by Reza Shirani, who was a volunteer on Philpott's election campaign last year. Philpott's office admitted the minister was aware of that connection when she used the service.”

When Oda spent LESS on limos while touring England, but had the gaul to order pricey fruit juice, the Liberals called for her to step down. However when Jane Philpott spends outrageous amounts on a limo, that limo is owned by someone who worked to get her elected, and its proven the minister in question was aware of this, the Liberal’s reaction is… well nothing, so far.

Politicians are notorious for overspending, but thats only half the issue here. The Liberal party in Canada is notorious for giving money to their supporters. They promised they would end this sort of partisan spending, but clearly nothing has changed. 

(The expression of Jacques Corriveau after he realizes his career was tanked
in the wake of the sponsorship scandal, and nothing changed at party HQ)

Someone from the Liberal party needs to stand up and take the blame. Outrageous expense reports are one thing, returning to the days of Liberal sponsorship scandals, are another.

The Alberta government killed a bear with a spear

Throwing spears to kill a bear is legal - and Canadians don't understand the law

(A picture of someone spear hunting a much uglier animal that no one raises a fuss about)

The Canadian press, and many Canadians, have gotten their collective knickers in a twist after an American hunter legally killed a bear. The reason everyone seems to be up in arms, is not because the bear was baited (more about that practice in a moment) its not because the bear was a treasured part of Canadian culture, it is because the man who killed the bear, did it with a spear, a move bleeding hearts everywhere(no pun intended) can't seem to stomach.

A couple of notes first. Black bear are not Kodiaks, or Polar Bears, they are about the least aggressive of all bear species. Here’s the Parks Canada recommendations on what to do if a black bear attacks you:

If you cannot escape and a bear continues its pursuit, react aggressively and try to intimidate the bear.If this fails, fight back with anything at hand such as bear spray, rocks, sticks, knives or other possible weapons to let the bear know that you are not easy prey. Act as a group if you are part of one. Don't forget to yell; help may be close by. 

So to start off, every hunting nut who has popped a huge boner over this, get over it. This hunter was not some sort of bad ass, spearing a deadly beast. Black bears are not a tough animal to take down. For instance, a woman in saskatchewan fought a black bear HAND TO HAND and survived. Using a massive spear as this hunter did, from 11 meters away, after baiting the bear, is about as brave as hunting rabbits with buckshot.

While we’re on the subject of hunting practices, lets talk about “baiting”. Bear baiting is in itself a controversial practice. Many humane societies see it as unethical, and many hunters see it as against the idea of “fair chase”.

If you’re not familiar (which is likely) with the practice it basically goes like this. When people hunt in large open areas, they can spy their prey from miles off, make a beeline and bag a kill. When people hunt in the woods however, their visibility is reduced to basically 20 feet due to all the trees and what not. So instead of tracking for days only to bag a small kill, people who “bait” will setup a bait piles several weeks in advance, then show up on the day they want to hunt and wait for a bear to show up to the pile of food they’ve become accustom to eating from. Here’s the humane society of America describing the same thing. 

“Bear baiting involves intensive feeding of black bears to make them easier target… It occurs typically weeks in advance of hunting seasons to accustom bears to feeding in a certain area. Hunters stack donuts, candy, grease, rotting garbage, corn, fish, meat and other high-calorie foods in the bait piles. Legal in many states, the practice is unsporting and inhumane, increases conflicts with humans and carries environmental consequences.”

So lets get back to who’s hands this bear’s blood is on. The hunter in question is a wimp and choose a less than intimidating animal to hunt, used a method that basically takes the skill out of hunting, and then in an attempt to make himself feel more like a bad ass he used his professional training in the javelin throw, to lob a large spear well into the black bear’s body. He then left the bear, coming back the next day to collect the kill.

While I’ll admit that I’m not trying to cast this hunter in any sort of positive light, that’s mostly due to my disdain for the skill (or lack there off) involved in hunting that uses baiting. The thing is though, Alberta is fine with it. They always have been. There has never been laws against baiting, and its common practice. So if you want someone to blame, blame Alberta.

(Alberta - in red, just in case Canadians need a picture to help them blame things)

Now at this point, you may be saying “but Cato, people are mad the guy threw a huge spear into the chest cavity of another living creature and left it to die, not that he baited the bear” … yeah I know. The problem with getting mad about this is how the law works. Generally laws in Canada are made using “precedent”. This means that for a person to be convicted if a crime, there must have already been a case where someone else was arrested for the same, or a similar action and convicted for it.
So when people come out and say “This guy should be arrested” it’s completely baseless. Alberta is now in the process of making spear hunting bears illegal (great use of time) but instead of understanding the Canadian legal system they have decided to start a witch-hunt after the hunter 

"In the meantime, we have asked Fish and Wildlife officers to investigate this incident to determine if charges are warranted under existing laws.”

Well since everything the hunter did was legal and because no one else has killed bears with spears…

"I just did something I don't think anybody in the entire world has ever done and that was spear a bear on the ground on film. And I smoked him."

There’s no precedent for legal action, and there’s no one to blame but the government.

You can go hunting for polar bears, (a vulnerable species) with a company that offers a 100% success rate, you can bait bears in Alberta so you don’t have to track your kill, you could even go to the other side of the country and hit a seal with a club if that’s your thing. These are all legal, government sanctioned actions.

(Nobody seems to be mad at this hunter, even though shooting a polar bear rarely kills it
and they struggle for life for much longer than the black bear in question did)

 Getting mad at the hunters in this situation, the same hunters who are likely paying the government thousands for the privilege of killing a Canadian animal, is crazy. If Canadians want to get their knickers in a twist over hunting practices then get mad at the government, not at the hunter who admittedly has a pretty decent spear throwing arm. Hunters are just playing by the rules Alberta's government has set out and are only now trying to change the law, in order to shift the bad PR away from practices they absolutely condone.

Trump Will Win

Canadians will be butt-hurt

Its funny to read an article that talks about how underestimating Trump is part of the reason he has made it so far, while in the same breath saying “Canadian’s marvel at circus of US election” i’m not referring to a specific article here or anything…

Its late in the election cycle and to anyone who takes the time to research will realize a Trump presidency is pretty much guaranteed at this point. Yet CBC continues to talk about increased fractures in the Republican party, and does an entire radio shows where they call a nominee for president, an asshole. No seriously, our national broadcaster, who are supposed to be objective in their reporting did an entire radio show about Trumps “psychology” and how much of an asshole he is. Here’s the description of the person they gave public radio time to, in order to make his “argument”

Aaron James, a professor and chair of philosophy at the University of California and author of Assholes: A Theory of Donald Trump, joins the conversation to argue Trump fits the profile of a prototypical "asshole." He has written extensively about the behavioural characteristics of assholes in his bestselling book Assholes: A Theory.

So this is what the journalism surrounding a leading candidate looks like. Sad really, and the fact that our tax dollars are paying for someone to call a leading American politician an asshole for 30+ minutes on public radio is even sadder.

So why do I think Trump will win? Well first of all, i’m not alone in this idea. Leading American pollster Nate Silver has predicted a Trump win - he has since changed his prediction (or rather his website “538” has taken more data into account) but I believe his prediction from July 25th to be one of the closest so far.

(A prediction that while interesting has far to much Blue for me)

However this isn’t my prediction of how american will look after the election. I believe it will look a little more like this:

(The election map from the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan
changes I would make are minor, California likely won't go to Trump,
but this map is red enough for my tastes)

In my opinion, Trump is riding high on the same thing that caused the 2009 Orange Crush, the same factors that led to a yes vote for BREXIT, the same movement that frothed at the mouth shouting “stop Harper” while electing the second Trudeau PM. Trump's rise is part of the “anti-status quo” movement (a term of my own creation). In all the examples i’ve given, the vote that won, was the one that was against something. In the most successful examples, its the vote thats against the status quo.

There’s a lot of reasons why this is, and one of the biggest in my opinion is the human condition. Its a lot easier to convince people to get out and change something, if there is actually something to change. Take BREXIT, where to have won the “no” vote, politicians and pundits were tasked with convincing people to come out and vote to not change things. Why would you take time out of your day to turn up and vote for nothing. If you look at the last election in Canada, the voter turnout itself was what won the Liberal government an overwhelming majority. The other parties got less of the popular vote, but in many ridings, the candidate that lost got more votes than they ha in previous elections. Take the former deputy leader of the NDP Meagan Leslie, who lost her riding to political unknown Andy Fillmore. Ms. Leslie got  more votes than she had in the previous election, even though she lost. Mr. Fillmore (with help from Trudeau and co.) created a lot of new voters, thousands of them in fact. Why? Again, Leslie was the incumbent, the NDP didn’t do a good job of separating itself from the status quo, and with many people’s voting choice basically being a fuck you to the Harper status quo, Halifaxians (not sure of the demonym sorry Halifax) who hadn't voted came out in unpredictable numbers and voted against the status quo.

Think of it this way: its much easier to sell voting for a “change” , than voting to "change" something by electing the same person who previously held the position, ie an incumbent.

The American political system is broken, and it needs to be completely destroyed before it can be replaced. I strongly believe that Trump will get between 52-55% of the popular vote, because that’s how many Americans I believe think the system is broken.

No one cares that Hilary Clinton is a woman, she's played that out. Tipper Gore didn’t project Walter Mondale to a win, and she was the first female VP Candidate. Actually you know what, since i've already called upon the ghost of Reagan i'll go with that analogy.

Trump is the new Reagan, and Hilary Clinton is Walter Mondale. Which makes Tim Kaine... Tipper Gore.