Honestly I make the same assumption about a lot of his positions. Much of what he says or suggests policy wise doesn’t hold up if you dig into it. So why say it in the first place?
Most of the platform is being built on people being angry and not understanding the systems that are being talked about.
From that perspective it makes sense that they need to continue to feed lies, half-truths and other nonsense to keep people angry.
My assumption is that this angle is the easiest to get people to be angry about. Most of his platform is getting people angry about things that don’t exist or excited about solutions that won’t solve anything. IMO getting people to be angry about a leadership change is more of the same.
deleted by creator
It could also be that they were dependent on subsidised oil imports from Venezuela but over the last year Venezuela has drastically reduced how much oil it’s sending.
On one hand I think it’s ok for rental prices to go up as device prices increase. But that should never happen after a customer has a device, at that point the device price was already locked in. If they rent an additional device? Sure that one could cost more, but not the existing ones
Honestly I would love to see laws that make rental units without the option to purchase illegal. (With appropriate limits on how much the purchase option costs)
I agree that there may need to be better systems in place, but I’m not still convinced that the sitting government should have much direct control over it.
In the Han Dong case as you said he’s now an independent and is unlikely to be re-elected. If there were a better official process by elections Canada or the RCMP ideally a byelection could have been called to replace him.
I just also worry that if that procedure is initiated by the government rather than a third party it could also be abused by a sitting government to force by-elections in favorable ridings to potentially boost seats.
I just struggle with all the criticism because no one is suggesting Elections Canada be beefed up to better handle this, they are instead suggesting that the Liberal government should be doing something. while it could be indirectly assumed that people are asking the Liberal government to pass legislation to reform elections Canada, this is a minority government, any party can table legislation that would aim at doing just that. As far as I know no party has suggested doing that.
Alternatively it could be assumed that the ask is for a minority government have the ability to expell elected MPs, which of course is not something that should be possible. What if a majority vote could expell elected MPs? What would prevent a majority government from expelling the entire opposition party?
None of this feels great 😞
So these are two different things right? Election interference is one thing, but MPs being compromised by a foreign government is another different thing.
The report you’re mentioning about the 2019 and 2021 election interference not impacting the results was not a statement from the government but from third party review. I would agree that that third party review should have been initiated by elections Canada, but I don’t think that the acting government should have had more involvement in that process, I think it should have had less.
When it comes to compromised MPs, it’s more nuanced. If there is hard proof that an MP is compromised, then there is good reason to assume the investigation is over and that the information can be made public (and if they broke a law they should be held accountable by the courts). But if there is only strong suspicion that an MP is compromised that shouldn’t be made public, but I think it does fall onto the leader of the party to make the call on what to do. The trouble is we’re working with information that is part of an active investigation. It’s not a good idea to let an governing party expell MPs from other parties on the grounds of them being involved in an active investigation, that to me sets a dangerous precedent that could be exploited by a governing party to expell rival MPs via baseless investigations that would not hold up in court.
I haven’t seen anything that suggests that the Liberal party is mishandling election interference matters that fall under their control.
But election interference related things are not something that the acting government should have influence over. Elections Canada is independent and should be handling anything creditable, and the legal system should be capable of handling any prosecuting.
I strongly stongly stongly believe that the government should not be able to directly influence anything that can change election results.
Isn’t that a photo a perfect example of what happens when we let private institutions provide public services (which is what you’re suggesting be done instead).
Are you trying to say that things would be better if elementary and High school also had to be paid for directly instead of being publicly funded?
Do you think an acting government should be the one who sets the bar on what foreign interference is? That sounds like a huge conflict of interest. What’s wrong with leaving it to the courts to decide?
That’s what the investigation is. And that’s happening. All parties with the correct access can access that information. What accountability isn’t happening?
Do you have an example that uses real income? All those percentage are relative to something, and that something is the most important part.
What province are we talking about and what salary are we talking about.
To be honest though, this sounds like some pie in the sky libertarian point of view where they are suggesting multiple things that are repeatedly proved false. Some of which include:
Which at that point I think you’re argument is correct, if we stopped spending effectively around 40% of our income (thats on the high-end) on funding public services, then over 75% of our income would need to go towards paying to get those same services back.
I must have missed the part where there was definitive evidence that anyone was compromised. I thought this was still an investigation.
If this has progressed to the stage that the evidence is strong enough than sure the names should be released, but I didn’t think the investigation was at that point.
The alternative is the list of names is released and then it later comes out that a few names were actually innocent but it’s too late to take it back because that incorrect news being public will have ruined their chances or reelection.
I would love to see the math behind that. Typically it’s a case where someone is effectively paying 25% of their income to taxes, but because they are too lazy to actually understand how taxes work they are easily convinced it’s well over 50%
If gamers weren’t so against it, honestly NFTs could actually be that thing.
When I was carless I depended on my reusable bags. Plastic bags were so annoying to walk or bus with.
Competition or a better voting system? Under first past the post adding more competition doesn’t address the mismatch between votes and seats.
Of course it will. The low rates are only in some ways part of what caused the problem.
The problem on a whole is going to continue until either municipalities start to allow higher density construction or the provinces step in and force municipalities to stop putting up red tape.
I’ve never viewed getting rid of plastic bags as a carbon saving measure. To me it’s addressing how bad they are when they get into the environment. As much as these bags can be reused, most aren’t and they just end up thrown out.
I find this stance wild. Like I none of us are happy with what’s going on in Gaza, but some people are completely blind to the various ways the current US government has been using its political might to try prevent the war from spreading. People can argue that those steps may or may not be working, that’s fine, in glad people have that opinion.
But how can those same people look at Trump and their statements and views on this subject and think “yes that’s better”? Trump has blatantly said that he things Israel is doing a good job, he also thinks that USA should not be invoived in any humanitarian aid in Gaza.
If Trump is elected, the situation in Gaza is going to get substantially worse. If you actually care about Gaza, the strategic vote is Harris. It’s not a perfect vote or even a great vote, but that’s what FPTP forces, when there is a single issue you’re passionate about, you have to vote strategically. That means looking at the candidates and picking the candidate who most closely matches your views and is also most likely to win. Otherwise you’re throwing your vote away (assuming there were an issue you’re supper passionate about, if there are no super important issues then it’s justifiable to vote for a candidate you really like)