CalPal @ CalPal @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

19

Joined

2 yr. ago

In addition to what gonzo mentioned, here is something else to consider:

There are only two significant political parties in the US. FPTP isn't much of a big deal when it comes to a two-party system (since one party is guaranteed to win a 50+1 vote [50% plus one vote, for plural majority]), but you add a third or more, and suddenly you start realizing the flaws of such a system.

If three parties are split 33-33-34, the 34 wins 100% of the riding. This would be in spite of not having earned 66% of the vote. Imagine how much worse this becomes when you add a fourth party, or a fifth, etc. You might imagine, then, that people might start being angry at a democracy when ~80% of the electorate are angry at not voting for the winning candidate, which is entirely possible and has happened - if not in Canada, then at least famously in Britain in one of its ridings during the 2010s sometime there.

Thankfully, in one sense, you guys don't have to deal with the majority of the electorate not electing the winning candidate. However, I don't think that is outweighing all of the problems that the two-party system is leading to, to be quite fair...

2 Hot takes:

1. This is, what? The fourth election the Conservatives have lost in a row? The third since the Liberals first ran for retaining their position as the governing party, at the least. If they aren't winning with moderate candidates, and they aren't winning with reformist far-right candidates, how can the Conservatives justify to their own party that they can competently prove themselves to be a governing party when seemingly no leadership style is shaking the Liberals?

This is likely going to lead to the Conservatives splitting between the reformers and the moderates once more, as either is going to believe the other side is inhibiting their ability to lead a new government. Reformers will likely solidify everywhere between the East of the Rockies and West of Ontario (Eastern BC and all the Prairie Provinces, I'm thinking), while the Conservatives will have to once again fight for representation largely in Ontario and (maybe) the Atlantic Provinces.

It would be nice to see the Right-wing splitting their votes the same way the Left does for NDP and Liberals, if for no other reason than to help make Minority governments more prominent in Canada as a whole; however,

2. Doug Ford might genuinely abandon the Provincial government and use this as a chance to catapult his brand to the Federal level. He could also (maybe?) be the first politician to serve on a Municipal, Provincial and Federal level within a single career. As much of a shit-show as he is, he also undeniably can win seats in Ontario, most crucially in the Toronto area, and the Federal Conservatives really need someone who can do that.

Simple why it's so effective:

Institutions are facing increasingly insurmountable problems, and people are not dealing with the consequences and stress that comes from these problems. They want answers and solutions.

Institutions ask for you to have patience and give them time to fix the issues. Problem: people already don't believe that the institutions are fixing things, so you can't rely on them to fix it. The solution, they feel, has to come from elsewhere.

Left-wing propaganda says that the institution is broken, they will fix it. They want to take the money away from the ultra rich and give it back to the public as a form of equalization. If you are part of the ultra rich, you don't like this.

Right-wing propaganda says the institution is broken, they will fix it. Right-wingers generally believe in the accumulation of capital for themselves via "merit", which means the upper class and billionaires are likely to be supporting / using them.

People believe that things need to be fixed (which is likely true). Only left-wing and right-wing propaganda say that the institution needs to be fixed, it definitely isn't coming from the institution itself.

The ultra rich fund whichever propaganda will allow them to retain their own benefits and works to suppress the propaganda of the ones who work against their interests.

Hence, right-wing propaganda is massively inflated to support fixing a system that allows retaining wealth, while they suppress left-wing propaganda which says wealth needs to be redistributed to the masses.

To clarify: "The Crown" is often a short-handed statement for the executive government, which is basically the Cabinet for the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) - all the Ministers of different government departments. Symbolically, they work in the interest of the de jure (written in law) authority of Canada, which would be the Monarchy in Britain (who is also symbolically head of state for every other Commonwealth nation). Now, as to touch on the British Commonwealth (since "The Crown" in Canada would basically be decimated in a conventional confrontation with the US):

It would turn into an existential crisis for everyone, I assume. A lot of "every man for himself" sort of mentality, but I assume there would be those who would want to fund a Canadian resistance (even if paltry) simply on the notion that an Imperial America is a FAR worse threat than anything Europe had faced before (expansionist policies, current global economic power, utterly disconnected from mainland Europe and the largest navy and airforce combined... kind of a worse situation than Fascist Germany, since it would be far more difficult to deal any direct damage to US infrastructure from the other side of the pond).

I'll be honest, I would have no idea if the Commonwealth would actually step up in a way that is remotely similar to what we have done for Ukraine. I would honestly expect more help from Mexico and Latin Americans than I would the Commonwealth, as they would see that the US would be a very tangible threat at this point and also share the all-too-important land boarder.

They once said that Ukraine would get absolutely rolled by Russia within 3 days, 2 weeks tops.

Never underestimate a pissed off underdog, especially when fealty to the US President is nowhere near as "strong" / co-opted as in the Russian Federation.

Yeah, that's probably correct... but what the hell kind of a solution are we supposed to be looking for? Reason is being lost on them, and it becomes increasingly exhausting to try and convince them to not believe in something they want to believe in.

Maybe it doesn't do anyone any good, but I'm fucking tired of pretending that their opinions are in any way valid.

The guy has 34 felony counts on him, as is. What's one more legal violation, at this point?

NO MATTER THE CORRECT ANSWER!!!

To a certain extent, you really do not want to rush legal proceedings because we've spent hundreds of years of common law precedence making really big deals out of minute details. Court cases can be won on even the smallest of details or slip-ups, and that can have far-reaching consequences for either side.

But yeah, other than that, 100% we should be having more judges presiding over more cases to prevent timing out criminal cases.

I refuse to recognize the existence of Manitoba, no matter the correct answer /s

You know, I work a pretty stressful job, and I think a lot of that stress and anger came from, in some twisted way, a misguided faith of sorts. I did believe that people were, at the very least, capable of making the most sensible decision when given overwhelming evidence of good vs. bad choices; that they intentionally make bad choices either because they weren't given enough information or were acting intentionally selfish or duplicitous in some way. So whenever I had to deal with someone trying to exploit a loophole or arguing about how they swear they are going to x and such place and will pay at a later time (when you know they won't do so), it would frustrate me, because I did believe that they were capable of making better choices.

This election is proof that people are just genuinely dumb and hopeless, to a far and large extent. Choosing to omit your own vote, or willingly voting for him, is beyond imagination. We have seen so much of what he has done in the past 8 years now, at minimum. They know what he will likely do in the next 4 years. And they still chose him. Or chose not to participate.

So I'm choosing not to feel angry at people anymore, to not give a shit if they break the rules for whatever reason they justify. Because why be angry at something if you have lost faith in it being better?

As I understand it, because she is the Deputy PM, she wouldn't be allowed to replace Trudeau unless she lost her position first, which would basically mean the Liberals would have to lose government this next election. Only afterwards could she possibly run for party leader afterwards.

Confiscating their drugs, forcible confinement... you serious? They'll just get more when they get the chance; they're addicts, and there are markets for them to find drugs, there's no easy way of stopping addicts from getting what they need. Confiscating or 24 hour confinement just ends the immediate risk of use, there's no saying that won't stop them from getting another hit by the next day (or even guarantee that they haven't already used it by the time they're confiscated / confined).

You're advocating for punishing people effectively for being poor and addicted to drugs. That's kind of a fucked up opinion, and opening SCSs does not mean you aren't thinking of the children - it's also keeping addicts off the streets and away from exposing that lifestyle to children, but on a more humane and practical level.

To be fair, yes, Canada has the second-largest land mass on the planet. ~90% or more of that landmass is largely inhospitable for larger communities though, whether it's the Canadian Shield and the fact we can't grow any crops on that or dig through tough rocks, the Tundra and Arctic (where it is way too cold to grow anything, much less settle), vast distances of forests - it is a lot tougher to build infrastructure in most of Canada, leaving it pretty much to the places already with larger population sizes. And even then, most people are still choosing to go to the three cities and immediate outlying areas where the most economic influence and possible social connections are - Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal.

It would seem deceiving, given how large Canada is, but there are very few places outside of those major metro centres where people want to live, or can even live comfortable lives and be productive. Honestly, given how little good land is available in Canada, it would make far more sense to cut down on suburban developments and focus on higher-density, transit-minded communities. Single-family homes are way too inefficient for what we actually need, and having politicians and citizens who demonize quadplexes and other high density options do not help at all.

Bus driver here. Our transit commission finally got it's first EV bus to start the transition to the electric system! But we still need to build the charging stations for it and other EVs to use, not to mention the bureaucracy and other normalities that go in certifying any vehicle for the road, plus our one garage did kinda burn down, so that has set things back a wee bit...

It's coming, but do expect it to take a long-ass time.

I shudder to think what country would want to actually buy asbestos. All I can think about is how much of a pain in the ass it is to clean up once used in construction.

Stay-at-school suspension for 4 years.

I would argue that, because of the war in Ukraine, Russia no longer poses any threat to Canadian territorial integrity. They have 315,000 casualties - dead and injured - in this war. To put that into context, that is almost 90% of the initial deployment into Ukraine. They have spent so many resources into a war that they are actively failing in, there is no plausible means by which Russia can pose a threat to our territories within at least one or two generations. And just consider that the quality of the average Russian soldier has deteriorated significantly for so many reasons, but one most worth noting - it's barely a week of training for the average Russian recruit, and then straight to the frontlines in either Bakhmut or Avdiivka.

Look at any population pyramid with Russia, and you'll see that they are massively suffering from a lack of young people. And unlike Canada, which has many pro-immigration policies and attitudes which can attract a lot of people to make up for our lower birth rates, Russia is NOT a place where people want to emmigrate to, in large both because of its dire economic outlook (especially with all of the sanctions imposed by the US and the West), and also because it is insanely bigoted towards anyone who is not from Moscow or St. Petersburg.

Russia is wildly fucked, even if they were somehow to turn this around and somehow secure everything they ever wanted from Ukraine. If they are struggling this much with a former Soviet country almost next door to Moscow, there's no way they will ever be able to project their force beyond their shorelines. Their navy, or whatever boats they can use on the Pacific Coast, will never have enough supporting troops to ensure they could hold any amount of Canadian territory for any extended campaign, especially since their logistics is raw dogshit.

And that is all without talking about the massive, US-sized elephant in the room.

The fact that they had a regular-service bar at their workplace but WE can't have one at ours is the real injustice facing all of Canada today!

/s