Who are the other 4, I mean seriously?
They are openly bragging about how they will deliver crippled planes in case they decide to attack them later.
This should be 100% of Canadians. I can only hope a large chunk of the 38% are just completely ignorant about current events
For sure I get that.
In my view at least part of why these were put in is that it’s easy for bad actors to use anti-Israel speech as a veneer over their actual underlying antisemitism.
But especially as the government of Israel amplifies its own status as a bad actor, it’s becoming increasingly important to be able to speak openly about this. So I’m on board with the idea you’re presenting, but also just saying we need to be cautious about how this could be used to cause widespread harm.
Yeah likely would need to create a special system of refugee status or similar. Maybe around the concept of escaping “woke-ism”?
That’s the perfect meme, because I do feel guilty about how this fucks over my friends and family in the US. But as they don’t seem motivated to fix their own country, I feel like this may be a good way to at least help some people
If possible yes, or if not possible I’m interested in seeing what is closest to providing an experience like that.
I’ve been daily driving desktop Linux for the last 5y and off and on for 25y plus a lot of professional sysadmin experience so I’m pretty familiar with fiddling and such.
So I don’t need a turnkey experience but I do want a pleasant and reliable experience once it’s all setup.
Interestingly, neither Carney’s nor Poilievre’s perspectives acknowledge that higher program spending and larger headcounts has not led to significant improvement in public service delivery, as shown by a recent analysis by Jennifer Robson, one of our co-authors.
I disagree with this take. My interpretation of Carney’s plan is that it’s squarely aimed at improving productivity of the public sector. This speaks directly to this point — we need our public sector to be focused on delivering results. The main cost is headcount so the cost-efficiency without layoffs that is Carney’s plan will require improvements to delivery.
So it’s far from a done deal and I largely agree with the author about this being the important thing to work on. I just also think that what is being described is already the plan.
I’ll beat this drum again: I would fully support a program where we exchange equal numbers of MAGA loyalists in Canada for trained doctors, engineers, and tradespeople looking to escape fascism.
The Americans have already shown interest in this with their idea of importing white South Africans. Is this an impossible idea?
This is unambiguously correct, but it’s a dangerous line to tread as many bad actors will seize on any opportunity to push antisemitism.
So we both need to ensure that people can freely express political opposition to the actions of the country and government of Israel, but still ensure that these bad actors who are just looking for any opportunity to spread antisemitism don’t have room to breathe.
Requires a deft hand.
I’m going to honest and say that I really don’t understand what you’re getting at. Either you misunderstood what I’m saying, or i misunderstood you and still don’t understand; or both.
A proper accounting of the emissions generated in Canada is what’s important. Averaging our emissions down because of all our vast expanses of empty land is disingenuous at best and false propaganda at worst.
For industrial uses an ideal accounting would be look at who consumes the byproducts of those products. If we ship oil to the US we could allocate those emissions to the US and if China or India has emissions to serve our demand then we could be allocated this to us.
A consumption-based accounting in combination with the current per-capita accounting would give a decently accurate representation of where and why the emissions are occurring. Per-sq-km emissions have zero place in any reasonable discussion.
It matters when it’s the people and their activities causing the emissions. A bunch of unused land doesn't make the pollution that the people actually do where they live any less bad.
This is a truly bad take, it comes across as the most desperate attempt to minimize a problem that instead we deserve to look at head on
I don’t think most people are trying to reduce emissions to improve the view of their region from space.
Most people are focusing on, you know, the carbon emissions which are heating the planet, and the downstream effects from the changes that incurs?
Emission levels per capita is absolutely a better metric than “the view from space”. It’s perhaps a bit misleading— should the emissions from China that go to making disposable shit for europe and North America be attributed to their production or our consumption? (Obviously China should own the fraction for their own domestic consumption regardless)
But yeah, the emissions per capita is a good metric even if my country doesn’t look good in it. Because even if you’re fooling yourself with this view from space nonsense you’re not fooling anyone else
By far the biggest threat is coming from the very country that is supplying and would be required to maintain the F-35s.
What good would these jets do? What threats could we expect to mitigate with them? They wouldn’t deter the US, China, Russia if they decided to attack us.
So with respect, I’m feeling like your answer is reflective of a mindset that reflects a world order that doesn’t exist anymore.
But I’m also open to consideration that I might be wrong. I’m not asking the questions about what good they would accomplish in a rhetorical way, I’ll listen to feedback from you about the usefulness they might deliver for us.