Once, I thought that conservatism was about small governments and capitalist agendas and thought it was bad.

To think that I now dream for that to actually be true, rather than being actual fascists and dictatorships. That calling the Cons neo-Nazis might be bordering on a compliment compared to the shit they're actually pulling.

Okay, I had to double check, because I thought this was a Beaverton article for a sec.

I mean, seriously? "Anti-liberal wipes, now with extra logic"? "Anti-liberal rash cream"? I'm sorry, but do the Cons pay for their shit by selling overpriced weirdly labeled crap to their supporters like some pyramid scheme or something?

I really thought this was satire until I double checked the link address.

I do hope that the government won't let them have a by-election to put PP on board anytime soon. If the Cons are determined to make it happen, it will no matter what eventually, but I hope that they won't be able to get a special exception for it. And there's no way he'll lose since he'll pick a riding that's got at least 70% support already.

Though it would be hilarious if he loses twice in a row.

Yup. Him and his pension he's been building up since his 20s.

Don't forget the Canadian oligarchs that are doing "god's work" in Canada as well. Most of the private Canadian news outlets are owned by these billionaires that actively squeeze out every cent from their own base while convincing them that it's for their benefit with unabashedly one-sided reporting.

It really reminds me that all the stuff I say that what the US reminds me of 1930s Germany or Italy actually applies to Canada as well to a frighten degree.

It's pretty bad. I was talking to someone who voted Cons yesterday and he was saying how Trump was actually doing the US economy a ton of good and that all the numbers from the stock markets to the bonds, trade numbers and all else were either temporary bumps or unimportant.

While it's true that stock numbers don't reflect the actual markets, they do reflect market confidence and has a high tendency to match what the market actually ends up being several months down the line.

I've come to realize that Cons rely on the fact that their supporters simply listen to their messages without paying any attention to other signs of what's going on, which is why they can flatly lie about whatever they want and people actually believe them. Because they don't want to internalize anything that suggests that they are wrong.

As someone who voted Liberals this time, I do strongly believe Carney is wrong and misguided on many points, but voted for him anyways. Because someone who is wrong a part of the time is far better than someone who is wrong most of the time. That a partially bad direction is better than someone who will run full steam ahead into the biggest ditch he can find while running over the average Canadian on the way.

The very definition of left and right has changed from your own France that first came up with the term. It's one thing to say that you don't agree with the definition used in Canada, but another to say that my statement is as delusional as flat earthers. They are words, and words change meaning over time. Especially ones that are used vaguely or deliberately misinterpreted by certain groups, like Woke or Nazi. Even the word "gay" has changed to mean something different from a half century ago.

Yes, AIs are they are do need oversight. But it's not possible to do this in real time without AIs. And corrections afterwards when AIs make mistakes is far better than just letting politicians get away with blatant lying. Also, as long as they're supervised, any lines can be vetoed out if the supervisor things they may be off, leaving the corrections and source statements conservative since it's obviously better to be silent than to be wrong for this sort of things.

And the earlier such projects start, the more we can learn to do it better as AIs get better, as well as recognize signs of the AI hallucinating.

Real-time fact-checking should be implemented as standard. With the advances in AI lately, it isn't a difficult thing to be added, especially to political speeches being the first avenue for this. Anytime a politician makes a speech, all their statements can be fact-checked with sources in real time as subtitles.

Someone makes a claim, it shows what data supports and what data contradicts it. Show both sides as evenly as possible to reduce claims of bias if it's contested information, but if it's a quote, then show context. Make it mandatory on all news broadcasts first, and let independents and other news sources decide on their own whether to follow this trend or not at first.

Making huge, radical and wide-sweeping change opens up for potential problems, especially when it comes to enforcing others. But start with government funded news (or even just the CBC at first, but make the software available for free (or cheap) for anyone else who wants to use it) so that people get used to it and it can be more finely tweaked to work best while minimizing complaints of bias.

By showing sources and supporting/conflicting data for all statements, rather than just blatantly false ones, we can set a new standard based on facts, not persuasive power.

By your definition, 70% of the world should be locked up in asylums. This isn't an illness, it's ideals and values incompatible with those that you personally hold. From their perspective, you who have no problems condemning an entire nation to the block is the one with mental illness by your own definition.

Yea, but this was back in the times when the left was considered anti-west. Left nowadays just means socialistic policies and is where most of the EU stands. Though far-left is still pretty taboo since it's equating to communism, far right is lately considered more neo-Nazism rather than unregulated capitalism (though to be fair both are still considered far-right depending on who you ask).

Founding ideals get pretty obsolete and often don't reflect reality after a few generations. Just look at how much the US talks about their founding ideals and how the country looks nothing like it despite talking about their supposed ideals constantly (like how one of the original ideals was that only rich land owners should be allowed to vote).

Most of the Liberals' positions is to use the markets to solve social issues. That is completely a right-wing ideology, and the name for it is Liberalism, literally what the party is called. Liberalism is by definition prioritizing the individual actions and limiting government intervention.

While the Liberals do not advocate for small government, they do advocate for minimizing direct government intervention, relying on corporations to do the government's job. They just are willing to push for social spending to make the markets fix their problems. The problems that have created by the markets because market forces do not have a line in their accounts for morality or public good.

The Liberals do quite a lot of good for the country, since they don't try to run it like a third world purely resource based nation, but that's because they're pretty progressive and understand that resource-based economies don't last and are fragile. But they are still economy first, people second as a party, a party that prioritizes the capitalist system with only a few concessions for social programs.

That's not mental illness, that's having immoral beliefs. Being racist doesn't get you put into correctional facilities even if you advocate for the use of force against groups you don't like. If that was true, than Israel would be one of the world's largest correctional facilities in the world.

Or maybe the US, considering how they elected Trump.

Oh I agree that Alberta's premier is part of the problem. But she's also a greater problem for Alberta in general on a wide variety of issues.

I just think that it's unfair to bash the entire province for the views of a minority that's so small that they make Quebecan separatism feel like they're only an election away from a super majority.

From what I can tell (though maybe I'm reading things wrong since I'm not an Albertan) is that Albertans are just frustrated with having no control over their own province and being jostled around by Ontario just because it's a larger and better established province who's entire attention is occupied by Quebec when not looking inwards.

That said, I do also think that a massive amount of Alberta's problems are entirely self-inflicted, what with how much the resource companies are getting away with such low taxes and doing nothing to value add the resources Albertans are practically giving away to the US at a discounted price.

As much as I feel bad about Alberta getting ignored and shafted by the larger provinces, this is one of the few times I think they deserve it.

The damn guy so many Albertans are voting for is blatantly stating that he's going to take away Canadian rights, funnel public money to the rich, remove services, casually lie about pretty much every subject, and countless other problematic things that are so obvious if you spend even five seconds thinking about it. And this is after successfully voting in a premier that is getting sued left and right for illegal practices and corruption, destroying their public services, and constantly fighting public inquiries by making them private or the results classified.

Albertans (especially rural Albertans) so consistently vote against their best interests in favour of giving their entire province to big oil that returns nothing (not even jobs) to the people living there that their leaders have stopped trying to hide just how terrible they are and are trying to see how much they can get away with while boasting about it out loud.

I know not all Albertans are this bad (hell, I'm Ontarian and we just voted in Ford, the second worst premier in the country for pretty much the same exact reasons), but whenever I see so much blue on a province, it's hard not to get annoyed.

BTW, Saskatchewan is just as bad here, though maybe not the premier stuff.

This is true for most if not all tax cuts. Taxes aren't the government taking your hard earned money to do shit you don't care about. It's using the power of large numbers to bring the greatest good to the widest number of people in the most efficient way.

You can either save a few tax cents and spend thousands a year on a car including insurance, maintenance, gas, and other little things that you forget you need to pay for, or you can get someone else to drive you and thousands of others a day for the same few cents a year of taxes. You can spend thousands or tens of thousands out of pocket every time you need to have a checkup at the doctor's, or you can spend like five bucks a year on taxes to go in at zero extra charge as many time as you want. You can spend two hundred dollars a month on insulin, or have the government buy it in bulk and receive your dose for ten bucks a month.

By pooling your money with millions of others, you get a massive discount on every service you need. Sure, maybe some of the services doesn't help you specifically, but the cost to you is a drop in the bucket, yet you still get massive discounts on other stuff you use daily.

And this applies triply so for those in rural Canada. The cities are paying for your roads, your sewers, your electricity. If you live in rural Canada, there's a high chance that either you get almost no public services (including road and utilities maintenance) or you're being subsidized by cities that do pay high taxes.

While I wont' say turn a blind eye to leaders that use your taxes poorly or funnel them to the already rich (looking at you Ford), don't jump on the anti-tax bandwagon. Every dollar less you spend on taxes makes you spend a hundred somewhere else where people are incentivized to gouge you for every cent they can.

My question is who is she running against. What have they done/not done, and if her opposition has a record as well, who is "less bad" in this case? It's pretty difficult to honestly read this at this point in the election without a comparison and not see it as a smear piece.

This isn't my riding, so I don't know, but if it was, I'd like to know the dirt on the other candidates and get an honest comparison.

And all that is even before taking the greater national election into consideration and that PP is out to take out Canadian rights and freedoms while giving billions of tax dollars to rich corporations as hand-outs all the while throwing the most vulnerable to the curb all the while saying that it's for the benefits of those he himself trampled on.

Hard to call Canada not right wing when basically 90% of the country is voting for central right and far right parties. Liberals haven't been even slightly left leaning for a long time. The most generous way to describe them is a party that uses left leaning policies to achieve right leaning goals.

What's a threat to Canadian unity isn't Alberta, but it's pushing Alberta isolation like this that's doing it.

It seems like only 20% of Alberta actually wants succession, and a lot of it is conditional on BC joining them, which is basically a nonstarter for BC anyways.

The threat to Canada is Alberta feeling isolated and articles like this furthers such sentiment.

Having strong ideological beliefs on top of being desperate doesn't mean you have mental illness by a massive margin. Most terrorists at most are depressed, not mentally ill. These are two radically different things. Just because someone is a danger to themselves and others doesn't make them terrorists either.