Two weeks hiding in Canada and anyone can ask for refugee status but I'm pretty sure anyone with US citizenship would be refused

Those "values" in many cases come from them not realizing that they actually agree with the left on a lot of stuff but they just want a single man to do it for them instead of trusting the collective.

Ex: Most of Trump's electors don't want to lose their social security, but they don't trust the system to not allow abuse to happen, so they actually believe in something that is fundamentally a socialist measure, they just want Trump to tell them he'll be the one making sure that fraud doesn't happen (when in reality he's going to cut it for most).

Yep, we just had an election that the Liberals were lucky to win (new leader, Trump scaring people, Conservative leader seeming to be too much like Trump, conservatives ahead by 20% back in December...) but it's a minority and could be toppled at any time with a vote from the Conservatives and another party so deciding to welcome US residents as refugees when we're in the middle of an immigration crisis would lead to a Conservative government it's 100% sure.

More realistically the blue states should consider the fact that the red states will always be slowing them down and they might need to secede and form their own country and let the red states become a third world country because that's what they clearly want.

By saying they won't be accepted as refugees anymore and will be turned around if they show up at a crossing.

The Liberals aren't slightly left of center, it's a center right party that got forced to do left wing stuff to stay in power.

20

That would be a risky move I think, we would end up with the Conservatives winning the next election for sure if we did that as they would promise to stop it.

Horses can decide to panic though

There's a big difference between the value of their funds and how much they're actually entitled to. The value of what they put in doesn't influence how much they get (contrary to most pension funds), their best 5 years determines what they get and there's a cap that's based on the salary they had during those 5 years, that's it.

To explain the issue with how it was calculated in the article, MPs put 20% of their salary in their pension fund, what that means is that they can end up having put in it millions of dollars over a long enough career and if they had that money to administer by themselves then yes PP could end up bringing home 20k/month BUT the way it's administered isn't like in the private sector, they don't have access to all the money they put in their pension fund, they instead get a guaranteed amount of money every year (that's indexed every year) but there's a limit to how generous their pension is. Both how much they get every year and the maximum they can start with is based on the salary they made during their 5 best years of employment.

The same is true for all federal employees by the way, you can make 50k/year for 30 years and then work 5 years making 100k/year, how much you get when you retire will be based on those last 5 years, no matter how much you "put in the pot" the years prior.

That system works so well that it's the envy of people in the private sector and it's generating surplus that the federal government wanted to appropriate to add to its coffers (basically taking the money their employees paid in pension and adding it to their budget, which is the same as retroactively increasing the income taxes that federal employees paid).

I did the equation up there based on the pre-2016 calculation only (which is more generous, so I did it as if his 20 years of service were pre-2016) and using his lifetime highest salary (which is the one he had right before the election was launched) and as it's clearly mentioned it cannot go over 75% of the average of the 5 best years as an MP so even at his current salary of 300k and with enough years of service to reach the point where it would give him 240k/year, it would be capped at 225k/year.

Look at the website I shared, the calculation is right there. Trivedi made things more complicated than needed to be and he calculated based on the value of his fund, not the way it's administered.

From the get go PP never earned enough to get 240k/year so...

I work in that field for the federal government, I know a thing or two about it myself.

If we use the old calculation (more advantageous) and his salary when the elections were launched as if he got that for 5 years (and that's the most he's been paid as an MP):

3% x 300k x 20 = 180k/year

It will be lower than that because of the calculation changing from 2016 forward.

7 more years of service and that calculation would have went past 20k/month, but as I said it's not as generous anymore AND he can't get more than 75% of the average salary of his 5 best years. 240k is 75% of 320k so at his current best he wouldn't be eligible to 20k/year.

At the same time it encourages people to just trust whatever people are telling them to input in the terminal, which is potentially dangerous.

At the same time if there's a software I don't use often I'm not wasting my time updating it every time I update everything else. So for example I haven't played a game on the Ubisoft launcher in about a year, next time I do it will update to the current version from last year's version and that will be it.

Two clicks with the update thingy on Mint, if I could never have to use the terminal I might be tempted to uninstall Windows completely.

Then you just need a bigger dock, the USB plug is able to handle a lot of data... With the eGPU you won't need the HDMI input on the dock though.

0.01% of that on his golf games

The question is, how many regular users actually use desktop mode? The community around here certainly makes it seem like it's more popular than it probably is.