Hey friend I, and many others here, may be sympathetic to the disrespect that the NDP gets, but your hyperpartisan and absolute rejection of other parties (and similarly- framed NDP boosting) comes across poorly.

Do you honestly believe the NDP is the only honest, principled and righteous party in the country? And you believe they would stay that way when they necessarily grew their tent in order to assume power?

There are very real reasons why someone would vote for Carney Liberals over Poilievre Conservatives, and indeed liberals over conservatives in general. It’s intellectually dishonest and frankly does a disservice to yourself to overlook or dismiss these simply because you don’t understand them.

For example, marginal harm matters. Even if both parties serve capital, they’re not identical in courts, rights, climate policy, labor enforcement, etc. Also, time horizons matter. “Build the NDP” is a long-term project; “prevent a worse 4 years” is a short-term project and there is little doubt that Carney is the best person for the short term project (and perhaps the best person for economic restructuring in general). Most people are capable of rationally doing both short term and long term planning and decision making. And also, finally, coalitions in our government are a reality. In Canada, minority/parliament dynamics make “vote + apply pressure” a real lever. Treating all “lesser evil” as pure self-sabotage ignores that. Many Liberal voters can acknowledge the value of the NDP while also acknowledging their shortcomings. Many Liberal voters have voted NDP in the past when it made sense strategically.

What’s your criticism here? Is it possible that your criticism is unfounded or missing some key considerations? What evidence would convince you?

Your original claim that having different understanding of things somehow taints criticisms of Canada implies that there’s a set of accepted views that cannot be challenged or diverged from. That’s a description of an echo chamber.

Yeah they’re called foundational values. I believe that people should be free to do as they wish as long as it doesn’t intrude on the right of others, for example. Foundational principles of a Western liberal democracy. I don’t believe you do, and so I don’t trust that you come to have a good faith discussion on anything related to the well being of Canada insomuch as it persists as a Western liberal democracy.

Oil & gas is highly productive per worker/hour, but it’s not “the whole economy,” and it’s not a magic lever that fixes Canada’s broad productivity slump. Diversification is about raising productivity across the rest of the economy and reducing concentrated risk. It takes time.

It sounds like you’re saying “Don’t diversify until you’ve already diversified.”

I’m saying that you and others in this thread are starting from wildly different fundamental beliefs and values, and, to put it kindly, they are divergent enough that they are effectively different realities.

Yes, we have to invest, which usually involves borrowing money to create the conditions for increased revenue.

Did you have another solution that also meets our increased security needs?

You’ll forgive some in this thread, I’m sure, for doubting that any good faith discussion with the OP can be had on the topic of Western values. Their post and comment history is clear. When your pro-socialists leanings have you defending Russia in Ukraine, it somewhat taints your criticisms of Canada’s standards when it comes to a nuanced diplomatic matter like this.

There is nothing in this guy’s history or demeanour that suggests he is going to represent Canada in a nonpartisan fashion. Based on everything I’ve heard him say in the past I’d say his judgement is questionable, and this

But Jivani is offering his unique experience as a friend of Vance.

does nothing to improve on that assessment.

Does anyone really believe he’s going to go and advocate for Canada? Or is he going to advocate for his party?

New one will be Cross The Floor.

Added my shame to the original.

You’re right, fixing it now.

My God I’m an idiot.

I was talking about Leslyn Lewis, and I’m out to lunch. I saw “right wing” and went in a completely different direction.

Punish me with downvotes, I deserve it. I’m leaving it up.

She’s an anti-vax, convoy supporter who wanted to withdraw Canada from UN and UN-affiliated groups like the WHO. She famously hosted Christine Anderson from the AfD. She is stridently anti abortion and social conservative, and strongly pro-Israel.

I don’t see why she would be better than Poilievre, it seems she would somehow be worse. At least Poilievre condemned the AfD meeting at the time.

I suspect that she is rather strongly allied with the religious right in the US, and therefore she would be even more likely to suck Trump’s nuts from the back. I don’t see indication that she has any national pride or vision that unifies Canada. And I’ve never heard anything interesting from her on economics, which is arguably our most important file right now.

MAJOR EDIT NEEDED: I’m a moron who thought the Lewis under discussion was Leslyn Lewis, instead of Avi Lewis. I have no excuse. The above was not meant to apply to Avi Lewis. Please downvote and ignore. I don’t know anything about Avi Lewis.

I would say no, and I would expect any sensible country to bar this within its borders. To the extent that a state should have a nonviolent means of secession, this above all should not be subject to foreign interference.

You can find a more detailed view of my opinion on specific independence movements elsewhere in this thread.

Regarding California or indeed any other state breaking away from the US, it’s none of our business. And, before you ask, in the highly unlikely event that they wished to join Canada, I would expect them to gain independence and then, separately, start any process of joining another country.

I can’t speak for all Canadians, I truly have no idea.

From my own personal opinion, I’m aware that every independence movement is a unique case, and I won’t pretend I understand any of them outside of my own country, nor would I blindly support any of them just because they were ostensibly independence movements.

I will say this, again from my perspective, it seems to me that Alberta isn’t and never was an independent country like Scotland may have been, and the history of Alberta - including the indigenous peoples who currently live there and have agreements with the federal government (notably NOT the province) - as well as recent Canadian law on the topics (eg Clarity Act), puts Alberta in a rather more clear position on the topic of independence. That is to say, even if they could reconcile all treaty matters and carve out any land for themselves, and even if they could reimburse the federal government for all the pension plan balances and the proportion of debt, and even if they had a sustainable economic foundation, they probably would never get through the legal and constitutional blockers.

I know all of this about Alberta, and none of this about Scotland. So, no opinion of value, and no comment.

But if it looked like Brexit, I would instinctively advise against it.

There’s no unilateral separation from Canada without reconciling all of the constitutionality protected indigenous land claims, and they’ve all indicated they have no interest. Also the Constitution would need to be renegotiated, and this would require all provinces. This will stretch any practical timeline for secession out indefinitely.

The US interests have no bearing on this, unless they plan on invading.

I actually wasn’t aware that there would be pushback from Washington on this. The separatists and the Premier constantly go on about how they’ll go to the Americans if Canada won’t let them build a pipeline through BC (even though the Trudeau government literally bought them a pipeline a few years ago).

I imagine their plan is to ship oil to the Gulf States for refining, and that’s it. They probably also assume they’ll get all of the benefits of being American, which I presume mostly involves second amendment rights.

Wexit would be Brexit… but with a landlocked country with an economy a tiny fraction of the size based entirely on oil, who unlike the UK (who is going it alone) are subsumed into a larger country that wants nothing to do with the people and wouldn’t even give them a vote. Oh and good luck with all the indigenous peoples, they are famously even-tempered about having their land occupied and will surely not interrupt any economic infrastructure, and that’s assuming the Supreme Court doesn’t stand on rulings that bar Alberta from leaving and taking unceded land with them.

In a great twist of irony, the indigenous peoples may save Canada, and I hope it ultimately brings all Canadians closer together, and they get the respect they deserve.

My alternate most schadenfreude-y timeline involves Alberta managing to Wexit somehow, and consequently Washington and Oregon joining Canada.

Alberta separatists never shut up about running a pipeline through Washington to the west coast.

If the west coast of the US went to Canada after Alberta separated, that would be the ultimate poetic justice. Alberta would be back negotiating a pipeline again, through Washington, but again with Canada, and now as a foreign state with all the animosity of a recent separation.

This would be: “How to shoot yourselves in the dick on an international stage, in one easy step”.

Not sure if you noticed but a substantial portion of Quebec was also not having any of the Conservative bullshit in the last election. I’m guessing because they didn’t really jive with the way Poilievre seemed to want to suck Trump’s balls from the back.

Quebec may have saved Canada. And now it seems like Alberta wants to destroy it. Quite the timeline.

Ok sedition.

But I prefer to call them traitors because that’s what they are.

Does that work for you?