What ad hominem argument? I directly responded to the substance of your comment (specifically the premise that we start with immigration even though your comment contained an acknowledgement that was not the cause of Canada's economic troubles). I said nothing about you directly or your motivations. If you're going to ignore relevant criticism, there's no point continuing this conversation.
So you realize the problem didn't start with immigration, yet that's where you put your focus? The outcry should be against policies that promote exploitation of workers, regardless of where they are from. That by itself would stop any excess immigration equitably, without dehumanizing anyone by going back on our word and treating them like garbage.
No social platform at all is a serious problem. I do think messaging should focus on economics first (since we have precious little mainstream discussion of actual consequences of economic policy in many places, and social issues are cynically exploited by free market-touting establishment types as a distraction), but a party that pretends systemic hierarchies and marginalization don't exist is just mob/majority rule and not truly leftist.
Whatever a hypothetical person accepts happening to people they want to consider "beneath" them, they are also accepting for people they do consider to be like themself. Just a matter of time.
I got the impression those were light fixtures in the back, but who knows for someone that wants a bathtub next to glass double doors. (I could own all the land for a good distance around, and I'd still be uncomfortable with that.)
It's definitely speculation on my part (and I almost made a joke about that conspiracy theories in my comment), but it didn't occur to me anyone might try to invite hostilities. I was especially surprised they couldn't even get a response when contacting Canadian officials. It would be easy for them to just communicate some kind of simple response.
"The [Canadians] have been contacting the Canadian embassy in Cairo with no answer whatsoever. Our government is completely ignoring us."
Passports confiscated, protesters told to board buses
Canadian demonstrators at the checkpoint were told by authorities to board buses in order to retrieve their passports, without any other details, according to Harker.
What difference is it to the Egyptian government if 80-odd Canadians are there? Can't help suspecting this is a favour to our government (or elements within it).
Logistically, it's quite easily doable if you're in an urban area, but be prepared for a little less convenience and a LOT of unearned judgment from others (unless you're the social butterfly type who has people lining up to drive you everywhere).
Probably best to get a route map for your local transit systems and go over routes you would hypothetically use. Might help you decide.
Sure, I agree it's not likely an intentional attack on such people. I do think for what it is, it's nicely done (as I tried to acknowledge earlier). :) Maybe there are more political cartoons/caricatures out there that go after the most powerful people involved. I can't see those running in most major newspapers these days, though.
Although it's a nice artistic rendering, I think the focus was poorly chosen here. The resurgence of fascism is not originating with poor or "hillbilly"-stereotyped folks (even if it's certainly true they're targeted for recruitment by the folks who are directly promoting those beliefs). Since fascism directly benefits the kind of people you'd see attending MAGA billionaire events more than it benefits the misguided grandkids of WWII soldiers, I have trouble seeing a point in focusing on the bottom of their power hierarchy. Among the most dangerous folks embracing fascism are tech billionaires (not just from the US, but globally) who buy into the whole Dark Enlightenment brand of right wing accelerationism, for example, but obviously they're not the only ones.
The only meaningful, constructive reasons I can think of to turn attention towards less powerful people in the pro-authoritarian hierarchy is to either directly stand in the way of any harms they're committing or-- ideally-- for someone they think of as close to them to try to reach them-- to help them see reason.
Well you see, she's really talking about millionaire and billionaire comforts in Canada as compared to rich people in other parts of the world. They have it so, so much worse here, it's downright barbaric! Hopefully that clears things up./s
Too many good points here to decide what to even quote. The ultimate result of not coming to terms with missing pillars in our health care and social services.
Well, I suppose there's also the small hope that even if we lose the NDP, the Green Party could find itself and welcome everyone that's getting disenfranchised into their ranks, finally achieving Official Party status. I realize it's an out-there suggestion, but it's seeming more and more like anything is possible in the next few years (and whatever happens in that time will probably decide a lot about our future).
Yup, Mark Carney marketed himself in the traditional Liberal way, by copying others' most popular policies like a larger retailer proactively lowering prices to neutralize upstart competition. Now that they've essentially validated that viewpoint, if they even seem to consider reversing the policy later, they give the CPC ammunition. Both Carney and Freeland campaigned on this even though they must know damn well taxing the rich is the only certain way to ensure the long term health of society and the economy.
But the LPC is what the CPC used to be now. The CPC is much closer to the MAGA-esque PPC than they are to their traditional role. The NDP is apparently in a battle between LPC-ish establishment types at the top and more traditional NDP members at the grassroots. If the NDP gets absorbed into the LPC in future, that'll be it. Those grassroots voices will be silenced, and the left will be just as gone from Canadian politics as it is in the United States.
Last I heard, at the time he was fired, he was still trying to use DOGE to extort aid-dependent countries into signing up for Starlink. Seems to me he had a lot more damage he was planning to do.
It's worse than a simple joke to make fun of though, unfortunately. Their leaders just go ahead and announce themselves as literal "apostles." And they mean it, that's not in a figurative sense. They're like the answer to a question no one asked about what it would be like if instead of one charismatic cult leader, you had a collection of megalomaniacs who want to take over the world. It should be a designated terrorist group.
And immediately this worst case scenario comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGjj7wDYaiI*edit to add:vid title: "I Live 400 Yards From Mark Zuckerberg’s Massive Data Center"length: 13:33
What ad hominem argument? I directly responded to the substance of your comment (specifically the premise that we start with immigration even though your comment contained an acknowledgement that was not the cause of Canada's economic troubles). I said nothing about you directly or your motivations. If you're going to ignore relevant criticism, there's no point continuing this conversation.