I’d like to know how many of these economists failed to predict inflation being a problem back in 2020, how many of them claimed inflation was going to be “transitory” when it did show up. Nobody who failed to predict those two predictable things gets any say in economic policy moving forward because they’re stupid.

Real talk: Biden and Trump will be doing similar things in terms of not doing the stuff actually needed to not destroy the economy imminently. They’ll both run up debts like they did, they’ll both rack up spending like they did.

Honestly, a lot of people are quite happy seeing this happening because Trudeau is becoming immensely unpopular.

The Conservatives lost the last election in part because they weren’t presenting a differing vision of how to run the country. The PPC got more votes than the green party in the last election in part as a protest vote because Erin O’Toole got off to a good start by contrasting his worldview to the Liberal Party worldview, but as the election neared he started to pivot the Conservatives into liberal lite while Trudeau steered the liberal party into being the more leftist NDP. I said at the time that we had a choice between the red NDP, the blue NDP, the orange NDP, the Separatists, the PPC, and the green NDP.

Besides the PPC, the other option on the ballot was staying at home watching Netflix, and if people got the impression they were going to get the exact same stuff, Netflix would win the election.

Poilievre is hammering hard on the differences between how he wants to run the country and how Trudeau has because that’s what a lot of people need to see. They’re going to be mobilized to get out there if and only if they think heading to the polls next October actually stands a chance of changing something. They don’t want the Liberal party Lite, they want someone who they think is going to try to get the car back on the car because it hit the ditch a long time ago and we’ve been driving through some farmer’s field for several years now.

As a study in contrasts, the NDP’s Singh barks like a little Pomeranian dog, and he’s shown the entire country he’s a lap dog living in Justin’s purse. He’ll bark, but then he’ll accept a treat from his master and do as he’s told. That’s why the NDP isn’t doing much better than it is despite the Liberals getting killed in the polls.

Now, do I worry that Poilievre will take this dickish nature into being Prime Minister and then start to take it out on Canadians similar to how Trudeau already does? Of course, that would be really bad. On the other hand, people across the country want to feel like someone is standing up for them, and this to me looks like that strategy at work. Trudeau is an abusive leader, so it’s appropriate to push back.

Far too late for that.

Justin Trudeau spoke of anyone who disagreed with him with all kinds of names. Racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, American, Russian, or bots. He called people who disagreed with him a “fringe minority”. He spoke of how upset he was at the unvaccinated “taking up space”.

You might like him, but he’s acted how he’s acted, and the entire world saw.

You might be thinking “Oh, this stupid conservative for life loser, what does he know?” – Well that’s fine to think, but I voted for Chretien’s liberals, and I voted for Martin’s liberals, and I voted against Harper’s conservatives, and supported Trudeau in 2015 because I’m a liberal, and over the past 8 years I’ve gotten to learn Trudeau isn’t one.

Pawns don’t have values, they have marching orders. Get back to writing the next smear piece, nyt content monkeys. We have an election to win.

Why would I leave it open to response? You’ve responded to 3 messages saying “enforce monogamy does not mean arranged marriages or anything of the sort” with “so what you’re saying is you agree with arranged marriages”, which only leaves 2 options – troll or idiot. And again, being a redditor who thinks every opinion that isn’t his is a troll, you’re probably being sincere and also really stupid because that’s what redditors do.

No, you didn’t understand it at all. You’re either a troll, or you’re apocalyptically stupid. Since you’re a redditor, I’m guessing the latter.

“I came to a new server and people there had opinions I didn’t understand. lol cool story bro they just be trollin”

No, you’re just indoctrinated by bullshit and it’s making you say insane and stupid things.

If you think that monogamy means you get to rape your partner, then you probably shouldn’t be in any relationship under any system ever because clearly consent is something you have a fuzzy concept of. You can stay in incel town where you belong.

Monogamy is a system of relationships where you and another person agree that while you’re in a sexual relationship you won’t have sexual relationships with other people. Under such a system, if you have sexual relationships with other people while already in one relationship it’s called cheating and it’s frowned upon. You can have sexual relationships with other people, but first you need to end the relationship you’re in.

The enforcement of monogamy isn’t forcing people into being in a relationship. It’s the enforcement of monogamy as the general way of having relationships rather than something like polygamy or a sexual free for all. Under monogamy, there’s lots of men and women who aren’t in relationships for a variety of reasons, and there’s nothing at all inherent in monogamy that suggests you must be in a relationship, any more than there being anything inherent in polygamy that suggests you must be in a relationship.

Marriage in the west is a form of enforced monogamy. There is no law saying you can’t cheat on your husband or have a side boyfriend or girlfriend, and in fact a surprising number of marriages practice polyamory or other forms of sexual relationships but society expects that if you choose to marry someone then you’re going to be faithful to the other person. Under the European nuclear family model, there is no one ‘arranged’ to do anything – certainly not by the state. Young men go out and try to meet women, and a woman chooses who she wants to marry, and then they get married. The way that it is enforced is that you’ll face social disapproval if you cheat on your husband or wife. If your friends know that you are married, and they see your husband or wife kissing someone who isn’t you, they’ll come back to you and let you know, and if it gets out that you cheated on your spouse then you could lose social standing including losing friends because they don’t respect what you did.

The state isn’t the only or even the best way to enforce things. Culture and society are the things that enforce many cultural norms.

Now maybe you might ask “why should society enforce monogamy?”, but to me the real question is, “do you hate most women and most men?”

If we don’t enforce monogamy at a societal level, the alternative seems to quickly become powerful men acquiring massive harems, and many men never getting a chance to be in a sexual relationship of any kind. The consequence is that the women are treated like garbage because they’re just one of many in a powerful man’s harem, and many of the men go crazy and become increasingly extreme in an attempt to secure their future. We see this in some African countries where old men treat their many wives like trash and young men are ruthless and violent because they have no chance of participating in a key piece of the human experience through normal means.

“The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth.”

Something definitely doesn’t smell right. Russia is in the same geopolitical sphere as many Middle Eastern countries, it doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense to do a terrorist attack against one of your country’s allies.

The mention of her “beautiful daughter” is sus as fuck given the context.

Now I can’t unsee it.

“I’m a journalist, but my calling is really as an activist”

You measure literacy rate as literate people per 100 people because people are literate, pieces of land tend to be unable to read or write or do math on account of being inanimate objects. More importantly, we have voter totals and literacy rates per state where nobody is measuring square meters of literacy or square meters or Republicans because that’s silly.

Now because this discussion is just stupid, let’s be real for a minute: the major factors for literacy isn’t left vs. right on a statewide basis.

California is relatively illiterate, just like Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, and New York. They’re illiterate because people who barely speak English much less read and write it tend to end up in those places which is why new york is one of the outliers, the same way Toronto is Canada for many, New York is America for many and so they end up there as adults.

Other illiterate states such as Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Alabama are illiterate in part because of the legacy of slavery and past racist public policy, and in part due to long-standing (but apolitical) aspects of laid back southern culture.

Among the most literate states in the union are blue new Hampshire and Vermont, and red Alaska and Montana. Which really is the point.

I suppose you don’t realize that they don’t measure literacy by square meter?

Look, I don’t care now nice the tiddays are, I’m not banging anyone in a community called “are you gay?”

The risk is not worth it. You wake up and it’s like “wtf? What do you mean that wasn’t a dude photoshopped to be a woman? Noooooooo!”

Damn you Gates!!!

It sucks when you find there’s a wall in front of you, but the next step isn’t to walk away, it’s to figure out a way over, under, around, or through.

The world’s firat wonderbread, survived 8600 years in a desert

Curses! Foiled again!