Donald Trump may reach his untimely political end over some of the emasculating relevations still to come in the Epstein files, but the dictatorship he has created is not about to follow suit, and there are serious implications for Canada.
Right now Jivani is trying to be the Canadian Charlie Kirk, going to post secondary institutions and doing the "prove me wrong" thing, which is promoted as a debate, but isn't. He is the next step up in nasty from Poilievre and Canada does not need him, but if the Conservatives choose him as leader, it will guarantee at least a Liberal majority in the next parliament and possibly one or two after that.
The trouble with Canadian elections is that the electorate eventually gets tired of the incumbent and elects whoever happens to be the alternative. The voters tired of Trudeau and were resigned to voting for Poilievre until Carney suddenly appeared as a more viable alternative. Vance is an immoral and ruthless human being. With his friend Jivani as leader against a Liberal government that people will eventually tire of even if they continue to do a good job, I wouldn't count anyone out, especially if Vance covertly intervenes. Imagine an American disinformation campaign concurrent with a Russian one on the same side.
I certainly could not think of an argument that you are wrong, since that is exactly how pretty much every change of government since confederation has occurred. Throw the rascals out! Hopefully someone better than Javani will be the leader of the reform conservatives or that there will be a progressive conservative party by then.
Who are these Progressive Conservatives of whom you speak? As far as I am aware federally, there are only the Conservative Party of Canada which is anything but progressive, having been controlled by Reform Party rage baiters since it was founded.
There are people who are progressive conservatives, even if there isn't any corporate branded party fan clubs for them to be associated with or vote for nominated candidates any more.
The Reform Party did a hostile-takeover of the federal PC's to create CRAP (Canadian Reform Alliance Party) which became the current federal Conservative party.
The corporate brands changed -- but people are still people, even if there is no corporate brand around that seeks to represent them.
With all the misrepresentation that a vote for a party nominated candidate is an endorsement of the party, it is extremely hard for me to hold my nose and vote for anyone.
This is part of why I strongly oppose the narrow focus on corporate brands, and "big tent" parties, over a focus on real people who can actually represent us. The call from some partisans for party-centric Proportional Representation is only a doubling-down of the existing problems, not a solution.
I won't argue with you about the presence of genuine PCs in Canada, but there is currently no way of electing them. I used to be willing to vote PC, but Mulroney and Harris cured me of that.
I wish this culture wasn't so fixated on individuals, and instead looked more closely at systems (policies, ideologies, worldviews, institutions, etc).
I was very confused when I first noticed this in the 1990's around Mike Harris who was Ontario Premier from 1995 to 2002. There was so much focus on an individual, as if this individual stepping down from politics would change anything. Of course, there are policies that were put in place at that time that are still in place, having not changed decades later by the various governments (different parties, different leaders, blah, blah, blah).
Donald Trump isn't all that relevant, and yet so many are fixated on that individual.
Same with Pierre Poilievre who is merely a more honest mirror of the more raw grievance politics Reform movement than the coalition-building that was seen with Stephen Harper. A few leadership races since (2017, 2020), and it was obvious by 2022 that the corporate membership wasn't interested in a "leader" wanting to build a coalition across all branches of conservatism.
This fixation on individuals makes what passes for “not Conservative” politics (I don’t know if liberal or progressive even apply) under Canada and the USA to be pretty much useless.
A future majority Conservative government still seems inevitable to me -- not because of "leadership", but because of a lack of relevant thought and messaging from alternatives who also remain fixated on ad hominem logical fallacies.
Right now Jivani is trying to be the Canadian Charlie Kirk, going to post secondary institutions and doing the "prove me wrong" thing, which is promoted as a debate, but isn't. He is the next step up in nasty from Poilievre and Canada does not need him, but if the Conservatives choose him as leader, it will guarantee at least a Liberal majority in the next parliament and possibly one or two after that.
The trouble with Canadian elections is that the electorate eventually gets tired of the incumbent and elects whoever happens to be the alternative. The voters tired of Trudeau and were resigned to voting for Poilievre until Carney suddenly appeared as a more viable alternative. Vance is an immoral and ruthless human being. With his friend Jivani as leader against a Liberal government that people will eventually tire of even if they continue to do a good job, I wouldn't count anyone out, especially if Vance covertly intervenes. Imagine an American disinformation campaign concurrent with a Russian one on the same side.
I certainly could not think of an argument that you are wrong, since that is exactly how pretty much every change of government since confederation has occurred. Throw the rascals out! Hopefully someone better than Javani will be the leader of the reform conservatives or that there will be a progressive conservative party by then.
Without ranked voting, vote splitting keeps the Progressive Conservatives and other progressive movements out of government.
Canada's weak and centralized/hierarchical Democratic Institutions are at the root of these threats.
Who are these Progressive Conservatives of whom you speak? As far as I am aware federally, there are only the Conservative Party of Canada which is anything but progressive, having been controlled by Reform Party rage baiters since it was founded.
edited to change punctuation and to capitalize.
There are people who are progressive conservatives, even if there isn't any corporate branded party fan clubs for them to be associated with or vote for nominated candidates any more.
The Reform Party did a hostile-takeover of the federal PC's to create CRAP (Canadian Reform Alliance Party) which became the current federal Conservative party.
The corporate brands changed -- but people are still people, even if there is no corporate brand around that seeks to represent them.
With all the misrepresentation that a vote for a party nominated candidate is an endorsement of the party, it is extremely hard for me to hold my nose and vote for anyone.
This is part of why I strongly oppose the narrow focus on corporate brands, and "big tent" parties, over a focus on real people who can actually represent us. The call from some partisans for party-centric Proportional Representation is only a doubling-down of the existing problems, not a solution.
https://r.flora.ca/p/claims-that-alternate-vote-exaggerates
I won't argue with you about the presence of genuine PCs in Canada, but there is currently no way of electing them. I used to be willing to vote PC, but Mulroney and Harris cured me of that.
I wish this culture wasn't so fixated on individuals, and instead looked more closely at systems (policies, ideologies, worldviews, institutions, etc).
I was very confused when I first noticed this in the 1990's around Mike Harris who was Ontario Premier from 1995 to 2002. There was so much focus on an individual, as if this individual stepping down from politics would change anything. Of course, there are policies that were put in place at that time that are still in place, having not changed decades later by the various governments (different parties, different leaders, blah, blah, blah).
Donald Trump isn't all that relevant, and yet so many are fixated on that individual.
Same with Pierre Poilievre who is merely a more honest mirror of the more raw grievance politics Reform movement than the coalition-building that was seen with Stephen Harper. A few leadership races since (2017, 2020), and it was obvious by 2022 that the corporate membership wasn't interested in a "leader" wanting to build a coalition across all branches of conservatism.
This fixation on individuals makes what passes for “not Conservative” politics (I don’t know if liberal or progressive even apply) under Canada and the USA to be pretty much useless.
A future majority Conservative government still seems inevitable to me -- not because of "leadership", but because of a lack of relevant thought and messaging from alternatives who also remain fixated on ad hominem logical fallacies.