Leaderboard

Can you BELIEVE that absolute DONKEY crap?!!?! Instead of looking into it he's going to travel to 'disillusioned communities' and tell them they shouldn't worry about it!!! This is really beyond insane. The fact that the public is not up in arms over this and demanding trudeau's head is just horrific.

Eh, it's Florida. They are probably just offended that any poetry is in schools. It is the gayest form of written communication, after all.🙄 But seriously, Republican presidential candidate DeSantis is doing his damnedest to create a state in which ideas outside of white, heteronormative, heterodoxy cannot be spoken in schools. Small government, and all...

It is words, written on paper. Middle school kids can whip out their iPhones and type in “transgender porn” or “lesbian porn” and watch all they want. So how does banning a poem or a book help children? The only real outcome is that more kids will read the banned stuff. How about the Koran? Should they ban that? Or the Hebrew Bible? Or the Catholic Bible? The Bhagavad Gita? Or the novel Roots?

Well aren't you the typical bigot. You didn't read Kipling because Gunga Din wasn't white, eh?

It's come to symbolize contempt for social conservatism without even trying.

the common refrain as you watch these videos is that Canada is extremely expensive the wages don't keep up with the price of things in Canada and that this is due to a massively bloated overbearing nanny police state government which favours giant corporate monopolies over free markets

How bout no one. Liberalism in free speech good

The 1st video is a bunch of incoherent ramblings which boils down to “Canada isn’t exactly how I want it to be, blah blah vax inference blah blah”. After that one, I really couldn’t be bothered. A lot of these opinions about how Canada sucks can be summed up as follows: “the party I voted for didn’t get in power. Trudeau sucks. I can’t call people insulting, racist, homophobic names anymore without consequences” …. Canada has moved on from you clowns. Deal with it.

Andrew Coyne has a great summary of most of what's been happening, and some great questions we need any public inquiry to answer. Assuming, of course, that Johnson doesn't figure out a way to say one isn't needed without completely and utterly trashing his public reputation. Intelligence reports say that China wanted to help the Liberals get re-elected. Why? Were the intelligence reports broadly correct in their assessments: that is, was China attempting to interfere, in the ways described? Who knew what when? Is it conceivable that not one of these multiple reports over several years could have reached a minister’s desk, the Prime Minister’s in particular? What about their advisers? If so, what does that say about how we are governed, if critical intelligence on a pressing matter of national security never reaches the final decision-makers? But if not, then why would they lie about it? And the ultimate question, assuming somebody knew: Why was nothing done about any of it? Was it incompetence? Negligence? Or was a deliberate choice made to look the other way – perhaps out of embarrassment at having been played by the Chinese regime, an inability to admit that they bet the farm on China, and lost? Worse, was it because, as Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has suggested, the Liberals benefited from it? Or worse yet, was it out of fear of what might come out: potentially, that certain Liberals had been compromised? https://archive.ph/vymEn

Since the fascists here often cry about wokeness, but don't seem to know exactly what it is, I figured this would help them.

pretty much nails it, to a tee

Whats the definition of woman? Antifa: Whats the definition of woke? Antifa:

So everything that hurts your widdy white feelings is now CRT? Such a profoundly stupid statement.

The GOP's heart of darkness: Why Ron DeSantis can never beat Donald Trump No Republican can beat Trump, because no one else can command his coalition of damaged, discarded, marginal people By MIKE LOFGREN PUBLISHED MAY 20, 2023 12:00PM (EDT) In the last few weeks the mainstream media have not only buried the presidential ambitions of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, they've driven a stake through the corpse's heart and stuffed its mouth with garlic. The epitaphs have been quick in coming; Maureen Dowd's recent column in the New York times may serve as representative of the conventional wisdom. Why did DeSantis' exploratory campaign flame out so spectacularly? Here Dowd, standing in for dozens of commentators, judges that DeSantis was simply not likable (in Dowd's world, everything in the known universe is reducible to sophomore class in high school, and people elect politicians for the same reasons they form lunchroom cliques). DeSantis' political stunts apparently exacerbate his unlikability. Calling in an establishment voice for backup, Dowd quotes David Axelrod, former chief campaign strategist for Barack Obama: "The kind of tricks you use to get elected to other offices don't work in a presidential race because you get scrutinized so closely." And on it goes: DeSantis is by turns "contrived," "robotic," "inept," "nasty" and "dull." OK, Maureen, we get the picture. While the media sages are probably right that DeSantis (or a similar Republican like Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas) is unlikely to defeat Donald Trump in a primary, they are wrong in their explanation of why. In fact, their rationales demonstrate that, once again, the media profoundly fail to understand Republican voter psychology and its connection to Trump. How could Axelrod, an intelligent political observer, think that stunts and tricks somehow disqualify a Republican candidate from holding office? Wasn't Trump's entire candidacy in 2016 based on stunts and tricks? For a decade or more, Republican officeholders at every level have ceased to govern in the traditional sense: infrastructure, education, health care, national security, environmental issues and so on simply do not interest them except when they can be exploited for demagogic stunt-pulling. Education, for instance, has been reduced to ranting about transgender people and burning woke books. Military policy amounts to attacking the Pentagon for no longer honoring treasonous insurrectionists by removing their names from military bases. Health care means inciting death threats against Anthony Fauci. In that context, DeSantis' asinine feud with Disney is simply mainstream Republican politics, no different than the fake border wall Trump pretended to build. DeSantis may be this election cycle's Scott Walker: Both are governors who achieved re-election and subsequent national stature by employing a focused, ruthless competence in turning their states into politically rigged authoritarian systems on the pattern of Viktor Orbán's Hungary. Florida was once a swing state; currently Republicans enjoy a supermajority in the legislature that allows them to pass such enlightened measures as using radioactive waste to build roads. Wisconsin had voted for the Democratic presidential candidate every time since 1988 — before Walker's tenure, that is; what should be safe Democratic territory is now a toss-up. From the point of view of GOP political operatives and Republican megadonors, a DeSantis or Walker represents their dream candidate. They can forgive their cold, robotic lack of charisma because they are politicians who can transform independent legislatures into rubber-stamp Supreme Soviets and deliver the goods — business fascism in a suit and tie rather than jackboots and swastika neck tattoos. They have undoubtedly enacted more of their own agendas than Trump managed in his tenure in office. These Republican presidential wannabes certainly do not lack Trump's nastiness. Abbott vowed to pardon a man convicted of killing a protester even before the court sentenced him to 25 years. That stunt has all the Trumpian hallmarks: a blatant perversion of the justice system, an appeal to racism and performative cruelty toward the relatives of the slain person. Yet we can't quite picture Abbott outpacing Trump. To understand why is to peer into the dark heart of America, an undertaking no one in the establishment media wants to perform. Instead, they prefer to serve us a heaping helping of sentimental Americana. No media coverage of a political campaign would be complete without the small-town diner story featuring salt-of-the-earth folks in John Deere hats descanting their cracker-barrel wisdom about the state of the world. I suspect this media ritual is the expression of an inferiority complex by journalists; they may have advanced degrees and the privileges that go with their status, but they feel somehow less genuine than the ur-Americans in the provinces. Hence the pilgrimage to the diner in Iowa is a form of penance, like the road to Canossa in medieval times. But something is going on in America, and particularly in the red states, that does not comport with the Norman Rockwell mythology. After a decade-long stagnation in life expectancy, the United States has suffered a two-year drop in longevity that is unprecedented in American history and has continued even after the end of the pandemic. The steep rise in gun violence is one notably grisly example, but Americans are killing themselves at record rates in all sorts of ways: drugs, booze, suicide, obesity, even car accidents. The longevity plunge, something almost unheard of in developed countries in peacetime, is extraordinary in itself; the fact that it is intimately connected to Republican politics ought to make it the story of the decade, if not the century. Since the rise of the Tea Party, droves of people have left the GOP, including yours truly. This has not damaged the party electorally in any serious way. Yes, some of that is the result of gerrymandering and vote suppression. But it does not explain the 74 million Americans who lined up to vote for Donald Trump, having had four years to evaluate his presidency. The party's secret sauce to stay competitive, to replace those who bolted the party, is something nobody cares to talk about because of the light it casts both on electoral politics and society. The GOP has attracted to its base the hitherto apolitical and disregarded: rednecks living off the grid, armed-to-the-teeth survivalists, psychopathic grifters and con artists (who may have been attracted by Trump's transparently crooked fundraising), violent criminals, the borderline psychotic, incels living in their mothers' basements, hitherto tiny political extremist groups. In better times, these disparate groups of antisocial lunatics were institutionalized, socially marginalized or physically isolated from each other. The GOP's vast media-entertainment complex has given them a cause, mobilized them and made them march in unison. One may think there aren't enough of the people I have described to constitute a mass movement. But there are certainly millions of them in a country of a third of a billion, and their presence in a major political party works as a kind of psychological Gresham's Law, resulting in the worst elements driving out the good. If these groups' demographic weight in the GOP weren't enough, they are augmented by heretofore ostensibly sane people who have gone around the bend. To put it bluntly, four years of nonstop bellicose shrieking from the Trump White House, culminating in the most deadly pandemic in living memory, caused a lot of formerly stable Americans to go nuts. Over the last decade, virtually every one of us has known a friend, a co-worker, or an Uncle Ned who was previously personable, but now rants about how George Soros controls the weather. This is currently the vital center of the Party of Lincoln. In American journalism it is permissible, although not as common as it needs to be, to call an elected scoundrel a scoundrel. But Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar (who is so toxic his own family disavowed him) were not installed in federal office by Martians; a majority of their voting constituents elected them knowing full well what they stand for. But the great, unwritten taboo in establishment media forbids any critical discussion either of the ethics or the sanity of great swathes of the American electorate. What is it that attracts these types to Trump specifically? I believe that he, more than any other candidate on offer, represents the archetypal abusive father figure with whom many of them have a masochistic and sexually charged relationship. Having been abused himself as a child, Trump now transmits abuse to others. The Trump base, disproportionately conservative and religious fundamentalist, is also likely to have been the subject of punitive and authoritarian upbringings; rather than making a clean break with the sickness, they keep replicating it in their lives. Their slave-like loyalty to Trump is a form of masochism towards the angry yet protective family patriarch. Those who think I am practicing psychiatry without a license might have difficulty explaining the cult of Trump. One of the little-noticed aspects of his presidency was the emergence of a right-wing cottage industry cranking out kitsch portraits of their leader as a heroic figure who has somehow shed 60 pounds and displays implausible muscularity. Likewise, the schlock statues, like this example at a CPAC convention, which are apparently not meant as a joke. Some of these efforts are embarrassingly Freudian if not homoerotic. The idea of Ron DeSantis or Greg Abbott becoming the subject of devotional folk-art is highly implausible. And what do these people want? They don't want better health care, fiscal responsibility, better infrastructure, clean drinking water or anything on a policy menu that serves rational ends. They don't necessarily even want a competently administered fascist state such as DeSantis or any number of other Republicans might bring them. The result would bore them; what use do "burn it all down" nihilists have for a detailed political platform? What they truly want is demons to wrestle with till the end of time. They want revenge. That is why the people they elect to Congress are such a bad fit for a system that requires consensus and compromise. They crave contentiousness and conflict 24/7. Scholars studying the conspiracy theories these people fall for sometimes belabor the issue of whether they really "believe" such crackpot notions. Whether they believe is probably unknowable, but that is less important than the fact that loudly saying they believe it creates endless friction with relatives, co-workers, and neighbors. Being abrasive, if not actually threatening, gives them a sense of identity and attention they would otherwise lack. Other than tax cuts for the rich (and for himself), Trump hardly undertook any policies in his four years in office; instead he filled his time with giving his base a whole menagerie of demons to contend with. It is no coincidence that the people he verbally assaulted, be they politicians, the press or election workers, were soon besieged by death threats from his unhinged followers. The real glue between Trump and his devotees is his endless assurances that their lot in life is not the result of their own laziness, irresponsibility or failure to seek counseling. No, they are innocent victims, endlessly picked on by elitists, socialists and foreigners. These sinister groups are constantly changing according to expediency, but the point is to keep his acolytes in a constant state of agitation. The real glue between Trump and his devotees is his endless assurances that their lot in life is not the result of their own laziness or irresponsibility. They are innocent victims, endlessly picked on by elitists, socialists and foreigners. He accomplished the difficult feat of demonizing Muslims (Trump's first presidential campaign took off like a rocket after the December 2015 mass-shooting in San Bernardino by a Muslim extremist) while going on to set up business deals (meaning bribes) between his family and the Persian Gulf despots. He even sided with the bloodthirsty Mohammed bin Salman over the Saudi-American journalist whom the Saudi princeling had murdered and dismembered. Did Trump's followers even notice the hypocrisy? More than 80 years ago, George Orwell commented on the malleability of the endless hate propaganda of earlier charismatic dictatorships; it sounds eerily like the Trump technique: "As for the hate-campaigns in which totalitarian régimes ceaselessly indulge, they are real enough while they last, but are simply dictated by the needs of the moment. Jews, Poles, Trotskyists, English, French, Czechs, Democrats, Fascists, Marxists — almost anyone can figure as Public Enemy No. 1. Hatred can be turned in any direction at a moment's notice, like a plumber's blow-flame." Trump's hold over his base, a force that none of his Republican opponents can quite replicate, is ultimately predicated on the implied threat of violence. As armies, gangs and cults have demonstrated, violence is a tacit loyalty oath that bonds one member to another and above all the group to the leader. The simmering air of menace that characterizes Trump rallies is the sadomasochistic tie between Trump and his followers turned outward as hatred towards the rest of society. As this was being written, two staff members of Rep. Gerry Connolly, a Virginia Democrat, were attacked and injured by a baseball bat-wielding assailant. According to news reports, the attacker was schizophrenic and had not taken his anti-psychotic medication. That may be so, but it raises rather than answers a key question: Was it purely random that an insane man entered the office of a Democratic congressman and used potentially lethal force against his employees? Following last October's assault on the husband of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, we begin to wonder where mental illness ends and the stochastic incitement of terrorist violencebegins. The reason for the fanatical attraction of the Republican base to Donald Trump is the aura of violence that surrounds him. His pronouncements to his followers are functionally no different than an imam in a failed Middle Eastern state issuing fatwas to kill the infidel. Low as their standards are, even the producers at CNN ought to have considered that fact before handing him an open microphone. https://www.salon.com/2023/05/20/the-gops-heart-of-darkness-why-ron-desantis-can-never-beat-donald/ edit: bolded key parts for ease of speed-reading

Antifa proved there isn’t a set definition for woke or Karen. >_< People laugh when they hear it, because people with common sense seeing a white woman berating a cashier as she tries to return an ink cartridge with no receipt with: "You know who I am. I was here a week ago. You can find me in your system" at a Wal Mart with a cashier who has a IDGAF look on their face, is precisely who you would call "Look Karen, you need a receipt" everyone would know. No explanation needed. That high inflection of speech can also be found within the woke category that was highjacked, as they remind you that there aren't any genders. Hit them with logic and facts, and they go histrionic. They don't work in fact. They work in ideology. Disagree, you're transphobic, racist or fasch. No support to why you are. They called you it, so it is. Just because. *mic drop*. If they want it broken down further, the woke movement started with some incredibly intelligent people. Now, they low IQ, loud, narssisstic and highly entitled.

See the level of discussion? I know you are but what am I? Black is white! Up is down! The way this ink gets into chalk proves our toothpaste is better!

Doncha know they don't have to back up their claims? Just make dumb simplistic statements and claim anyone who questions them is at fault?

Not the same.

If we truly want the American political system to work properly we need to embrace moderation. Not liberal, not conservative, but compromise middle of the road solutions, particularly when it comes to the budget but also in social issues.

It doesn’t rise to the level of religion. It’s more like a cult or a political ideology, like the hammer and sickle, your fav.

Get real. Schools only started putting them on flag poles recently. I’m wondering if this flag can be construed by some as a hate symbol.

So I guess you’re celebrating the decline of religion and have the stats to indicate that this is happening. It’s highly arguable that the LGBTQ2S+ is a form of indoctrination that substitutes certain identity and sexuality imagery for religious symbols like the crucifix. If you’re for removing prayer from schools because it doesn’t represent the beliefs of all families, why are you pushing LGBTQ2S+ symbols that don’t represent the beliefs of all families? At least be consistent.

Why should I accept it as right or proper? You might be able to get away with saying that in a Communist country or some kind of secularist dictatorship, but we are supposed to be living in a democratic country with freedom of religion, freedom speech and freedom of beliefs. When you say I "have to accept that", you are basically saying I have no freedom and must accept your ideology. Sorry, can't do that. It is not paranoid fantasy to believe DEI and cultural Marxism is evil and perversion. Sorry you are on the wrong end of this. Numbers or polls do not determine what is right or wrong. History proves it.

So now Florida has a “don’t say black” law as well? They are literally banning people from saying they are black? Besides saying who she is… the only policy she’s referring to is opportunity, right? Isn’t that the American dream? The poem doesn’t mention special opportunities or anything like that. She’s just remarking on the fact that she was able to speak at a Presidential inauguration.

1. I think maybe I missed it. The post with the US example is indeed another approach so thank you for that. 2. Noted.

Sigh. Well I used to like talking to you. So, I pegged you incorrectly, but it seems you actually don't like discussing because you don't like being wrong and think discussion of issues is a zero-sum game. I guess in the end, you like insulting and berating people more than intelligent discussion, I can't see any other answer. Maybe you only post to me because you know most who call themselves conservatives on here are empty Trump shills. I'm sad and and I am sure you will also be very sad when I put you on ignore. But I will allow private messages in case you want to renounce your lying ways. --------- Meanwhile, here's a list of Harper cabinet members who voted FOR trans rights over ten years ago. Enjoy your culture war, I guess these guys are RINOs to you. Meanwhile, people who actually have conservative principles and care about rights, freedom and the possibilities of politics will leave you and your silly tribe behind. Here it is, you might want to sit down: "[in 2013] Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Labour Minister Lisa Raitt and Heritage Minister James Moore were among the Conservatives who supported the bill." https://globalnews.ca/news/374979/commons-approves-transgender-rights-bill/

No, my first statement to you in this thread was the one I just posted there. What, it's only genocide if you catch'em all? 🙄 As for examples of actual genocide, displacing the indigenous from their homes in favor of settlers and funneling them into reserves by itself would probably qualify, and if it didn't then the residential schools definitely did.

Society is not becoming woke. If that were the case then the court would reflect Canadian values. It does not. Wokeness is not popular among Canadians. It is popular among urban university graduates of the humanities and liberal arts. Further, 'woke' has nothing to do with equality. It does not call for equality but equity. These are unrelated concepts. In many ways, they are complete opposites. Conservatives don't support 'trans rights' because the idea of gender fludity is contrary to evolution, biology, science and basic reality. It's a fad inflated by fanatics and the mentally ill. Conservatives generally don't have much problem with the rest, though they would prefer if it wasn't flaunted as some kind of magnificent life choice. If you want to be gay then go for it. Just don't demand I wave a damn rainbow flag, attend a stupid parade and applaud your bravery. Jesus, just shut the hell up about it. It's not my business. Why do you suppose he had to try to appoint a semi-retired judge? Why would you be sure of that? After more than a decade of Liberal appointees do you think there were a lot of conservative judges to choose from? You have a habit of getting your panties in a twist every time I mention something that is absolutely common knowledge and suggest that you know it too. Stop it. It's silly. My suggesting you know something is not an insult but a determination that you are politically active and sufficiently well-read to know something.

It was. But the judiciary has become irreparably politicized over the past couple of decades. It started in law schools, which are the wokest parts of any university you'll find, determinedly graduating legions of social justice warriors. Then came a succession of Liberal governments appointing the most leftward and progressive judges they could find. By the time Harper got into power he couldn't really find anyone conservative to put on the supreme court and was reduced to trying to appoint a semi-retired judge. The ones on the supreme court changed the law and said that was illegal so he had to appoint another liberal progressive.

The other appointed members of the diversity squad, you mean? And they are supposed to be an authority on discrimination? Did they take a diversity course or something? But then, when you're on the supreme diversity squad the law is whatever the hell you say it is.

You really are a waste of skin tissue, aren't you.

It is frightening that this person is a school teacher.

Canada is regressing away from liberal democracy because narrow range of radical perspectives is being forced on the population on matters like identity while other basic rights like free speech and medical discretion are suppressed. Don’t support current government positions and expect to be marginalized.

To my knowledge, Robert F. Kennedy Jnr is not anti-vaccination. Rather, he correctly questions whether a specific vaccine works. ====== As a Canadian, I admire his understanding of people, and this world.

Whatever...maybe you should move?

Lots of people want to signal the end of an era where LGBTQ+ were persecuted, and signal that they're now welcome. You don't get to decide for us what we "need". Sometimes, in a democracy, you don't get what you want.

You put me on IGNORE because I asked you to not call people groomers. Ok... fly your flag Mr. Thriver... "Gaslighting is my red line that if crossed you're blocked." "I don't argue. I love debate." You sure talk about yourself a lot...

For starters you left a few words out.....Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit under the law without discrimination. And then there's Section 15(2) of the Charter.

i think it's a coward's way out. It is the electronic equivalent of sticking your head in the sand or putting your fingers in your ears and humming. There's posters here i'll skim over or not read most of the time, but i don't ignore anyone. People confident in their position don't have to.

Please do post it. A fetid gasbag helping illiterate ploughboys . . . . can it get any more Canadian than that?

FYI your own post is a snotty mischaracterization of the video. I'm not sure how you get a feeling of superiority from managing to one-down that guy. Canada has moved on from being a free country to what it has been under Trudeau. It seems free to you, because you're doing exactly what you want to do, but just like the people in Germany who felt liberated by being allowed to openly express their bigotry, you feel liberated by living in a country where the federal gov't forces people to do things that you want them to do. IE, what you're experiencing isn't "fweeeeeedom", as a young Kamala Harris would say, it's the joy of living in a place where the gov't's fascism matches your fascism.

So, if you’re ok with not trying to make everyone equal (whatever that entails), why are you complaining about the provinces not being treated equal? Your 2 points seem contradictory.

Loss of life for covid under Biden wasn't much better. Biden had a vaccine to work with. Trudeau caused underlying issues. Trumps were blatant. One thing he did not cause, was unnecessary panic. Trudeau caused unnecessary crises with all the lockdowns and fear mongering, from unprecedented levels of drug overdoses, homelessness and women seeking shelter further alienated in abusive relationships. Trump is a bull in a China shop. Trudeau is a clumsy kid running with a box of eggs. Only difference, is one is better at hiding the damage that they have done. What you also won't know until later, are all the people with cancer, who stopped screening not due to shortages, but due to guilt. Fear. Doctors were pleading. The amount of people with serious mental health issues, exacerbated by Trudeaus policies. I have seen several people I know, who are now homeless. Had jobs prior to the pandemic.

Yes - sorry did you need to have it explained who we were talking about when we refer to the chinese gov't interfering? I kind of felt that was obvious. They were "Targeting" him. That means a variety of things. Collecting information, preparing to take action against relatives such as getting them fired or harassing or the like which requires prep, perhaps funnelling money into his campaign so they can pressure him later, collecting "dirt" on him or his family that could be used to hurt or blackmail. Just because you put someone in your crosshairs doesn't mean you've pulled the trigger. But if they found evidence that this kind of thing was happening and the chinese were PREPARING to pull the trigger if they wanted then that is something he and his family should know. Well you're wrong, you just misunderstand what the concern here is.

They didn't act on it entirely apperently. They were preparing information and such in order to do so but hadn't pulled the trigger. They probably would have if they though the conditions were right where they would get a big benefit and not get caught.

Certainly, you can. But of course, that would fail if the kettle was, in fact, black. True enough. So all you'd have to do is demonstrate this to a court and they'd throw out the lawsuit against you. However, the SC stated that the speech involved here was NOT hate speech. This ought to mean there should be some interpretation done by the courts if someone gets called names in public, if they are defamed, so to speak. It's interesting that given this court has used hypothetical possibilities or cases to strike down laws, however unlikely those possibilities might be it seems to be saying in this case that since the individual got re-elected, well, all's good. But what about future cases where someone loses their job? Their scholarship? Their place at college because someone started calling them undeserved names? And as one example we could do worse than JK Rowling. As immensely popular and successful as she is, as much effort and money as she's devoted to Left-wing causes since becoming rich, she is now persona non grata to most of the Left and their organizations. There'd be riots at any university which dared to allow her to come speak or read her work. She has to hire a ton more security to protect her everywhere she goes. She's inundated with threats of rape and death. All because she politely disagreed on the holy trans issue. So no, you don't have to praise Hitler to draw thunderous condemnation down on you. And you might well say she's rich enough and powerful enough to survive cancellation, and she is, but many other are not and have been squashed by vitriolic campaigns of character assassination launched by fanatics of the church of woke. But you feel they should have no recourse under the law to sue their harassers. I know it establishes that people who accuse other people of being bigots, racists, homophobes, transphobes, etc., are acting for the noble good of all mankind and so cannot be sued by the wretched, evil, blasphemous heretics who have dared to go against the holy writ of woke.

why are so many people leaving Canada ?

1. Anyone quoting Salon is not quite as intelligent as a Downs Syndrome child. 2. Burn books? Produce a credible link proving that. (and so far you have proven to be INCAPABLE of producing a credible link since you're stupid enough to go with Salon.) Governor DeSantis did not burn books. That's a STUPID lie, even for a goose stepper like you.

Again, I don't need to convince you. No one should be forced to get an EV at this stage, and no one is. But 300+ kms a charge on a tech that's only been around in any usable nature for what 5 years? That's pretty good IYAM. It'll get way better in the next 5. No, but if we're using Roadtrips as the main obstacle to EV adoption, it's pretty silly to say I won't accept all these benefits, because I may have to take an extra pee break on my annual road trip.