SpankyMcFarland

I think he did more than that which is why the absolute monarchies of mainland Europe were so determined to destroy him. His government marked a step on the road to secular meritocracy and rule of law where all citizens, regardless of class or religion, would have the chance to progress. The case for Boney is rather strongly stated here but you get the gist: No surprise Roberts neglects to mention British rule in Ireland here but it too might been forced to become a little more civilized. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/we-better-off-napoleon-never-lost-waterloo-180955298/ Luttwak puts it this way: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n24/edward-luttwak/a-damned-nice-thing

I don’t see them as comparable and if Poilievre wins I won’t see him as comparable either. We have a functioning democracy in Canada. Of course it’s imperfect but it still works.

The Saudi and Pakistani governments have had a pernicious effect on Muslims worldwide. More moderate sects like the Ahmadis are in fear of their lives. https://www.newsweek.com/ahmadis-asad-shah-glasgow-shopkeeper-tanveer-ahmed-452569

I’m talking way back, say in the 15’th and 16’th centuries, when the Jews were expelled from Spain. By the time WWI came along the Ottoman way of doing things was disintegrating. A lesser known genocide that occurred was on the other side of the imperial border where the Russians slaughtered Circassian Muslims during a century of war. We’ve an odd way in the West of showing our love for Armenia at the moment, abandoning it to the mercies of Turkey and Azerbaijan, largely because of Azeri oil.

Could prevent them. That sort of thing is not written in stone. I’m sure there are better examples but three guys I see on my TV on a regular basis, Fareed Zakaria, Omar Sachedina and Ali Velshi, seem to have integrated into North America fairly well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Sachedina

I’m afraid the Russian army in Ukraine won’t collapse any time soon.

Islam is a mixed bag. The Ismailis, Ahmadis and Sufis are not known for their violence or intolerance, while the Baha’i faith, a religion that arose out of Islam, puts the unity of all people at the heart of its beliefs. Compared to their European peers, the Ottomans were more tolerant of other faiths. These can be seen in part as attempts to come to terms with a diverse, urban environment where you simply can’t go all Old Testament on everyone who holds to another set of doctrines. The Jews learned that lesson under the Greeks and Romans. Some Muslims are still getting used to it.

For all its difficulties Iran is not a failed state. Most people have something to live for that drugs can destroy. But there are many other examples of what I’m talking about. Russia has a terrible problem with both alcohol and drugs. America takes a tougher line than we do. How is it working out for these countries?

Canada’s problem with housing is more the rule than the exception in developed countries these days. Across Europe one can see the same problem - young people tend to want to stay in, or move to, a few large centres in the country. They are up against the natural nimbyism of existing, generally older, homeowners, dressed up in all sorts of environmental and cultural ‘concerns’. It’s not hard to see how immigration could make this situation even more challenging for politicians. A basic point is that existing Canadians should be in charge of how many immigrants are allowed in. Consultation with the people has to be real and ongoing or there could be ugly consequences.

Yes, I did that. I also moved back and forth to other countries before coming to Canada.

When I was twelve, many moons ago, I played Eve in a play at my boys school and as a young lad I enjoyed watching men dressed as women in the shows of Monty Python, Dick Emery and Danny La Rue. If you ask nicely I can still do a mean Marlene Dietrich impression. In much less liberal times all of that was regarded as unremarkable. Granted, none of it is quite the same as the example quoted in the OP but where do those who disapprove of ‘drag’ for teenagers draw the line?

I would say both were ‘political outsiders’ in starkly different ways: Diefenbaker, an eccentric career politician from the distant Prairies who worked all his life to change the country; Trump, the privileged scion of a business empire with no serious interest in politics until an opportunity arose to take the top job. Being president was the ultimate grift for him. In terms of process, it’s hardly optimal for any democracy to give individuals with no political experience the chance to become head of government.

As a serial immigrant myself I certainly support legal immigration but I think Canadian voters need to be consulted about it more than they have been, especially in those communities most affected. If we agree there is such a thing as too much immigration - and I hope we can - then it’s a matter of deciding what the numbers should be.

From Mayo to Moscow there were people rooting for Napoleon, at least initially. He offered the hope of a meritocratic, albeit authoritarian, future without the dead hand of the aristocracy keeping the commoners down. By contrast, Putin represents a reprise of that grim, imperial past the continent spent the twentieth century escaping from. Why would anybody want failure? There’s no reason Russia couldn’t be as prosperous, free and peaceful as Canada or Sweden if it adopted our political system.

Criticizing politicians is well and good - we should be doing that constantly - but despising them as a class is something else entirely. The difference is whether we have a basic level of respect for them doing a vitally necessary and fiendishly difficult job for all of us which can very rarely be done well at the highest level by a newbie with no background in the field. These days, a certain sort of voter prefers somebody who claims, ridiculously, to not be a politician, i.e. to have no previous political track record. Some of the key skills to master are emotional, e.g. restraint and patience. Even truly successful businessmen can be found to lack those qualities if they enter politics at the top.

Trump is what happens when we despise professional politicians. A large part of his appeal is that he’s ‘not a politician’ for crying out loud, like running a county is something that requires no previous experience in the field. Put that in the mouth of any other person doing a particular job, e.g. a plumber, surgeon or pilot, and see how it sounds.

Because he was clearly unfit for office, a grotesque tv celebrity with no political experience marinated in fraud, bankruptcies and tax evasion. Defeated at the polls, he attempted to overthrow America’s democratic system. It is beyond incredible that a serious political party still supports his bid to finish the job. I suspect Biden would prefer to face Trump than a younger person who knows what they are talking about.

The more we criminalize drug use, the more criminals we create and the stronger we make the cartels. With that said, I don’t think we should allow open illegal drug use on the main streets of our cities.

You wouldn’t be forced to take drugs yourself, and making something legal doesn’t mean we necessarily approve of it. What we would be trying to do here is reduce harm for drug users and society in general.

Iran is not known for its soft on drugs approach and yet has a bigger problem than we do. Capital punishment for trafficking has just meant killing a lot of ethnic minorities and poor people.

Ukraine was attacked by a country with a much larger army. Apparently, that army is learning lessons from its disastrous performance in the first year of this entirely unnecessary conflict. Its defences are strong and it has substantial air power. I don’t expect that liberating eastern Ukraine will be easy. On the wider question, authoritarian states are the norm in human history, unfortunately. Many have been all too durable.

Wish I could use Cathay.

At least admit the bleedin’ obvious happening before your eyes in what is called real time - we will CONTINUE to lose increasing amounts of forests to fire. And that will be a problem not only for us but for our neighbours too, as we have seen already, because climate catastrophes are messy like that. Vaccination, one of the few times, up there with antibiotics, that medicine came up with something as useful as clean water and better housing in dramatically advancing the human condition. That technology? Basically, what we’re dealing with is a Ferris wheel of explanations as to why we shouldn’t turn the oil off. Now it’s the hydrocarbon usage of other countries that forms the most popular argument. Before, the same type of people were fond of denying climate change completely. The arguments change but their intent doesn't.

If I win this argument what do I win exactly? A charred husk of a country, that’s what. So I want to be wrong about the fires that could engulf us but wishful thinking doesn’t get you far in this world.

Because governments are very poor at reacting to slowly developing long-term problems where costs are immediate and benefits are slow and hard to see. People are too. Have you never procrastinated on sorting out a serious problem?