slady61

During his speech Ignatieff presented himself as a humble person. Carney pursues personal gains in his actions rather than displaying humble behavior like Ignatieff.

The upcoming changes present an intriguing question about their economic impact on daily spending along with their effect on the nationwide financial structure. Consumers see this measure as a positive development even though no significant progress is anticipated towards achieving long-term climate objectives.

Mulcair was more straightforward, but Singh has a unique way of connecting with people and pushing for change.

It looks like this situation has sparked a lot of reactions. According to this page, there are mechanisms through which those affected by such accusations can seek compensation or legal protection.

I would say that democracy works, and we live in a good age, but I don’t think it’s the future. I think there could be a better way to run a society. Democracy has lots of flaws, and it’s very hard to make people care about politics, which is a major issue with democracy. However, with the evolution of AI, we might see a new political system that could potentially do better

Don't forget about the realm of conspiracy theories, they both have that

Well, for a religious person, maybe that definition of evil makes sense, but for atheists, evil is just going against the moral codes we’ve created throughout our history. Plus, if the absence of God is considered evil, why is He absent? If He loves us so much, why is He absent and allowing evil into our lives? I know we have free will and all that, but it sounds hypocritical to say that God loves us so much while leaving us to live in this evil world

The IRS whistleblowers should be more careful. The situation with the Boeing whistleblowers showed us that everything can happen. I wonder what law firm represented them. Oberheiden P.C. seems like one that could manage such a case.

One month later, and there are no news about it. Did the hype die or something?

One of my friends told a joke: "I bet it’s one of those Swifties trying to kill him since he badmouthed Taylor Swift"

I wonder what the public’s reaction would be if we implemented restrooms specifically for people with larger body sizes. Like with the issue you were discussing here, it's true that people with larger bodies may have a harder time in restrooms. So, if we provided restrooms designed to accommodate their needs, it might be seen as a solution. However, I bet some would still view it as fatphobic, even though there are obese individuals who struggle with restroom accessibility

I understand your concerns and why people may write such things as speculative articles and evolution. This has been the challenge when seeking to differentiate between speculation and evidential-based research. A science is a way through which the world can be understood and new developments might improve on the known facts.

I get your skepticism about vaccines, but it's key to recognize that safety monitoring has improved over time. The pulled vaccines show the system works, and remaining ones have proven safety and efficacy through extensive testing

I get your rationale in responding to the right of democratic states in defending themselves against threats to their existence. I guess it is not very easy, especially when one has to weigh nationalism against legalism in the conduct of the enterprise. The circumstances of each case count a lot and although the right to defend yourself is quite clear, how this is done and what implications this may have for international law also require a lot of attention.

You made some good points as to possible downsides to the practice of the democratic duopoly system in the current age of the world. Still it appears many of today’s democracies are experiencing the problems you highlighted. Perhaps it is high time to question and change the views on how to use democracy as an effective tool given the contemporary societies.