Michael Hardner

Fanta Fuhrer.. 😂

I get you now. I made the bad assumption that Sweden had similar population to ours. I didn't realize they were much smaller. Abandoning platitudes and useless habits is a must. Furthermore, when a politician makes a promise of a program it needs to be accompanied with a tracking dashboard audited by a third party, or the auditor general. That way we can follow up. People are getting much better at tracking things via numbers, however, there's no objective truth yet so you'll get clashing statistics. Also governments have to start admitting mistakes, and we have to forgive mistakes when they try something new. You get somewhere by failing a few times than succeeding.

Exactly. What is there to be learned ? One party has a core of motivated and engaged followers, even if it's a smaller number.

https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/blog/2024/what-canada-potential-capacity-housing-construction We do more than that but our immigration has been much higher.

Well it's difficult to understand the appeal of Carney, the most boring politician we have seen in a country of boring politicians, we should note that Poilievre was only ever popular in relation to Trudeau. His numbers were never good, in terms of likability. As for this West versus East thing... We are behaving as a nation more than we have in years, in the face of the tariff threat. Separatism in Quebec is down. And based on 338 seat projections, the Liberals are healthy... Tied with the CPC in Manitoba, and ahead in BC based on seat counts. Poilievre is a Rebel, and Canada is culturally loyalist which is the opposite... The USA was formed by rebels, we defer to authority. Carney is an insufferably dull authority on the economy.

American. Must boycott.

I doubt that I will "complain" (your word).

Did I say that the sky is falling? Did I take a position on a detailed response? You keep coming at me from these angles, I think because you want to make an argument where we don't have one. Sometimes there's nothing to say.

Why do I have to produce proof for a claim I did not make?

1. No, it's not resolved. If you don't want to continue, that's fine but it's not resolved. 2. I suppose. But the analogy doesn't work for me.

1. You told me that I stuck out on science, so why would I continue to pester you? 2. Well at some point fossil fuels will be gone. I'd like to see more nuclear power for one. And as I mentioned before, the quality of dialog needs a major shift.

1. Not very gracious, especially since you're the one changing a subject, but okay. 2. I'm 100% against tripe. 3. Ok.

We're on to a new topic, it seems. I welcome that. I think that we should try to mitigate climate change, but whatever we do needs to be based on consensus around a real solution. All the parties have climate policies I believe. Maybe not PPC.

We haven't talked about response. So how can you say I'm not interested in negotiating or compromising? And I don't think interpretation should be subject to negotiation. Facts point to a conclusion, what would be the role of negotiation in that exchange? "The thermometer shows it's -20. I interpret that to mean that I would feel cold if I went out" "Let's compromise on this" ?

A compromise on what? Science?