Michael Hardner

The public sphere has deteriorated to the point where real problems sit in the shadows while people debate rhetoric and unimportant things, for entertainment. If you come into my discussion with a set of complaints against one party, you're talking about something else.

We're not on the same page. You should just advocate for the Democratic Party to be banned.

There's no intelligentsia compared to, say, the 1960s '70s '80s. Newspapers and intelligent panel discussions with neutral pundits died in the US a long time ago. In Canada they still seem to think it's relevant but no one pays attention to that. People single Source their news, or at least pick A gaggle of biased And similar sources. I'm okay with a populist take on the so-called Elite, but the Jordan Petersons of the world are no more populist than Gore Vidal.

Government intervening to effectively disallow opinions is a dangerous path. Unfortunately, and perhaps expectedly, there is no 'center' to arbitrate a sensible response right now. Good luck with it.

You are mistaken unfortunately. May and June were revised down as per this article: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/aug/01/jobs-report-july-trump-tariffs-trade-war

Carney has to deal with an irrational agent, in a chaotic political landscape. He's the perfect man for an impossible job. I don't think he will succeed.

Indeed pervasive social values stand out when you watch old entertainments. Star Trek was an advocacy campaign for positivism, rationality, science, lots of things. I personally found it ridiculous the way Hollywood used to overstate the power of the corporate /intelligence complex and running things. I feel a big problem with the judge as they got their civic education by watching conspiracy theory, head of state, and those silly movies.

But as I pointed out, the adjustment went the same way for Biden as Trump.

Actually, it reminds me what used to happen with temperature adjustments in climate science: When satellite readings were adjusted downwards, the climate deniers would say that the scientists got "caught". When satellite readings were adjusted upwards, the climate deniers would say the scientists were cheating by raising the temperature readings. Statistical adjustments, seasonal adjustments etc. Have to happen as part of the process. You have to trust that the people in the job are being professional. Of course I don't trust that Trump will put an objective person in, but then I become part of the problem too at that point.

1. Flipping a coin 50 times, it's not that unusual for 60/ 40 split. And not evidence of malfeasance. 2. You have to have evidence that there was cheating. 3. This example is strange because it's exactly what happened with Trump's numbers. So why is that evidence of cheating and what happened this time isn't? In both cases.... The case I read at the top of your article and the recent one.... In both cases, the estimates were adjusted downwards.

Mindless catchphrases are used by people who like the circus and are unable to discuss things seriously. Please go on with your day without me. Thank you.

1. Doesn't matter. I don't think a federal government has to make this an emergency as they have done, effectively. 2. Simple mindedness might not be the problem. But Trump definitely is stoking, mistrust in institutions, and is a disunifying force. Yes, panic. As evidence, the political economy is at a precipice and here you are responding with a long posts about trans ladies in sports. I think the sporting authorities can sort it out on their own.

1. How do you know that wasn't reality? Sometimes it benefits the government. Sometimes it doesn't. What evidence you have that there was impropriety happening? You know what's going to happen after this right? Trump is going to install loyalist and the Democrats will not accept official members any longer. And then the public will have no objective barometer of what is happening with the economy. Mathematicians are notoriously honest, intellectually speaking. There are enough of them in the world that should be able to look at the numbers and determine if the seasonal adjustment was done incorrectly, and as a trend.

You're oversimplifying and muddling the business case in one case and not the other.

I agree. I think all of it is the effect of the affluent and influential class having their concerns listened to over bread and butter issues. That includes the panic over trans kids in sports, people melting down over pronouns etc. The President of the USA is using this petty sh!t to justify his single-minded mission to impose his crackpot theories in the world. Ps. If you have trans friends, as I do, and you misgender them the reaction is less than if you accidentally bumped their elbow... Grown ups please focus on the economy, environment and unity. Thanks for your attention to this matter.

The idea that revisions are abnormal is part of the the bilateral effort to delegitimize established vessels of objective information. Statistical adjustment is a normal part of managing this information. Democrats and Republicans are disadvantaged by objective information existing. Just as Israel and Palestine are. The amount of effort to rebuild these building blocks of political discussion will be massive.

Are there journalists who are contradicting the claims of malnutrition ? I'm asking honestly because I'm not following this closely. It sounds like you would agree that a single death to starvation would require a response.

Agreed. So this is now withdrawn: "Less profit? Then how would they have the operating capital to start their next project? "

No. But AI gets it wrong. It's just as easy to Google Stephen Harper Israel policy

I had a close friend of mine, a MAGA person, try to send me a chat. GPT as his argument for a position. It's kind of strange. It's not as strong as a cite but it's more holistic than just sending a bunch of disconnected links. In the end I would say sending an AI grab is like copying someone else's argument, but we care, and posting that.

I don't know why you went to Chat GPT. I would rather discuss with YOU. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-supports-two-state-solution-stephen-harper-tells-benjamin-netanyahu-1.3004891 There's Harper talking about the issue. What's the solution if not two-state? What about occupied territories? Can a state invade and claim captured land ? Also, you're asking what is the sense of a two-state solution... But it has been supported by majorities on both sides and recent memory. Erin O'Toole here tacitly supports it but criticizes Carney's approach. https://x.com/erinotoole/status/1950750587336683691

I only made it to the second sentence. The NDP aren't close to Communist and they don't even support Nationalization. Let's just leave that side item. The US and Canada have traditionally supported two states including Conservatives. Politics did NOT start in 2016.

It's been the official policy of most centrist parties for a while.

1. The post has been updated by the time you saw it. 2. So if my profit margins fall from 200% to 100%, it's not worth doing business right?

Can you explain this one point with an example?