-1=e^ipi

And here I thought that support of the abolition of monarchies made you a republican. For example, the Bloc Quebecois is Republican. Australia has had many republican Prime Ministers. Republicans in Saudi Arabia and Thailand are often imprisoned for their views. Also, given this absurd categorization, where would someone like Eric Duhaime fit? How about someone who wants to abolish the dairy cartel and pursue genuine free trade with other democracies?

What about the traffic light coalition in Germany? That includes 3 distinct parties. Or are you telling me that the Free Democrats in Germany are the same as the Green Party?

If the conservatives did this, I might vote for them. For me, electoral deform and democracy are the most important issues because they affect all the other issues. For example, if we had more competent people in power at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, maybe we would of had better results.

I was commenting only on your statement that Patrick Brown can't speak French. So, arguments about who is the best candidate or who people should vote for are not relevant. I have no idea what you mean by this. Also, I don't support any of the major political parties. Charest, Brown, Poilievre, Trudeau, Singh, etc., I don't support any of them. We need electoral reform, so that we can have better choices in all future elections.

But he can speak french, badly, but he can still speak french. Your standards seem very odd to me. Did you watch the same debate as me? Out of curiosity, do you consider Manon Massé of Québec Solidaire as being able to speak English? Because, in my opinion, she can speak English, as shown by the 2018 debates: There are deaf people in this country that communicate with sign language and have difficult with English and French. There are indigenous people in this country that do not speak either official language (example). Knowing only English and French isn't enough to speak to every adult in Canada. Personally, I would have no problem voting for someone who spoke neither official language, provided that they had good policies. Of course, languages should always be considered an asset. Someone who can speak English, French, Mandarin, Arabic, and Cree should be considered more linguistically qualified to be prime minister than Justin Trudeau.

I apologize for my previous comments. I was so surprised by some of August1991's comments that I wasn't thinking clearly. August1991's views don't reflect at all the general opinions of Quebeckers and francophones. Now that I think about it, essentially all of the Quebeckers, franco-Ontarians, or francophone immigrants from other countries that I have met in person do not take such an extreme view on language proficiency. In addition, various Quebec commentators in the news would also make a distinction between Patrick Brown and the three candidates with very weak french ability.

To be fair, I recall that there was lots of disagreement with the English ability of Stephane Dion, although I had no problem with his level of English and voted for him. There are also a fair amount of Trump-supporters who might be less accepting of hispanics who do not speak perfect English. So, certainly there is some linguistic intolerance in the English-speaking world.

Are we allowed to post in french in these forums? J'ai oublié les règles. I haven't posted in these forums in a long time, but the above post is interesting to me. The French of Leslyn, Baber, and Aitchinson was terrible; they could only read pre-prepared notes and did not respond directly to the questions, fair enough. But, is it fair to put Patrick Brown in the same category as the other three? He could speak French, responded to the questions and the other candidates, and communicated his message. Admittedly, his French was not perfect, and he made mistakes, such as the use of "à le" instead of "au". But, what he was trying to say could be understood, and the point of language is communication. Patrick Brown did not make many complex arguments, but that was more because he is a dull politician that doesn't have much to say in either official language, rather than due to his French ability. Maybe I'm slightly biased because my French is at a similar level as Patrick Brown, or slightly worse. But, aren't your standards a bit unreasonable if you are putting Patrick Brown in the same category as the other three candidates? Recently, I have been thinking about what level of linguistic ability is the threshold to be considered bilingual or multilingual or not, and I wonder if Canadian standards are out of sync with the rest of the world. For example, I have recently gamed occasionally with people in other countries (Europe, South Korea, etc.) and sometimes talk about language. What I notice is that there are many people in Europe, Asia, etc. who will say that they speak 5 languages, for example, but their competence in 3 of them would actually be worse than the level of French of Patrick Brown. I also wonder if there are differences in standards of linguistic acceptance between English Canada and French Canada. For example, I would consider a candidate with an equivalent level of English as Patrick Brown's French as being at an acceptable level. Maybe English Canada is just more accepting of immigrants compared to Quebec, so there is a greater level of acceptance of different linguistic competencies due to exposure to immigrants. Of course, individuals within societies will vary in their linguistic expectations.

The treatment of indigenous children in these so-called schools was horrendous and appalling. I don't know why so many people find this surprising. The awful treatment of indigenous people has been known for a long time. Our first prime minister was arguably a white supremacist who went on and on about the aryan race, similar to the nazis. He directed the country to engage in countless episodes of violence against indigenous peoples. Yet we celebrate him by putting him on our money and erecting statues. Other people on our money include Laurier, who didn't want women or indigenous people to vote, and Mackenzie King, who turned away Jewish people prior to the holocaust and got his "PhD" on the subject of advocating against immigration from East Asia. Our national anthem was written by a guy that performed in minstrel shows wearing blackface. Canada is a country founded upon the rejection of enlightenment values. This is why we are not part of the U.S. English Canada was founded by people that wanted to preserve the backwardness of the institution of the monarchy. French Canada was founded by religious fundamentalists who rejected joining the U.S. because values like freedom of speech or separation of religion and state would go against their desire for Quebec to be a Catholic semi-theocracy (which it was until the quiet revolution of the 1960s). British North America continued to have slavery decades after it was abolished in the Northern U.S. Our anthem and our charter emphasize that this country recognizes the supremacy of "god", which is precisely the justification used to oppress the indigenous people in these schools along with their parents. From the perspective of some (but not all) of the advocates of these religious school systems, they were serving "god" and "saving" these indigenous children from their "savagery" by brainwashing them into their religion (if they didn't die in these schools). Religion and "god" has been used and continues to be used to justify terrible aristocracies around the world.

No, you are confusing capitalism with free-market capitalism or laisser-faire capitalism. Free-market capitalism is a subset of capitalism, but is not the only form of capitalism. Capitalism is about using private competition to allocate capital within society. You can have more redistributive forms of capitalism such as in Norway. No, communism and nazism are subsets of socialism, at least under the traditional definition of socialism.

Then how do you explain national socialists such as the nazis, along with other fascists? They were socialists because they believed that the means of production should be controlled directly or indirectly by the state. I don't think your definition of socialism is the most correct nor the most useful definition.

It would be better to abolish things now, before they get worse. And for all we know, the queen might remain alive for another 100 years. Do we really want to wait that long?

Not yet.

I agree. Lack of separation of media and state has very bad implications for democracy. If the state controlled media has a strong financial incentive to ensure that certain parties win elections and that other parties lose elections then they have a conflict of interest when it comes to covering elections. That said, we can advocate both for the abolition of the monarchy as well as support separation of media and state.

Politicians in Australia have. They have elected republican prime ministers under both major parties.