Search the Community

I will vote yes. In my opinion, it is evident that a growing ⬆️ divide exists between the political elites and the everyday citizens they are meant to represent. This disconnect can have significant consequences for effective governance and the trust citizens place in their government institutions. Specifically, I believe that this disconnect may have influenced individuals within organizations like CSIS to take more politically motivated stands, sometimes even crossing the red line to make society aware in general. Poll based on the article from 📰 The Globe and the Mail: When the (literal) Laurentian elite forget who they are and who’s listening to them https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-when-the-literal-laurentian-elite-forget-who-they-are-and-whos/

Was reading a debate between @Moonbox and @CdnFox and wanted to start a Poll about it. What is your view about abstaining from a vote? Options: Good decision - I think abstaining is a valid choice and can be an effective decision in some cases, as a form of protest or other reasons. Bad decision - I think abstaining is a missed opportunity to make a meaningful contribution and voice one's opinion.

Poll: What is your opinion about the federal government workers going on strike this week? Based on this article: from The Globe and Mail. Options: I support the federal government workers I oppose the federal government workers strike and believe that the employees should return to work I understand the concerns of both the federal government employees and taxpayers, and I hope that a resolution can be reached quickly to minimize the impact on everyone involved Other

This is what I found from the below article (via Reason.com - a leading libertarian source): Social Security and Medicare are facing insolvency within the next decade and require urgent reforms, but both Republicans and Democrats have been avoiding responsibility for the issue. Past bipartisan reforms have been successful, and future reforms will require politicians from both sides of the aisle to come together. Can they?! In addition to solvency, these programs are also unfair to certain groups and can discourage work among seniors while burdening younger workers. --- Partial Article: Republicans' and Democrats' Refusal To Reform Social Security and Medicare Is Political Malpractice In 10 years, the programs' funds will be insolvent. Over the next 30 years, they will run a $116 trillion shortfall. Republicans and Democrats have been tripping over each other to tell voters how committed they are to making zero changes to Social Security and Medicare. Meanwhile, the Social Security and Medicare Trustees just confirmed yet again that within 10 years the programs' funds will be insolvent. Full Article - Click Here

Did Barack Obama preach Unity or Division in the below message? There is a famous Canadian MAGA man from the Canadian West Coast which activates on this forum that is too lazy to do the work for what he believes in. He just does copy and paste pictures from paint. His main accusation is that Barack Obama engaged in division and justified the deaths of police officers because of slavery. Or something. 99 % I am convinced this is what he kept agitating about. I will most likely be voting Unity, as I don't agree with his BIAS and opinion. This is what democracy is about. We can disagree. Until people like him come to power, at least, we can disagree. But first, I will watch the video again, today sometimes. I don't want to be like Judge Dredd and pass an immediate judgement even if I already know what that might be. What do you think? I did not tag the person, because a lazy person does not deserve to be promoted. Everyone knows who he is anyways, he is famous.

@Aristides brought a view in another thread. He said: Make voting compulsory like in Australia, it has been shown to reduce polarization and encourage moderation. Polls have shown over 70% of Australians favor keeping it. It is true, that voting is compulsory in Australia, unless if special circumstances. In the event that one does not vote, they gets a 20$ and above fine. Poll: Should voting be made mandatory in Canada?

What's your opinion of citizens that do not vote? I started this thread based on a commentary from @CdnFox, he was replying to my question, these were his views, will post mine later too: We always teach kids that if you don't vote you don't have any right to complain etc etc and that people who don't vote are bad people etc etc. And honestly i think we SHOULD probably teach kids that overall - but it's wrong There are times and circumstances where not voting is not just a viable option but arguably the right one. Our parliamentary system recognizes (but isn't fond of) the concept of abstaining. People can abstain in an election for several reasons - including "i really wasn't paying attention and don't feel informed enough to make a good decision'. Hey - fair enough, sit this one out and leave it to those who did pay attention. Or maybe you did pay attention but you just hate all the options. Frankly - i think that means you should be more involved in the parties to make sure they've got good options for you but - not voting sends a message. Low voter turn out sends the message that there's a large voting block out there that nobody's tapped into and if they do it could mean a lot of votes. I think ontario voters sent that kind of message to the NDP and LIbs in the last provincial election. It also sends the message that "you may have won, but we have serious reservations about you. Watch yourself." the problem is it's so easy for people to just say "Vote? uhhhhh... well... i didn't because... because I WAS ABSTAINING BECAUSE NONE OF THE CANDIDATES WERE PERFECT". And that's just lazy. To be honest - what i'd REALLY like to see is "i abstain" as an option on the ballot. Basically you're saying "none of the above". And that could be a very powerful message - people literally took the time and energy to show up and say "not you" . @myata is that you above, not voting?

This is trending and decided to make a thread about it. ⬆️ Why Canada’s Banks Remain ‘Stable and Resilient’ The country’s financial stability, and the high profitability of its banks at a time when those in the U.S. are in turmoil, comes from strong regulations. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/world/canada/why-canadas-banks-remain-stable-and-resilient.html Do you agree with the New York Times' opinion on Canadian Banks?

The issue of ownership of the Kuril Islands has been discussed between Russia and Japan for more than 70 years, and during this time Japan, in order to «return its northern territories» took various measures, constantly inventing something new, and especially beloved by the Japanese measure is so-called «cartographic aggression». It should be noted that according to a number of international acts signed by the Japanese themselves, sovereignty over the islands was assigned to Russia. This time, the Japanese leadership approved the release of official maps of the Rugby World Cup in Tokyo, on which these islands were designated as territories of Japan. Also, this card was posted on the official website of the International Rugby Federation and in the arrivals area at Haneda Airport in Tokyo. Moreover, the same situation around the publication on the official website of the 2020 Olympics was raised about a month ago. By the way it also was sponsored by Japan. And, despite the protests of Russian politicians, the Japanese leadership does not take any measures to eliminate unacceptable things that contradict international laws and terms that the Japanese themselves accepted after their defeat in the war. And besides everything else, according to Japanese Foreign Minister T. Motegi, Tokyo plans to continue to discuss with Russia the issue of signing a peace treaty between the two countries, but based on Japan`s basic position, which involves signing a peace treaty simultaneously with resolving the territorial issue. That is, Tokyo will sign a peace treaty only after it get rights to the Kuril Islands, which is unacceptable to Moscow. Experts and political scientists are wondering - how to convince the official Tokyo to stop this nonsense? What the overwhelming stubbornness? Moscow has no plans to transfer the islands to Japan. And why actually should any country give its own lands that belongs to it both originally and as a result of World War II to someone?

Currently, in America they are working on building of medium-range missiles, and they also recognize that anti-missile defense facilities deployed in Romania and Poland, after conversion, allow the launch of offensive missiles instead of defensive ones. Does the US really want the third world war to start?

In August 2019, the fate of the INF will be finally decided. On February 2, 2019, the American side announced the suspension of the implementation of the Treaty between the USSR and the USA. This situation is quite in the spirit of Washington: this is not the first, and perhaps not the last treaty, which the States neglect. In 2001, America unilaterally withdrew from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems of 1972, which was considered an integral part of the entire system of control over strategic offensive arms. During Trump’s presidency, the States renegotiated a free trade zone agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico, withdrew from the UN climate agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. The INF was of great historical importance, it was the first Soviet-American treaty that not only limited weapons production, but also significantly reduced it. The USSR and the United States signed a treaty in 1987 with the aim of curbing the arms race that broke out in the second half of the 1970s. By agreement, the United States and the USSR have committed themselves not to produce, test or deploy ballistic and cruise ground-based missiles of medium (from 1,000 to 5,500 kilometers) and short (from 500 to 1,000 kilometers) range. Moreover, America and the USSR pledged to destroy all launchers and land-based missiles with a range of from 500 to 5,500 kilometers for three years. The United States has been talking about withdrawing from the Treaty for the first time, declaring its bilateral effectiveness ineffective. “The motto of the INF policy should be as follows: expand it or destroy it,” said Bolton in the Wall Street Journal in collaboration with former Deputy Secretary of State Paula de Sutter. Russia has not adhered to the INF Treaty, and the provisions of the Treaty do not apply to China at all. It was the behavior of the Russian side that, according to the States, was the reason for withdrawing from the treaty. The United States blamed Russia for the fact that, developed for the modernization of the operational-tactical missile complex Iskander-M, the new 9M729 missile violates the Treaty because it has a range of over 500 km. Moreover, Washington ignored the briefing given by the Russian Ministry of Defense, which demonstrated the tactical and technical characteristics of the new missile. In turn, the Russian side has accumulated a lot of complaints about the US observance of its part of the Treaty. Moscow demanded the destruction of the MK-41 universal launchers deployed on land, designed to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles; target missiles with similar characteristics to medium-range and shorter-range ground-based ballistic missiles (for testing anti-ballistic missile defense systems); as well as the destruction of strike unmanned aerial vehicles, which, according to their characteristics, meet the definition of the term “cruise missile of a land-based. Russian requirements remained unanswered. It is easy to predict what the next disregard of Washington may lead to. And the States themselves do not hide the fact that the goal of withdrawing from the treaty is to increase military pressure on the PRC and, most likely, short-range and medium-range US missiles will be placed primarily in Japan and the Republic of Korea. Furthermore, by abandoning the INF Treaty, the United States will be able to deploy ground-based missiles with a range of up to 5.5 thousand kilometers in close proximity to Russian borders, for example, in Poland and the Baltic countries. Obviously, the next step will be the US withdrawal from the “New Start”. Thus, the last treaty controlling the situation with nuclear weapons will disappear. This, in turn, will lead to an unrestricted nuclear arms race and heightening the risks of a nuclear war.