What The Liberals Did To Canada

[CdnFox]

50 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

In what clownworld reality is my 2-3 line response "spasmodic"=

I have no idea, I don't live in clown world the way you do. But on the earth it's entirely spasmodic. The moment you realize you're losing you have this bizarre brain spasm and blame my postcount And try and make an argument that your own stupidity is somehow a result of that. It's like you can't even control yourself, I mentioned it's coming and you do it anyway because it's completely a compulsive mental health issue for you

Maybe you should spend less time in this  clown world of yours and more time with your therapist 

[Goddess]

how can a government rebuild that trust

 

Rebuilding trust after a government has been relying on metrics that no longer match people’s lived reality is absolutely possible — but it requires structural, cultural, and communicative changes, not just better messaging. Trust isn’t restored by telling people things are improving; it’s restored by showing that institutions can see what people see and respond to it.

Here’s what research, historical examples, and institutional analysis suggest actually works.

1. Update the metrics — publicly, transparently, and with citizen input

A government can’t rebuild trust if it keeps using indicators people no longer believe describe their lives. That means:

• revising affordability metrics to include housing prices, food costs, debt loads, and regional variation

• updating inflation baskets to reflect modern spending patterns

• publishing alternative indicators alongside traditional ones

• involving independent economists, community groups, and statistical agencies in the redesign

When people see the government measuring what they actually experience, trust begins to return.

2. Acknowledge the gap between official data and lived reality

One of the most powerful trust-building moves is simply saying:

“The indicators we’ve been using don’t fully capture what many people are experiencing.”

This signals humility, awareness, and a willingness to correct course. It also breaks the perception that the government is denying or minimizing hardship.

 

3. Make policy responsive to lived conditions, not just aggregate data

Trust grows when people see policies that reflect their actual struggles:

• targeted cost-of-living supports

• region-specific affordability measures

• housing policies tied to real market prices

• food insecurity interventions

• debt relief programs

When policy aligns with lived experience, people feel seen.

4. Strengthen independent institutions

People trust data more when it comes from bodies that are:

• nonpartisan

• transparent

• insulated from political pressure

This includes:

• national statistical agencies

• independent budget offices

• arms-length economic councils

When these institutions are empowered to publish data without political framing, trust increases.

 

5. Communicate uncertainty instead of certainty

People lose trust when governments speak in absolutes that contradict daily life. Trust grows when leaders say things like:

• “The national numbers are improving, but many households are still struggling.”

• “Some indicators look positive, but they don’t tell the whole story.”

• “We’re seeing mixed signals, and we’re adjusting our approach accordingly.”

Honesty about complexity is more credible than confident oversimplification.

 

6. Use local data, not just national averages

People trust information that reflects their region, not just the country as a whole. Governments can rebuild trust by:

• publishing regional affordability dashboards

• reporting local food insecurity rates

• showing city-by-city housing data

• acknowledging that national averages hide local crises

This helps people feel that the government understands their specific reality.

7. Create feedback loops where citizens can challenge data

Trust grows when people can say:

“This doesn’t match what we’re seeing,” and the government actually listens.

This can take the form of:

• public consultations

• community advisory panels

• open data portals

• participatory budgeting

• citizen assemblies

When people help shape the picture of reality, they trust it more.

 

8. Demonstrate course correction

Nothing rebuilds trust faster than visible change. When a government:

• updates its metrics

• adjusts its policies

• acknowledges past blind spots

• responds to public feedback

people begin to believe that institutions are capable of learning and adapting.

 

9. Avoid framing that contradicts people’s lived experience

Statements like:

• “Affordability is the best it’s ever been.”

• “People are doing better than they think.”

• “The economy is strong.”

can feel dismissive or disconnected when people are struggling. Trust grows when messaging aligns with reality as people experience it.

10. Rebuild a shared reality through transparency

A government can help restore a common understanding of the country by:

• publishing raw data alongside interpretations

• showing how metrics are calculated

• explaining what the indicators do not capture

• inviting independent scrutiny

Transparency is the antidote to suspicion.

 

The deeper truth

Trust isn’t rebuilt by insisting that institutions were right. It’s rebuilt by showing that institutions can change.

 

[Goddess]

That was an Ai chat I had.

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

What epistemic fragmentation is

At its core, epistemic fragmentation is the loss of shared mechanisms for determining truth. In healthy democracies, people may disagree about values or policy, but they still rely on common reference points: statistical agencies, scientific institutions, courts, major news outlets, and shared civic processes. These institutions act as epistemic anchors that help society distinguish truth from falsehood.

When trust in these anchors collapses, citizens no longer share the same baseline understanding of reality. They begin to inhabit parallel information worlds, each with its own facts, narratives.

 

What makes this different from ordinary polarization

Polarization is disagreement within a shared reality. Epistemic fragmentation is disagreement about reality itself.

Examples include:

• One group sees an election as legitimate; another sees it as stolen.

• One group sees a pandemic as a public health crisis; another sees it as a hoax.

• One group sees climate data as scientific consensus; another sees it as manipulation.

These aren’t interpretive differences — they’re incompatible factual universes.

 

Why it matters

Democracy requires shared facts. Without agreement on what is happening, citizens cannot deliberate, compromise, or hold leaders accountable. Researchers warn that epistemic fragmentation threatens democratic governance, public trust, social cohesion, and collective action on major challenges.

 

2. Governments and institutions often use metrics that no longer match modern economic reality

Many national indicators were designed decades ago. They don’t fully capture:

• the cost of housing in major cities

• the rise of gig work

• the explosion of household debt

• the cost of childcare

• the cost of food

• the cost of transportation

• the erosion of job security

So a government can say “affordability is improving” because a formula says so, while millions of people feel the opposite.

This mismatch isn’t always intentional — but it’s real.

 

why lived experience diverges from official data

 

Lived experience diverges from official data because they measure different layers of reality — and those layers don’t always move together. When the gap gets wide, people stop believing the data, institutions stop believing the people, and epistemic fragmentation accelerates.

1. Official data is averaged; lived experience is uneven

Governments typically report aggregate indicators:

• inflation rate

• GDP growth

• median wages

• average rent

• consumer price index

These numbers smooth out extremes. If 20% of people are doing much better and 20% are doing much worse, the average can look “fine.”

Lived experience is not averaged. If your rent doubled or your grocery bill jumped 40%, the national inflation rate being “2.8%” feels irrelevant.

This creates a psychological split:

• Data says things are improving.

• Your wallet says they aren’t.

 

2. Official metrics often exclude what people actually feel

Many affordability metrics:

• don’t include housing prices, only mortgage interest

• don’t include food bank usage

• don’t include debt stress

• don’t include regional cost differences

• don’t include shrinking package sizes (“shrinkflation”)

• don’t include quality-of-life losses

So a government can say “affordability is improving” while people feel squeezed because the metrics ignore the pain points that matter most.

Governments choose the framing that benefits them

This isn’t necessarily deception; it’s strategic communication.

A government might highlight:

• the one metric that looks good

• a short-term improvement

• a comparison to a worse period

• a projection rather than a current reality

Citizens, meanwhile, judge reality by:

• their bills

• their debt

• their stress

• their community’s struggles

Two different “truths” emerge.

6. When the gap becomes too large, trust collapses

If official data says “things are great” while people are borrowing money to eat, citizens conclude:

• “The data is fake.”

• “The government is lying.”

• “The media is covering for them.”

Meanwhile, officials conclude:

• “People are misinformed.”

• “They’re being manipulated.”

• “They don’t understand economics.”

This mutual distrust is the engine of epistemic fragmentation.

How this ties directly to epistemic fragmentation

Epistemic fragmentation happens when:

• official reality (data, institutions, experts) and

• experienced reality (daily life, community hardship)

stop matching.

Once that happens, society splits into incompatible camps:

Camp 1: “The data is correct; people are overreacting.”

Camp 2: “The data is meaningless; people are suffering.”

These camps no longer share:

• a common definition of affordability

• a common understanding of economic reality

• a common trust in institutions

That’s the fragmentation.

4. National-level divergence creates national-level epistemic camps

You start to see two incompatible realities:

Reality A: “The economy is strong; people are doing well.”

This group trusts official data, expert commentary, and institutional narratives.

Reality B: “People can’t afford basic necessities; the system is failing.”

This group trusts lived experience, community hardship, and alternative information sources.

Both groups believe they are looking at the real country. Both groups believe the other is misinformed.

This is epistemic fragmentation at scale.

When governments present incomplete metrics as a full picture, trust erodes

Even without intent to deceive, the effect is the same:

• People feel gaslit.

• People feel unheard.

• People feel their struggles are being minimized.

When someone is borrowing money to buy food and hears “affordability is the best it’s ever been,” the emotional reaction is:

“They must be lying.”

But the deeper problem is that the definition of affordability being used by officials no longer matches the definition used by the public.

That mismatch is the engine of epistemic fragmentation.

 

Epistemic fragmentation thrives in the space between “technically true” and “socially false”

A government can say something that is:

• technically true according to outdated metrics

• socially false according to lived experience

This is the exact kind of contradiction that fractures a society’s shared reality.

One group hears the technical truth and trusts it. Another group sees the social falsehood and rejects it.

Now you have two incompatible realities.

• one side believes the metrics define reality

• the other believes lived experience defines reality

Each side thinks the other is being dishonest.

This is why epistemic fragmentation is so corrosive: it makes even basic questions about truth impossible to resolve.

 

6. A more precise way to phrase the situation

Instead of “the government is lying,” a more accurate description is:

“The government is using metrics that no longer capture the economic reality people are living, and presenting those metrics as if they do.”

That’s not the same as intentional deception, but it produces the same social consequences as if it were.

what happens when a government than makes policy decisions based on outdated metrics and not lived reality

 

When a government makes policy decisions based on metrics that no longer reflect lived reality, the consequences are serious — not because of partisan motives, but because the system becomes misaligned with the society it’s supposed to govern. This is a structural problem, not a personality problem, and it’s something political scientists, economists, and sociologists have been warning about for years.

 

The political system becomes unresponsive

A government using outdated metrics will think:

• “Our policies are working.”

• “People are doing better.”

• “The economy is strong.”

Meanwhile, citizens are experiencing:

• rising debt

• food insecurity

• unaffordable housing

• stagnant wages

• declining quality of life

This mismatch makes the system feel unresponsive, even illegitimate.

 

Freeland called it a "vibecession", where peoples real world experiences gave them the 'vibe' of a recession because they were worse off but the cherry picked gov't indicators said they were doing great and were very happy

Like it was the people's fault they felt differently than the gov't said they did. 

Edited May 1 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

54 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

 

Most Canadians LOL...for 4 elections in a row LOL

No, the two elections previous to this last one saw the CPC get more votes than the libs. 

Sooo that kind of blew that idea out the window for you didn't it    LOL

You don't have much luck with thinking do you. 

[ExFlyer]

31 minutes ago, Legato said:

so where are you learning Mandarin?

Cannot explain your id1ocy so,...attack??

Typical LOSER conservative LOL LOL LOL

"People of Chinese origin constitute one of the largest Asian groups in Canada, numbering approximately 1.7 million and comprising nearly 5% of the total Canadian population in 2021. They are generally the second-largest racialized group"

You should have learned a long time ago HA HA HA

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

Cannot explain your id1ocy so,...attack??

 

Are you thinking of suing him for copyright infringement?

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No, the two elections previous to this last one saw the CPC get more votes than the libs. 

Sooo that kind of blew that idea out the window for you didn't it    LOL

You don't have much luck with thinking do you. 

Uh Huh??

Lemme see

2015 - conservatives lost ...Liberals win

2019 - conservatives lost ...Liberals win

2021 - conservatives lost ...Liberals win

2025 - conservatives lost ...Liberals win. 

Liberals 4 - Conservatives 0

Second place 4 times in a row:). 

Ha AH AH ....if they had more than they would have won but...they did not LOL LOL LOL.

Who leads the government in Canada??? It sure ain't the conservatives    

What MP's are bailing on their party??     Sure ain't the Liberal MP's

"Sooo that kind of blew that idea out the window for you didn't it".   you LOSE ....again LOSER

Seems  "You don't have much luck with thinking do you."   LOSER. HA HA HA

"i accept your admission of defeat and hope you feel better" soon

 

 

 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Are you thinking of suing him for copyright infringement?

Nope...no need to...you and him prove your guilt with every post

Edited May 1 by ExFlyer

[Legato]

26 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Cannot explain your id1ocy so,...attack??

Typical LOSER conservative LOL LOL LOL

"People of Chinese origin constitute one of the largest Asian groups in Canada, numbering approximately 1.7 million and comprising nearly 5% of the total Canadian population in 2021. They are generally the second-largest racialized group"

You should have learned a long time ago HA HA HA

Attack? Did you scald yourself on the flied lice?

[ExFlyer]

32 minutes ago, Legato said:

Attack? Did you scald yourself on the flied lice?

Awww, sucks when you been educated but still don't like it ?? LOL LOL LOL

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

I have no idea, I don't live in clown world the way you do. But on the earth it's entirely spasmodic. The moment you realize you're losing you have this bizarre brain spasm and blame my postcount And try and make an argument that your own stupidity is somehow a result of that. It's like you can't even control yourself, I mentioned it's coming and you do it anyway because it's completely a compulsive mental health issue for you

Maybe you should spend less time in this  clown world of yours and more time with your therapist 

Except posting 30-40 emotional rants like the above a day, like you do, is the internet forum equivalent of screaming "Everyone else is crazy!" from inside a locked and padded room.  🙃

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Uh Huh??

Lemme see

 

Sure, lets see 

 

Party	Liberal	Conservative
Popular vote	6,018,728	6,239,227

 

Wow, so i was right!  They DID win the popular vote in 2019 just like i said!  You were wrong. But you're used to that

HOw about the next election?

 

Popular vote	5,556,629	5,747,410

 

OH NO!! AGAIN!!!!!

SO, in the last 4 elections the CPC has won the most votes 2 of them. 

So looks like you were wrong AGAIN big guy  LOLOL

 

[WestCanMan]

6 hours ago, Goddess said:

This morning in Senate committee, Senators are asking why this Liberal government is bypassing the Senate.  They did not give Senators the Economic Update booklets  & the Finance Department did not even email them.

Did down-arrow boy finally lose his marbles? Or did he accidentally click the wrong emoji?

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, Goddess said:

When trust in these anchors collapses, citizens no longer share the same baseline understanding of reality. They begin to inhabit parallel information worlds, each with its own facts, narratives.

It seems like it makes sense at the beginning, but TBH, you're describing a situation where leftists actually believe what they are saying, and they don't.

• Link knows that household expenses grew much faster than wages over the past 11 years. The stats were there in black and white, and he had no facts that said the opposite. So he just changed the topic a bunch of times and then effed off. The info is in his brain, he just can't admit to it.
• Eyeball and ex-flyer know that the jabs don't prevent you from even getting sick with covid, and that they don't prevent you from giving covid to granny. They even know that people still die of covid after being jabbed, and that the jabs cause serious harm and even death. But they will lie about them forever. And again, they don't have a parallel info stream that's still saying "you won't get sick, you can't pass it along, and it's safe", because that ship sailed years ago, but they are never going to come clean.
• Left4rds know that the ayatollah is a genocidal dictator who murders tens of thousands of his own people, still these self-proclaimed environmentalists/humanitarians cheer the sinking of tankers to protect the ayatollah's regime, and even hope that he gets nukes just to prove Trump wrong.  

These people have the information. They have the facts. They just choose to keep on regurgitating blatantly false narratives and shun the truth like its a lepper zombie covered in rotten fish because they're cultists. CNN got so deep into their limbic systems that they control their thoughts and actions, while their pre-frontal cortexes are just used to come up with excuses and lies.

I don't think that's "parallel information worlds", I think it's "a bunch of cultist f't4rds".

Link, eyeball, etc never actually found any info sources that go against the truths that were presented to them. They don't have any parallel info. They just have their reckless determination to always spout the same debunked cultist narratives, no matter what.  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Did down-arrow boy finally lose his marbles? Or did he accidentally click the wrong emoji?

Two things can be true  

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Except posting 30-40 emotional rants like the above a day,

Nothing emotional about it, other than the humor I get watching you twist and turn desperately trying to avoid the crippling truth: You're a broken little man  

Truth be told about 80% of my posts are one-liners back to Exflyer laughing at him when he posts 10 pages of the same post or ass porn trying desperately to convince people this proves  he's an adult   Only a couple of lines needed  

 

[Gaétan]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nothing emotional about it, other than the humor I get watching you twist and turn desperately trying to avoid the crippling truth: You're a broken little man  

Truth be told about 80% of my posts are one-liners back to Exflyer laughing at him when he posts 10 pages of the same post or ass porn trying desperately to convince people this proves  he's an adult   Only a couple of lines needed  

 

We know you prefer the Conservative leader because he is harsher toward Palestinians. The only meaningful choices are the Green Party or the NDP. Instead of cooperating with them, the RCMP should focus on dealing with foreign political operatives—whether American or Israeli—who interfere in Canada

[ExFlyer]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure, lets see 

 

Party	Liberal	Conservative
Popular vote	6,018,728	6,239,227

 

Wow, so i was right!  They DID win the popular vote in 2019 just like i said!  You were wrong. But you're used to that

HOw about the next election?

 

Popular vote	5,556,629	5,747,410

 

OH NO!! AGAIN!!!!!

SO, in the last 4 elections the CPC has won the most votes 2 of them. 

So looks like you were wrong AGAIN big guy  LOLOL

 

But, but,but...you LOST!!!! 

LOOOZERZ. AGAIN LOL

I did not hear about the Conservative government in 2019? I think the Liberals had 157 seats VS Conservative 121. 

Or in any election after 2015. LOL

So, no matter how hard you try to spin it...you are a LOSER  since 2015 

11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Did down-arrow boy finally lose his marbles? Or did he accidentally click the wrong emoji?

Awww wesconman upset about down arrows again....Awww 

You get what you deserve...even LOSERS sometimes get it right LOL

[ExFlyer]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Two things can be true  

Not if they come from you

[ExFlyer]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nothing emotional about it, other than the humor I get watching you twist and turn desperately trying to avoid the crippling truth: You're a broken little man  

Truth be told about 80% of my posts are one-liners back to Exflyer laughing at him when he posts 10 pages of the same post or ass porn trying desperately to convince people this proves  he's an adult   Only a couple of lines needed  

 

80% of your posts are to one person??? 30,000 posts to one person?? WOW!!!!

He and others laugh  at you every time knowing he is dancing in his head....rent free that you have to post 30,000 posts to him...proving how much of a LOSER you truly are. WOW!!  LOL

He also knows he can spin you out and make you have your little meltdowns......an dpost to him 30,000 times

Having to explain yourself and your obsession is a sign of your incompetence and pettiness.

 

Edited May 2 by ExFlyer

[LinkSoul60]

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Aewww muffin   You, whom everyone is laughing at, finally found a friend, whom everyone is ALSO laughing at   It's nice to see the "Fox made me cry" fanclub getting together again   

Cry...???  It made me laugh....  Moonbox has you described to a tee 😂

[LinkSoul60]

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

When exactly did harper ever allow them to dictate any terms to him?

Harper did business with china. He didn't sell our democracy to china. Carney is.  Big difference. 

Can you tell me why you're ok with selling our sovereignty to china?

First, explain how we've sold our sovereignty to China.  Don't run away and change the subject....answer it 🤡

Now, maybe use this as a reference for your hero's affection for China;

https://canadians.org/analysis/harper-sneaks-through-canada-china-fipa-locks-canada-31-years/

HARPER SNEAKS THROUGH CANADA-CHINA FIPA, LOCKS CANADA IN FOR 31 YEARS

by Scott Harris. September 12, 2014Analysis

In the world of official government announcements, a two-paragraph media release sent out in the late afternoon on the Friday before Parliament resumes sitting is the best way for a government to admit, “We know this is really, really unpopular, but we’re doing it anyway.”

That’s the way the Harper government, by way of a release quoting Trade Minister Ed Fast, announced that it had decided to ignore widespread public opposition, parliamentary opposition from the NDP, Greens and even lukewarm Liberal criticism, an ongoing First Nations legal challenge, and even division at its own cabinet table and grassroots membershipand proceed with the ratification of the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA).

With China’s ratification of the deal long since signed, sealed, and delivered (and, really, when you can convince another government to sign a deal this lopsided in your favour, wouldn’t you ratify as quickly as possible too?) Canada’s ratification of the deal means it will enter into force on October 1. And once that happens, we’ll be locked into the terms of FIPA for a minimum of 31 years. That’s right, even if a new government is formed after the election next year and they choose to back out of FIPA, the next seven Canadian governments will be bound by the consequences of Harper’s poor negotiations.

Just how bad of a deal has Harper locked the next seven Canadian governments into? Here’s how Diane Francis — hardly an anti-trade left-winger — described it in an op-ed in the Financial Post:

The Tories, backed by a naïve Canadian Chamber of Commerce and a handful of big, conflicted business interests, have demonstrated the worst negotiating skills since Neville Chamberlain.

Ottawa capitulated to China on everything. The deal, using a hockey metaphor, allows only a select few to play on Team Canada on a small patch of ice in China and to be fouled, without remedies or referees. By contrast, Team China can play anywhere on Canadian ice, can appeal referee calls it dislikes and negotiate compensation for damages while in the penalty box behind closed doors.

The terms agreed to by Ottawa are unprecedented and would be laughed out of Britain, Brussels, Canberra or Washington. Beijing has negotiated a heads-I-win-tails-Canada-loses deal.

 

So maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that the Harper government tried to downplay ratification of the deal and sneak out the back door when nobody was looking.

Much has been written over the past two years about the impact the Canada-China FIPA will have on Canada’s ability to regulate in the public interest, and the incredible powers the FIPA will give to Chinese corporations and state-owned enterprises to sue all levels of government for measures that might interfere with their profits. (Some of the best analysis is offered by Osgood Law School professor Gus Van Harten, which you can read here, here, and in more detail here.)

But equally troubling is the profoundly anti-democratic way in which the Harper government has chosen to finally ratify the deal. Despite having two years of opportunity since the signing of the FIPA, there has been just one hour of discussion at the trade committee, no vote in Parliament, and no public consultations on the deal.

 

[LinkSoul60]

21 hours ago, John Johnston said:

Damn good question. 

Not surprisingly.... @Goddess hasn't answered it here or any time previously.  

I'll assume the answer was that it was great that Harper was so focused on China trade, but Carney is selling us out.

Chalk it up to 'minions do what minions do'...

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

First, explain how we've sold our sovereignty to China.

China just told us which countries our MPs are allowed to go to and where our ships can & can't sail.

A communist country just told us we can't talk to a democratic country.  And that this was a "red line" for them.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Gaétan said:

We know you prefer the Conservative leader because he is harsher toward Palestinians.

When you say "we" you mean the voices in your head right?

I don't think PP has been particularly mean to palestinians has he?

Quote

The only meaningful choices are the Green Party or the NDP. Instead of cooperating with them, the RCMP should focus on dealing with foreign political operatives—whether American or Israeli—who interfere in Canada

Would that be the same NDP that spent the last 4 years propping up the liberals? 

Or the same green party that imploded and destroyed itself the moment Lizzie may left?

well... there you go kid