Between Carney and Poilievre, the better of the two seemed pretty clear and still does. Doesn’t mean it was a great choice.

Frankly, I’m surprised we aren’t seeing more floor crosses though. If you can choose to be part of a Conservative party in opposition or a Conservative party in government, why choose opposition?

You really shouldn’t be getting downvoted on this. Sending $8 million dollars & no fuel is basically just a PR stunt for the politically shallow. It is bullshit.

I totally respect you donating. What your choices are as an individual are very different from the government’s choices. The Canadian government has capacity to offer help with the fundamental needs that individuals don’t. Our government’s choice to go with basic aid reflects a position different from yours as an individual supporting basic aid. They understand the situation in Cuba and the cause of it, and have chosen not to address the fundamental need in the form of aid provided nor to address the fundamental cause of the crisis in the rhetoric used. In fact, by choosing to use the framing of a humanitarian crisis in Cuba instead of openly recognizing it as an illegal blockade imposed to devastate Cuba and lead to regime change, Canada is effectively supporting the US framing that the problem is Cuba’s government, which supports the idea that the US is justified in doing this as it serves the welfare of the Cuban people. So, yeah, Canada actually is supporting the US position on this, just as we conspicuously said nothing to oppose the regime change in Venezuela that has enabled this.

Even the US is supplying aid to Cuba. It’s not aid Cuba is missing. It’s fuel.

Unless we send fuel, we’re basically going along with the US, providing basic aid that will be utterly inadequate to deal with the real crisis of an economy being brought to a full stop by a blockade on fuel and financial sanctions.

We lined up behind Trump on Gaza, said nothing about Venezuela, are saying nothing about Cuba, and essentially support the US against Iran. Where is the rupture?

Rubio flies over to Munich and gets a standing ovation for a speech in which he talks about a return to transatlantic empire flexing over the rest of the world, and materially we’re basically still seeing that.

Carney’s rhetoric at Davos was nice. I remain totally unconvinced that there is material change to accompany that rhetoric. Seems like dropping liberalism for values-based realism is just a retreat into realism. Calling it “Values-Based” is just the new rhetorical compromise and branding effort to make it palatable for stakeholders who were attached to the narrative of the liberal international order.

Canada doesn’t want diplomatic relations with Iran. Fine. Personally, I think diplomatic engagement should exist with every country, because diplomacy includes engaging even with those you regard as enemies and that’s how diplomacy offers benefits. But, if Canada’s government doesn’t want that, okay. Still, while the US is building up a massive force in the region, we won’t even make a statement about opposing wars of aggression or unilateral engagement in armed conflict?

Sure seems like we’re still aligned with the Transatlantic Empire idea.

What are the Global South countries we seem to be trying to hedge our bets with to think of us? They’re not blind. Should they trust us? We don’t actually seem to have any problem with US adventurism, even while having our national identity and sovereignty threatened and undermined by the US on the daily.

A rupture should be a matter of material change, but I’m thinking a few years from now everyone will look back on this as just a nice speech while we kept sailing right alongside the US through the night.

I renewed my British passport last year after my last one expired many years back. I’ve never lived in the UK. Didn’t have to submit anything that I couldn’t attain pretty easily, such as my birth certificate, references etc.

Their problem isn’t that their white supremacy is misdirected. It’s more just that it’s fundamentally wrong. Just as bad if it’s aimed at people from India or elsewhere.

Listening to what everyone had to say, I most liked Tony McQuail and least liked Rob Ashton. Worst of all was whoever was in charge of handling sound for the voiceover translations, because that was horrendous. The rest were all fine, but nobody I found inspiring. All pretty likeable though, except for Ashton who came across as kind of caustic and a bit fake. I liked Tanille Johnston’s positive energy.

One thing that struck me watching it: I wish the NDP would speak the language of finance, tech, and economics with much more sophistication. It’s no good just talking about big business, billionaires, or the 99% in cartoonish ways. If you’re going to take on these huge challenges, you need to show you actually understand them at a really sophisticated level, otherwise you end up sounding like your ideas are all pie in the sky. Talk to NDP voters like they’re adults who understand economics, business, and tech, and who want a different way of dealing with them. If you’ve got a sophisticated plan, lay it out and educate us on it like adults, not undergrads who just read Graeber for the first time. It’s the working class you need to win back, and they’re not idiots. At the end of the debate, because they didn’t speak to these topics with sophistication, I was left feeling nobody on stage was really plugged in to a number of the most pressing challenges the party needs to be ahead of.

Wut? Dude could have just stayed in his job as a conservative MP if all he wanted was to fill a seat and collect a paycheck.