And here we see the actual problem - Danielle isn’t the crazy lady holding the party hostage (like Kenny’s comment about the “inmates running the asylum” suggested), the whole party has gone off the deep end.

I don’t see how this has any chance of being fixed, unless the UCP suffers multiple crushing electoral defeats over the next decade or so.

I was already in favor of Trudeau stepping aside to let someone else run, but this has convinced me even more that this is the right direction for the Liberals. It would instantly invalidate the years worth of vitriol the conservatives have fomented towards Trudeau personally (see the “fuck Trudeau” merch) and send them scrambling to drum up the same amount of baseless hate towards whoever runs in his place. Personally, I think this is the best play the Liberals have, and a masterful way to make the Cons look like they have no platform other than outrage.

It honestly reads like the author dismisses the potential of foreign influence affecting both domestic actors and politics outright without proof. There’s ample evidence that Russian state-affiliated actors have worked with social media influencers to foment outrage, for example. That’s not a “new red scare”, that’s straight up proof of intelligence operations designed to undermine Russia’s geopolitical opponents.

“Big surprise” said everyone with half a brain.

Seriously though, this is working exactly as intended by the UCP - they want to have Alberta’s faith pinned to the petro dollar to stay in power. Hard times, global downturn? Blame everyone for ruining Alberta’s precious oil industry -> vote UCP to stick it to the federal government. Good times, oil boom? The UCP freed us from the green yoke the federal government is trying to force on us -> vote UCP to keep your heard-earned success.

Money well spent Alberta. Keep doubling down on propping up an unstable, temperamental, speculation prone, polluting industry with a great track record of improving the lives of all Albertans. If you’re in a hole, keep digging.

Having lived and worked in several countries, I think the concept of Jantelagen is rooted in the Protestant Reformation more than it being a specifically Nordic thing. Not only does it fit well with the general premise of the Protestant worldview, all countries that were early converts seem to have ingrained that particular perspective (under various names) in their collective cultures.

Wait, what? That can’t be a real thing. That would mean a sufficiently large company has potential job action cases every day. The investigative cost would be astronomical, not to mention the time wasted.

For a nation so thoroughly comprised of migrants as Canada, I can’t understand the conservative tendencies to rail against both the people that were already here and the new migrants coming in. This is about the clearest “fuck you, got mine” attitude I’ve seen beside prejudice against the homeless (practiced by the same group of people).

It’s incredibly sad to hear someone die of a preventable cause this young, but I can also somewhat relate with the people who reviewed her application.

If a living donor wouldn’t have been sufficient, they’ve now created two patients where they previously had one, and without improving the primary patient’s condition. It makes sense that a donor organ from a deceased donor would be preferable.

That said, the current requirement for the patient to meet deceased donor standards for transplantation to be eligible to use a willing living donor make no sense. Both situations should have their own unique criteria, given that a living donor situation involves different risks for both the patient and the donor than a deceased donor situation would incur.

Ultimately this whole situation boils down to a scarcity situation though. If we want to solve this, it will require more people to register themselves as a donor and a review of the eligibility criteria as soon as more donors are available.

Thanks for sharing these gems. I can almost feel the exasperation in some of the emails and their replies.

It will never cease to amaze me that anyone supports that clown. Even if you agree with his politics, he’s such an absolute garbage fire in everything he does I can’t imagine anyone electing him over a competent option.

It’s like electing the village clown because you like his stance on abortion.

Stuff is bad now, let’s vote for guaranteed worse! - this guy

I don’t think 20% of the populace hope DJT is our next president, but I sure as hell believe 20% of people looking to elect Poilievre hope he mimics his policies when he becomes PM.

Well put. A lot of people also seem to think the government can magically make money appear out of nowhere and give them better services while taxing them less and somehow still balancing the budget.

Yeah that makes more sense and how I’ve understood it to work. Guaranteed retirement =/= retired.

Wait, what? If he’s retired, why is he running for PM?

Never saw the video for that song, but yeah, that’s pretty much what I imagine would happen.

Every time I hear the guy speak I can’t imagine him in a room with any other world leaders not turning into an open brawl. Even if I agreed with his politics, the fact that he’s so full of himself would turn me off of voting for this windbag.

Thanks, that does actually help out of into context and explains how we got here. I think the better question (and the one I should’ve asked) is why are we still using a system that predates the railroad?

As much as I hate to pin hopes on a hail mary like that, this is likely the only scenario where we will get voting reform to happen. The party in power has no incentive to change the system that brought them to power in the first place, so we’re basically gambling on an outgoing party using their last days of holding onto power to make it happen. Just writing this out makes me wonder how we ever got here in the first place. Who thought first-past-the-post was anywhere near a functional system to begin with?