Dearche

That said, I do believe that Teslas actually contain very little if any Canadian parts, so even a flat-out ban on Tesla imports will likely do little harm to Canadian workers. And while we don't really make much electric vehicles locally, we can import European ones which would help tighten our relations with them as a bonus.

He's an independent, so unfortunately nothing can remove his candidacy unless if he gets arrested again.

This is why I mentioned France and UK's nuclear umbrella. It's effectively the power of having nuclear weapons without actually having them.

Ukraine had the unfortunate fact that they only got a promise of nonintervention rather than a security guarantee backed by arms when they gave up their nukes.

Either way, while not having nukes might not entirely prevent others from pushing harder to get nukes of their own, at the very least, I believe we shouldn't be the ones starting this trend. It only takes one country with an itchy trigger finger to normalize using nukes in armed conflicts, which is one step away from preemptive nuclear war.

Incredible. His plan is to make us more economically dependent on our current greatest enemy, to make our military even more dependent on them.

I don't know if this is pure unawareness, or deliberately traitorous. But considering what Daniel Smith's been doing, the latter won't be surprising.

Personally, I feel like this is quite a level of escalation that I think is a bit too far for Canada. Nuclear proliferation is just incredibly risky, especially when it comes to normalizing the idea of more countries having nukes. If Canada gets nukes, then who are we to say that another country shouldn't also get nukes? What if that country is Iran, or Turkey, or some other country that has a notably loose concept of restraint while being next doors to a hostile country?

On the other hand, nuclear weapons is a form of protection that negates balance of conventional forces, and few imbalances are as great as that of Canada and the US.

For me, I think that we shouldn't get nukes, but a better idea is to help an existing nuclear power to reinforce their stockpile and come under their umbrella, like the UK or France. Canada is already one of the top uranium exporters and a major nuclear energy power, so there's little reason why we can't be a contributor to the building and maintenance of a friendly nation's nuclear stockpile in exchange for their protection.

Not to mention that it'll cut back the risk of proliferation.

Since he livestreamed it, I'm a bit surprised that clips of his rants mixed with PP standing with him isn't circulating around.

Are we doing Escape from New York on a national level? I'm for it.

As long as most of this money goes mainly towards high density housing, it's not a whole lot but infinitely better than what I was hearing just a few days ago. We don't need houses three hours drive away from work, but homes where people can not only live in, but around.

I really hope this new organization will have the power to ignore NIMBY organizations while listening to city councils for advice. At the very least I hope they get things done directly plotting out and signing building contracts rather than simply instructing and funding individual municipalities and delegating. We can't have people divert this desperately needed money for homes to be diverted towards private projects and making political buddies wealthier.

It's really unfortunate, but this is completely true. Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on the integrated business suite, and between cost and ease of use, nobody else, nor any combination of competitors, is even close.

I mean, did any of those dealers manage those sorts of sales in any month?

I don't know that much about dealerships, but I find it hard to believe that any but the exceedingly most exceptional manage four digit sales in an entire month in general, let alone in three days for a single brand that's been hemorrhaging popularity over the last two years or so.

It sucks that grocery stores make these labels based on where the company that sells these products come from. I mean, CocaCola and Red Bull both have a maple leaf tag at my usual grocery store because they have subsidiaries that are Canada based, though I last I heard the syrup as well as the bottles come from the US for Coke, and is only bottled in Canada.

At the very least, outside of the produce isle, it is pretty easy to buy mostly local. We produce so much base foodstuffs that a general guideline will mostly work. Anything that's grains, fruits, meats, and diary are probably Canadian, aside from tropical fruit at least. Nuts are hit or miss, but a lot of them come from California. Unfortunately a lot of rice is also from California. Oranges are almost all from Florida, so the first thing most people should do is cut oranges from their diets, preferably permanently and find a new favourite fruit like blueberries or apples.

The unfortunate truth though when it comes to groceries, is that it's nearly impossible to give at least a little bit to the US with your purchases. Less than a half dozen companies own more than 80% of the products stocked at most grocery stores in Canada, all of which I believe are American. The maple leaf tag just means that there is a Canadian company in between the owners and the product.

While true, I think if the population they derive their income from isn't merely of that of their riding, but the average of their region instead (entire city/province, not just the riding), then it will seriously minimize the impact.

But even without that, this would strengthen the vote of low income areas as there will be less competition, making those that represent high income areas worth less since they tend to be outnumbered by low income areas. You either get a high wage, or have an easier time not only getting voted in, but having more peers representing people in similar situations.

Still think spreading the average is better, but overall I think it can work better than it currently is either way.