What's a threat to Canadian unity isn't Alberta, but it's pushing Alberta isolation like this that's doing it.
It seems like only 20% of Alberta actually wants succession, and a lot of it is conditional on BC joining them, which is basically a nonstarter for BC anyways.
The threat to Canada is Alberta feeling isolated and articles like this furthers such sentiment.
Having strong ideological beliefs on top of being desperate doesn't mean you have mental illness by a massive margin. Most terrorists at most are depressed, not mentally ill. These are two radically different things. Just because someone is a danger to themselves and others doesn't make them terrorists either.
Honestly, who the hell wants a guy who's advocating for the removal of Canadian rights, funneling tax dollars to the rich, and is part of the same international conservative advocacy order as Trump and some other neo-Nazi fascist leaders? We see how much one bad actor can do to a nation, and while Canada has some safeguards to prevent such unilateral damage from coming into place, the Conservatives are full of yes-men who'll just sign off anything that PP wants, so he'll have defacto control over the parliament if he's elected.
A vote for the Cons is a vote for a fascist dictator.
If you want to vote for a right-wing leader, then vote Carney. The liberals are center right and always have been. A fare safer and more reasonable choice than someone who repeatedly walks all over the average Canadian and says that its "for your own good". A man who refuses to answer questions and goes back on his promises like they were just things he said while drunk on some friday bar crawl.
While I do agree that he did help, he wasn't very instrumental in saving Canada from that meltdown. It was the policies that were already in place at the time that prevented Canadian banks from being overleveraged, which made fixing the issue in Canada far easier than it was in the states.
Carney did help prevent a major disaster, but he also started from a far better position when doing so.
Unfortunately Harper removed all the safeguards that prevented the 2008 meltdown, so we're as vulnerable to it now as the US was back then.
The freedom to ridicule is fundamental to keep hate out of the mainstream. Fascism feeds off of fear and hate, and the best cures to them are comedy and comradery.
You see it all over the world and history. Anywhere fascism is going strong, the people fear and hate like no other. But when people are filled with positive vibes, they come together and work together for the betterment of all rather than bring each other down which ends up bringing themselves down.
Hate doesn't belong in Canada, just like how fascism doesn't belong here.
We don't have a left in Canada. At least if you're talking about amongst parties that have more than five seats before this election.
The NDP hasn't been leftist in the slightest since Jack Layton died. Half the time they're more right than the Liberals, who are proud center right with their left leaning policies to promote right leaning goals. Having a couple of left leaning policy amongst a swarm of right leaning ones doesn't make you leftist at all. Just more than than the borderline neo-Nazis that the Cons have become (and arguably always have been).
This is simply history. You can read about it in normal everyday history books of any sort regardless of affiliation or background.
I'm not trying to give a one-sided impression of what happened, but simply counter-arguments to your statements, which is why I didn't bother to reiterate your own points. I'm not saying that what you said was all wrong, but that it was only half the story. I provided the other half. If you consider it illiterate propaganda, then I suppose all hail the Han dynasty and all of Earth awaits the day they overthrow the whites in Confucius glory or something.
I mean, is anybody surprised? No matter how many underhanded deals and other political problems and disputes China has had with us, that's nothing compared to outright threats of annexation. Nothing threatens a people like outright ceasing to exist.
It's half an issue about messaging. The problem is that the Liberal messaging keeps sounding like things designed for older generations and not things that'll help younger Canadians, while Cons messaging sounds like they re for younger Canadians rather than older ones.
Yes, Liberal plans on expanding housing while preserving healthcare are definitely things that are good for younger Canadians, but they both sound like things that are only for older generations. Like building more houses are only for rich Canadians to buy cottages and healthcare are for old people who can't get out of bed because of their bad knees, not that housing means that first-time buyers finally have houses within their price ranges, or that getting sick and taking time off work doesn't equate to being 20 years in debt because hospitals gouge you for everything you have because people are willing to mortgage the rest of their lives to get life-saving treatments.
On the other hand, the Cons keep saying they'll create resource jobs and reduce taxes, making it sound like they're opening up so everybody can become gold diggers and stop the government from taking their hard-earned pay, when it's actually not even close to being true. That the jobs the Cons promise are only minimum wage jobs at best, in terrible conditions and far away from all convenience, or that the taxes reduced will save the rich millions while the poor still can't afford to buy the houses and services that the taxes get saved on, making it so that they are actually subsidizing the rich even more than before. Not to mention that every $100 cut in taxes means that the average Canadian will pay thousands more for the services that they've been getting all their lives.
But no, the Cons are better at wording their platform to appeal to the worst off in Canada, yet those are the ones cheering for them the most. The Cons are really the world's best conmen, and too many Canadians are too desperate to notice.
This is extremely narrow and one-sided. This problem went both ways.
For example, when western diplomats went to China to negotiate trade, they were often thrown out for not bringing convoys of gold and silver as tribute just to talk to the Emperor, since in those days China was such a local superpower that the very concept that a foreign nation wouldn't kowtow and beg for scraps at the Emperor's feet didn't exist. They thought that diplomats daring to stand without groveling in front of the Emperor was a direct insult and verging on a declaration of war.
This is why so many western diplomats simply went around the Imperial court, which is also a significant reason why the opium wars happened (though not exclusively. The west is heavily to blame for escalating and taking advantage).
Both sides refused to back down, so it both underhanded means as well as military force was utilized. Neither side accepted to consider the other as an equal, so when a clash of needs and desires came about, physical domination was the only possible result. Nowadays, China is still using the same principals that the Emperors of eld held, but is trying to use the west's old methods back against them.
I wont say that the west isn't at fault at any point along the way, but China's means and motivations are equally as bad and there is no justification aside from greed, pride, and envy for what they are doing. People complain about all the stuff the CIA's been doing, but you have to ask yourselves, how do you justify China sending thousands of fishing boats just outside of Argentina's EEZ? You know, in Atlantic waters, not even Pacific ones.
And this isn't even starting on how China keeps making artificial islands in the south China seas to extend their claims on territorial waters, boxing in the Philippines, Indonesia, and the other local powers that are still so poor that the Halifax-class is more like a battleship compared to what their navies have.
I'm pretty skeptical about this result, but if you think about a perfect 100 points not as a marker of true ideal freedom and prosparity, but rather a degree of freedom from blatant easily quantifiable oppression (in other words reverse the numbers and mark it as the oppression index), then the result does sound more reasonable.
Canada has made great strides and is ahead in many ways, but that's because so many major countries have such high degree of public oppression. We're one of the best in a quite dystopic world, which really isn't saying much when you are looking at ideas, and which also means we still have a massive amount to go.
Hard to call Canada not right wing when basically 90% of the country is voting for central right and far right parties. Liberals haven't been even slightly left leaning for a long time. The most generous way to describe them is a party that uses left leaning policies to achieve right leaning goals.