I would refer you to my other comment made.
I don't see a comment that speaks to numbers. You said they are "banning guns outright". If you mean "banning SOME guns outright", then it would be correct, but of course almost everyone thinks some guns should be banned outright. But not all guns are banned outright, you can still own and buy guns.
Please show me a poll showing that 25% of Canadians are single issue gun voters. (I know gun owning families (avid hunters) who had no problem voting for a Liberal PM.)
You are spreading disinformation, because it is not true that guns are banned “outright”. Specific classes of firearms are.
But How many more votes are really at stake thru your (apparently) favored pet issue? How many Canadians who would consider voting lib do you really think are single issue gun voters?
Oh damn. I’m sorry to hear that. Wishing them the best recovery possible and a manageable transition into the new norm.
True. Also could be they lower the price point due to lack of demand, and that pulls in folks who otherwise wouldn't have traveled to compensate somewhat. But they probably also have less money to spend and would do shorter trips...
I hope Europe and Asia get the message...
Bonus also is you are not creating value that is directly fueling the unfolding nightmare there.
A bit tangential, but I've been reading (listening) to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Unfreedom -- it's helping provide so much clarifying perspective to understand what is being done to us and why it is working. I highly recommend it! I fell like its giving me new tools to communicate and understand the nature of our predicament.
(Sorry, I got carried away trying to process my thinking here, and this is longer than I meant...)
Base narcissism may be the entire explanation here, but I think we should also be considering other possibilities. They are playing raw power politics, unanchored from norms and laws, and they have a long-term strategic vision: they know exactly what they are planning to do over the next 10 years and it is the culmination of plans that have been in motion for at least the last 50+ years. Obviously it includes extending the American empire.
Trumpism has so far been based on driving division and then weaponizing resentment and propaganda to mobilize, pacify, or mislead their side of the divide. But they also feed off the outrage of the opposing side: Trumpism wins by replacing rational discourse and fact-based consideration with partisan outrage and impulsive agitation.
The fact that Trump has been able to drive our country to increasing its own internal discord -- bi-polarizing the electorate, sapping the left, stirring up fringe actors to trumpet factious images and rhetoric, while we have allowed our information systems to be overrun by deliberately manipulative propaganda campaigns from domestic and foreign reactionaries -- All of this shows that the tactics of Trumpism work here. His reach can determine outcomes. This current election we were able so squeeze out a slim majorty win rejecting Trumpism. But it was indeed Trumpism on the ballot and there is ~2% difference in the popular vote! The fact that they were able to make the election about their divisive program, and then nearly win, seems worth celebrating in the context of a multi-decade program.
Now, that doesn't explain why they would celebrate this particular outcome. But, had PP won now, it would be very awkward to move towards annexation, since it is wildly unpopular, and it would make no sense from the US side for the Trump admin to be demonizing a leadership and party who was obviously aligned with their values. Moves to that affect, and the reality that conservatives tend to make life worse for most people, would mean a likely backlash against the Cons in the next election.
However, with Carney and the liberals leading (by the slimmest coalition), Trumpism will be able to:
So, in short, I am worried that his satisfaction here is fully justified, based on their strategy.
I am not saying it would have been better for us in any way had the Cons won, tho. What I am saying is that this may be a move both sides needed for their best strategy, and I just hope we can fix some of the systemic dynamics that they are counting on driving our system into their hands.
Isn't match already such a unified expression? Especially once you extend matches with guards, it seems to me like this is a solved problem. E.g.,
if x == 1.0 then "a" else "x"
is
match x with | 1.0 -> "a" | _ -> "b"
and
if x ==
1.0 then "a"
2.0 then "b"
else "z"
is (and IMO reads much clearer this way):
match x with
| 1.0 -> "a"
| 2.0 -> "b"
| _ -> "z"
and
if xs
.isEmpty then "e"
.contains(0,0) then "n"
else "z"
is
match () with
| _ when x.isEmpty -> "e"
| _ when x.contains(0,0) then "n"
| _ -> "z"
and
if person
.age < 18 then 18
is Person("Alice", _) then person.age
is Person("Bob", let age) then age
else -1
is
match person with
| _ when person.age < 10 -> 18
| Person("Alice", _) -> person.age
| Person("bob", age) -> age
| _ -> -1
.
Finally,
if person is Person("Alice", let age) then age else -1
Would be the simple
match person with
| Person("Alice", age) -> age
| _ -> -1
Seems to me this reads more clear in general and has less magic. Plus, it's already implemented in a bunch of languages.
part of the psyop is to claim a large or majority view, then push the view, normalize it, get even the opposition to validate it and respond to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Unfreedom has an interesting take on the wave of separatist movements. It traces it to a reactionary “politics of eternity”, which is being supported and advanced by authoritarian regimes to undermine the established order based on trade democratic deliberation. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum
Now that X and Meta have become dedicated propaganda platforms, and I don’t know that it’s even possible for the government or researchers to get the needed access to determine if there are bad actors manipulating the public in this way now.
From Snyders view, one of the aims of this global effort is to convince people that coordination via democratic deliberation doesn’t work. Proposing ridiculous, highly polarizing referendums and tricking as many people as possible into voting for the most absurd option is a great way to convince everyone that democratic process are stupid, since that is the most degenerate form of democratic activity.