Hey, we took in your draft dodgers. The main thing would be to not mess up our housing supply further. In any case, I doubt the safe third country agreement would withstand a court challenge at this point.

It’s going to be trans people who would be eligible first, probably.

A lot of farmers are just rich guys, basically, but smug on top of it because of the tough image they have. The ones that own land aren’t the ones that do the work, and the work that people who aren’t immigrants do tends to be the sitting in a cab kind. There’s not a lot of people between 20 and 45 here in rural Alberta anyway. The Hutterites are an obvious exception, but they don’t vote anyway.

From what I’ve seen they really liked Kurek, are mad Poilievre is an outsider, and doubly mad because he’s an Ontario city type, but it’s nothing a firm handshake and some rabble-rousing won’t smooth over. He might get only 70%

That would be a real argument, if the immigrants weren’t poor themselves and if they actually were bad for the economy as opposed to good.

The fact that you jumped in here like that in response to a barely-related comment about democracy makes me think racist.

The way you phrased that makes it sound like there’s something I should personally do to make sure an inevitable conflict stays cold. If you have an idea, I’m all ears.

Anyway, hopefully Canada will open up asylum to Americans soon, in case things get really bad.

Well, that kind of supports my theory here.

It’s shitty that there’s not much you can do to actually intervene. Usually they don’t come straight out and admit they’re a misogynistic trashbag, it’s just a strong vibe.

I mean, it’s the same, you just turn around at the end of the ride as you’re leaving rather than the beginning. But, it’s simply not how it’s done.

I mean, artisanal gold mining is still a huge thing in certain less-than-awesome areas. The basic way gold works is what inspired it in the first place.

Yes, there’s a lot of unspoken rules that are out there, but never actually enforced. Facing the other way in an elevator was one example I remember from my social sciences classes.

You know, I’m not actually sure how binding it is exactly, aside from not totally. It must do something or they wouldn’t bother getting pretend consent.

It happened gradually, like frogs in a kettle.

When it was just a guy putting up a sign in front of his smithy it was kind of harmless. Ditto for having a single text-only paper ad for people who are new to town. But, it was a slippery slope.

Most investment instruments, apparently, going by the reactions I get when I explain shorting IRL. It’s like people think there’s only a few approved transactions and doing anything creative (or actually standard but clever) must be a crime. Feudalism’s over, guys.

Third-party or self hosted GitLab FTW.

Youtube is kind of hard to replace, though. There’s attempts but I’m skeptical they’ll go far.

Privacy, food safety and environmental regulation basically mean Europe, but then Europe has crazy anti-migrant sentiment at this point. So, maybe one of the Scandinavian countries that’s still relatively welcoming? Portugal might also track, if you don’t mind a country that’s economically moribund.

Honestly I don’t get what the hype with Toronto is. It costs like Vancouver but with Calgary’s weather and general vibes.

Hopefully more like Cold War II. And honestly, Australia’s in a pickle there - most other democracies are pretty damn far away from it. They might try to do the Finland thing instead.

.ca

You know it’s going to make more sense on some level, though. We love talking shit about America, we’ve just never been able to channel it anywhere.

(Although if you’re closer to the border it’s probably different)

People get really jumpy about going against public political choice in a democracy, which is fair, but I think there’s been error in the other direction.

No existing democracy is absolute, and there’s a pretty strong argument it has to be that way.

but don’t actually have a plan beyond that to get 30% of the voters to not vote for the next party that uses the nazi talking points.

Last time Germany banned a successful far-right party they tried this, but the new party was also quickly banned. They’re miles ahead of you on this, which makes sense given that the laws were written by people just liberated from the OG Nazis.

I mean, it political bans usually work. Troskyism died in Stalin’s Russia, and pretty much every late Cold War junta was successful at suppressing their local communist movement, even if large. Germany itself has successfully banned far-right parties in the past.

Sure, the martyr effect exists, but it’s hella overrated, basically just because people are starting with the conclusion that you can’t ban things (which may or may not have merit) and working backwards. I’m not actually aware of any case where a banned movement has succeeded alongside non-incumbent legal movements, and even in autocracies revolutions and coups usually fail.