

I don’t think there’s much of a point unless person A actually wants to make a change in their habits. It’s like trying to convince someone to switch to Linux.
Moncton NB
I don’t think there’s much of a point unless person A actually wants to make a change in their habits. It’s like trying to convince someone to switch to Linux.
OK, sure, but he has good policies on housing and climate change, for example. Let’s not fall into the trap of US voters who didn’t vote for Harris because she didn’t align with 100% of their preferences.
anyone serious
That’s the catch - there are no serious people left in any position of authority in the US.
I like both.Gould and Carney. I think you’re being unfair to the latter; look at his policies in more detail and I don’t think he’s to the right of Trudeau. Right of Gould, sure, but still nowhere near a conservative, especially the current iteration of that party.
Trudeau is probably to your left. I think you’d fit in with Progressive Conservatives who would have supported Joe Clark back in the day, and are now eager to vote for Mark Carney.
I really, REALLY wish the Affinity suite would work on Linux. They are the only ones even remotely comparable to Adobe.
What would you call me?
Please take no offense, but I’m very confused as to how an American with your set of beliefs would ever have come to label themself a “conservative”. You are perhaps a conservative (a rather left-wing one) by Canadian standards, what we call “Progressive Conservatives” here, which are unfortunately a dying breed as our conservatives are infected by American culture war brain rot. If I were to transpose you onto Canadian politics, I would absolutely guess you tend to vote for the Liberals, which are a slightly left of center party. In a US context, I don’t know… McCain Republican? Blue Dog Democrat perhaps?
Unfortunately conservatism as an ideology has been co-opted by antisocial elements. We’re a long way from Edmund Burke. Would “classical liberal” fit you better?
I’ll take it!
Wilhoit’s law proven right yet again:
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Quoting Zhukov in a thread relating to Hungarian dysfunction, really? Why not see what Pol Pot thought about ophthalmology?
Edit: downvoters may want to educate themselves on what Zhukov was up to in 1956.
Is there a German word for “an endorsement that has a net negative effect”?
Don’t be a dick… here you go OP:
[Content visible only to Lemmy Gold subscribers. Buy a 12 month tokens bundle and get 10% off!]
Least purity-testing leftist
So would his constituents, if they could read.
It’s common? Can you name a single other example where a head of state personally made the decision despite most of the population disagreeing and not having asked for it in the first place?
In any case that doesn’t give that country of buffoons permission to change the name for everybody else. Wikipedia belongs to everyone.
We’re already seeing it on such mundane pages as that for the Gulf of Mexico, which has MAGAs complaining on the Talk page as though their clown show of a country were the only one on earth and should get to unilaterally name international bodies of water.
A bit under 5 CAD for a dozen at my usual grocery (29 US cents per egg). Maybe that’s why Americans want to invade us.
The US never recognized the ICC. They even reserve the right to invade the Nettherlands to free any detained Americans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court#American_Service-Members’_Protection_Act
FWIW all of the major pollsters have Carney at minimum forcing a conservative minority, if not winning outright.