HungryJerboa

Republicans only like bribery for rich people, not poor people.

The only thing that's actually exhaustive here is Dougie's pathetic and blatantly corrupt attempts to screw Ontarians and deprive them of a valuable public good for the sake of pleasing his developer buddies.

Believe me it's as pathetic as it sounds.

Easiest way to get laughed out of the courtroom when you attempt to use it as a legal defense.

The study itself highlights that this is a correlation, not evidence of direct causation. Still, evidence of a correlation with worsened outcomes for newborns is concerning in itself.

The only reason I can think of that EPA would act like this is regulatory capture.

You used a VPN... Right?

Not too hard to achieve after seeing how dead set Musk is on killing Twitter...

I completely disagree with the idea that people who do not choose to display unfettered consequentialism are responsible for negative outcomes, especially when the numbers are so small that it's barely relevant. Your view of politics is so polarized and embittered that it alienates anybody who looks at the world with shades of grey. Believe whatever you want, but if your takeaway is that the Liberal party should blame everybody else but themselves for their loss, then you will be just as rudderless as the party leadership when they lose the next election.

That is an absurd argument to make in a functional democracy, and I find it appalling you lack any self awareness of how entitled and cynical you sound. Why not direct this venom at the people of the riding who didn't vote, rather than the people who participated in democracy as intended? Why have venom at all?

If I was a swing voter, I would make sure any party whose supporters try to guilt trip me for exercising citizen's rights to vote (for whoever I want) is punished at the ballot box. That's not a winning strategy - that's being a sore loser.

I don't disagree with that. Poilievre won't want to burn political capital on this issue and would much rather neglect these services, even if it's fiscally irresponsible to saddle future governments with the bill for cleaning these messes up. Yea, it is exhausting to watch important services degrade day by day.

But once again, this only underscores the need to establish electoral reform so that a plurality of 40% will never again grant the Conservatives a majority government with which they can sledgehammer our institutions.

You aren't comparing Poilievre to Trump are you? Despite my misgivings with Milhouse, he is a regular political opportunist (though like Doug Ford, that can still cause problems for people). Swinging to the opposite extreme and making him sound like the antichrist erodes any chance of honest discussion we have with more moderate fiscal conservatives (the social conservative crazies that want to ban abortion will live in their own world no matter what).

You have a fair point about people displaying their privilege when saying they can tolerate a lost election. I know others don't have that luxury, but I'm not saying ignore everything, or don't vote. The climate is a wedge issue that affects everybody world wide, regardless of their political affiliation (or lack of), which is why I emphasized it.

This discussion started because of a comment supporting strategic voting, and extrapolated consequences and value judgments from there. It's an issue with the electoral system that requires electoral reform.