Bomb threats to local schools were also being sent via Proton.

If they aren’t going to help deal with that then I can understand why turning them off and figuring out is the next best step.

Other services likely engage with local authorities when illegal activity is pursued in their platform.

Temporary blocking doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. Perhaps even a longer term one if Swiss federal authorities are going to meddle.

An MP in a conservative stronghold has to resign and then he can run there in a byelection to get back into the House of Commons. The timing of the byelection is determined by Prime Minister Carney though, so he could very well be put until 2026.

I don’t know thats its too high especially of it was going to be much more than that if not for Trump’s threats, Trudeau’s resignation and Carney’s ascension.

Too close from whose perspective?

The liberals had no business winning this election. All metrics pointed to a conservwtive land slide until Trump got involved and Carney seemingly handled him better than Trudeau.

Carney is going to have to perform above average in his first term otherwise the liberals will be absolutely decimated in 4 years.

This is borrowed time. Even an average performance now will guarantee Poilievre a win in 4 years. The Liberals are going to have to get more done in 4 years than they have in the past 10 to prevent that.

I don’t know if America is the right place to take advice on that at the moment. Whatever plan is being implemented there has clearly failed profoundly.

Unless you’re saying Canada should learn from America’s mistakes but the countries are very different so I doubt the lessons would be meaningful.

Certainly doesn’t bode well. Carney is going to actually have to make a real impact in the next 4 years or the next election will be a landslide for the conservatives. This is borrowed time for the liberals.

I’m totally okay with taking a shot on someone who is actually educated and respected as opposed to a career politician.

Many Western nations are turning to political outsiders out of frustration with the status quo. Conservatives and the far right have more effectively tapped into that underlying desire and capitalized on it.

Here we have an outsider who isn’t a dog whistling regressive populist. That’s a huge win for Canada in my book.

Definitely makes Canada stand out relative to the US, where the choices are bad and apocalyptic bad.

This has been my experience as well and I’d like to highlight your insightful point on how it seemed like both options were still trying to work towards a greater good decades ago.

Modern day conservatism seems entirely based on the ethos that inclusivity has gone too far. Since the world has become (in a very general and oversimplfying sense) more fair and inclusive over time, the ideology now feels inherently regressive.

What happens when a ‘safe third country’ starts adopting extractionary systems left behind by colonial empires that have, in part, held back third world economies for decades? Keep an eye on America to find out!

I’m sure America’s substantial purchasing power will help prevent the rot from spreading within. Right? Right?!

Having a criminal history would likely make him ineligible.

There’s no outright rule against it but several people have been removed from the order for committing crimes.

I think he performed well in the debates. I wouldn’t be surprised if the NDP has trouble filling his shoes. Though they may be able to by picking someone who is more ‘demographically palatable’ to the average Canadian.

Its certainly a thoughtfully constructed phrase to appeal to a type of greed and entitlement.

I don’t doubt that the heritage foundation has a plan but they’re essentially engaging in a gambit and hoping the rest of the world will blunder. There’s no real precedent here to go off of. I personally don’t think the US has ‘the cards’ to come out on top. I have a feeling that Trump is going to end up backtracking and facing legal challenges to the point that more moderate republicans will start to turn away. In the end, the overton window will have shifted which may likely be the long term goal.

We havent even seen widespread price increases yet. If the tariffs result in a decline in the US dollar, oil prices will go up and so will the price of gas. I don’t see that going over well. He’s not going to be able to increase domestic supply fast enough to soften that impact.

There’s still a ton of room and time for him to lose public support here. The less support he has, the harder it will be for him to make the substantial moves he has in the first few months here.

Most of the rest of the world is looking at how to bolster their economies and defense to the exclusion of the US. That will ultimately be Trump’s lasting legacy, in my view.

When Trump introduced tariffs on washing machines in 2018, domestic makers not only increased their prices to match foreign made products, they increased the price of dryers too (since they are often bought together).

These policies are inherently anticompetitive (think of tariffs as a handicap applied to foreign corporations and products) but in practice they’re more likely to favor large coporations over small.

Not necessarily. It depends on the specific market. Ferrari, for example, immediately increased their prices when auto tariffs were announced because they are a luxury brand and know that their customers will eat the cost.

For everyday products, you’re right that the corporation won’t recuperate the full cost of the tariff. So ultimately, the customer pays more, the corporarion they’re buying from makes less and the foreign exporter also makes less due to reduced demand.

Who wins? Whoever is collecting the tariff ie. the US government. Which can be fine if they give it back to the people and certain targeted domestic corporate subsidies but I doubt that’s how this government intends to pay it.

The fact that he used the phrase External Revenue Service tells me he doesn’t know what he’s doing. You can’t replace income tax with economic leverage over foreign markets alone. Those markets would simply stop doing business with you.

The US garnered incredible economic leverage over the world due to the circumstances of WW2 but it is far from infinite or perpetual.

Not necessarily. Depends on demand. If demand is relatively inelastic for their good or service, they can and will reliably pass the cost of tariffs on to consumers and maintain their profit margin.

I recall in the past Western nations would hold their social progress over emerging nations with an air of arrogance. But anyone who has been alive long enough understands that social progress is a function of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. When basic needs become more challenging to secure (as they have been in Canada and the US with affordability crises), social progress unfortunately takes the back burner.

Its often less about the people and more about the circumstance, though religion can be an important modifier.

Oh no doubt the US was on the allied side but there’s something to be said about sitting out and selling weapons to your allies while their infrastructure get pummelled (hording wealth from the sales) and then joining only once instigated. That, to me, says that Americans largely did not see it as their war until they were forced to participate.

Taking it a step further, this isn’t even hypocrisy to them.

Conservatism requires ingroups and outgroups.

Brown and black people are examples outgroups to conservatives.

Their ingroup is straight binary white people.

In their world view, treating an ingroup poorly is a violation of human rights. Treating an outgroup poorly is giving them what they deserve (for not being part of the ingroup).

For this to be hypocrisy from their perspective, Trump would have to be currently deporting who they perceive to be in their ingroup en masse.

Behavior matters less than identity to conservatives.