StoneyPicton

His thoughts are definitely not mainstream and in this case he's giving too much credit to a healthy diet, but damn if I don't agree with some of the things he says. I'd love to know the truth of his sources. Here's an interview he did before the election.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/-we-re-living-in-a-weird-period-of-history-full-rfk-jr-interview-190800453748

Great bit, thanks.

How's that new mandate working out so that tool Ford can deal with trump?

I hadn't looked closely at that. I'll have a look, thanks.

I agree with your arguments and especially about new governments tearing up what was done under the other. This would still happen but maybe less. Bottom line is I'd vote for either when in mean getting rid of FPTP. Cheers

I agree and am not opposed to PR. I only worry about the fracturing of the electorate.

I much prefer ranked ballots to PR. IMO PR will lead to dozens of niche parties with single issue platforms that will end in coalition hell.

Don't know where to start with this one. Creating more political parties just splits the vote. In a "first pass the post" election set up, this would be a disaster. Allowing someone to become extremely rich is not necessarily a problem. The problem should really be looked at more from the gap between them and the normies. Shrink that gap and that lessons the problem. The biggest problem with extreme wealth in an individual or corporation is the outsized influence they have on politics and government. Your SC's citizen united decision is the real problem that generates a lot of the hate for the rich. Rich people don't want to be taxed more (in general) so if you try to force it on them they will look for solutions like relocating their tax home. You would need to have tools to punish attempts to do this, like loss of citizenship and asset seizures. These are not popular steps and could sink any initiative before it begins. Those are just some of the problems I see. There are many, many more.

The title was a bit confusing. I think your point is that it should also be taught at parochial schools. There is no doubt this is the case. The thing that gets me is that is comes down to what public (or private to some extent) educations goal should be. I think that schools should teach all topics as it is important to expose kids to all aspects of life and let their passions lead them to a satisfying path. Others think that parents should have more control in restricting what topics are covered. I think there is a way to honour both approaches but there is conflict in its organization.

I'm against child quotas but for education on what exactly population growth and shrinkage entails. Let people understand what the implications and solutions are for the various scenarios of the future. Ultimately I see a profound lack of hope for our futures is leading young people to not want to bring a child into the world older generations have built. I am with them 100%. A solution I have introduced in previous discussions is a suicide pill that any elderly that can no longer be supported by society could take to avoid and painful and lonely death. That has not gone over well, lol.

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the specific mechanism in our trade agreements. No government should be compromising their right to make public policy.