Welp. Interest rates are staying steady (at least) until the next announcement in October.
I don’t feel like inflation has decreased. Housing is still exorbitant. But there haven’t been mass layoffs, so we’ve got that going for us.
Welp. Interest rates are staying steady (at least) until the next announcement in October.
I don’t feel like inflation has decreased. Housing is still exorbitant. But there haven’t been mass layoffs, so we’ve got that going for us.
Stands to reason. Why would you go to a party to address housing issues? You join a party as a reprieve to get your mind off life’s issues.
Where are the activists, though?
Lol wut?
I go to a party because it’s a social agreement that as adults we defer decision making to the politicians and parties we agree on. Activism is good, but like charity it shouldn’t be needed if the system worked properly in the first place.
Huh? No we don’t. We defer carrying the message from our home base the agreed upon central meeting place to save us the trip. It’s a long way from Vancouver to Ottawa. Best to send only one person – or, at most, a handful of people – instead of millions of people all making the trek.
You, the leader, are still responsible for crafting that message. That is why you’re down at the constituency office on the regular telling your employee what message needs to be sent. I mean, I assume you are. It is your democratic obligation. It is true that some people don’t believe in democracy and will steer clear.
You’re paying good money for that office to allow you a place to spend time talking to the employee you hired. Your workers are most definitely not mind readers. Best to put that office to good use!
Are you referring to the labour unions our hired representatives are known to join? We have no say in that. In fact, our employee selection system, known as FPTP, is explicit that we have no say in what union a worker may choose to be a member of. We only choose the person – one individual. What labour groups that individual chooses to associate with is beyond our concern.
There are countries using other electoral systems that give the leaders of a country some say in what unions are able to represent the hired workers, which is perhaps the source of your confusion? But that is not the system we use in Canada.
I have no idea what you are saying or going on about and I’ve read it 3 times. Nothing you’ve said is a counter argument. At best you’re shifting the goalposts to what I said.
Cool story, I guess.
Stands to reason. This isn’t high school debate club. Why would I want to make a counter argument? That would make no sense at all.
I’m not sure it has anything to do with what you said, beyond clarifying what I said as you identified in the previous comment that you were unable to understand it.
Is this “I don’t understand” just a recurring joke or are you truly that unfamiliar with the world?