Make it a referendum, but everyone who is engaging in an activity that risks their health has to vote against removing treatment for lifestyle diseases, and you'll be at 80% before the ballots are printed. Most people think their poor lifestyle choices aren't that big of a problem, just everyone else's.

Sure, but I'm okay with making them admit it out loud.

I'm not sure which president you're referring to. Trump made a pretty big excuse when Khashoggi was killed for why he wasn't even going to wag his finger at Saudi Arabia. Or we could talk about his excuse for why he couldn't reform the ACA.

I honestly think you and I are on pretty close to the same page as far as American politics are concerned, with the exception of the value of activist votes in the presidential election. I do hope your system gets updated to the point where the will of the people becomes or returns to being relevant, depending on your opinions about American history, and I hope mine gets fixed before that is no longer the case.

It really is amazing what one can do when the obstructionists are on your side.

The last time Trump was in power, he passed a tax bill that is estimated to have had a net negative impact on the 72% lowest earning people in America. Some of those changes stay in effect until 2028. I don't imagine he will have less of an impact this time around.

Yeah, that's fair.

You could give them a sedative. They pass out and can't hold their breath, then you administer nitrogen. You could probably even find an acceptable oral medication so you wouldn't require a doctor to administer it. I'm in no way saying this is acceptable, but it isn't that difficult.

This is the difference between a gun and a bomb. A gun has all these fine tolerances and requirements, and then you get this tiny focused result. A bomb just requires a bunch of explosives and something to hold it.

TLDR; wrecking things is always easier than operating them in a controlled and predictable manner.

Moreover, Twitter/X is a company, not a person. There are no feelings to be hurt or rights to be protected. If their owner picked a stupid name, they deserve to be laughed at. If they picked a vague name, it deserves to be ignored.

Jean Chretien, Shawinigan scandal.

Brian Mulroney, Airbus scandal.

Oddly, I couldn't find a really big thing for Stephen Harper, but there are many lists of smaller things he did that are objectionable to one degree or another. My biggest gripe was him calling coalition governments undemocratic. When your whole philosophy goes against working with other groups to achieve the goals of the citizens that you believe the whole concept has to be wrong, it says more about you than the people you're complaining about.

Justin Trudeau had the lavalin scandal, as well as some very hypocritical situations in the first year of his leadership, as well as either botching or throwing the voting reform promise.

Pierre Poilievre has already gone on the record as intending to pass laws he knows are unconstitutional, and using the notwithstanding clause to keep them in force, which, while not illegal, I feel is deplorable, and he isn't even in power yet.

I miss the days when conservatives fought for freedom and not control. I'm willing to admit the difference may be my perception and not their intentions.

Breezy on F-Droid, maybe Google Play, is pretty nice.