domain:philippelemoine.com
phailyoor
4m ago
You don't need a driver's license to vote. Here is the list of acceptable voter ids: https://www.sos.alabama.gov/alabama-votes/voter/voter-id So as long as any of these would honor a common law name, the state potentially has a way out.
But on the other hand, I'm not even sure this sort of catch-22 would hold up in court. The court says that your common law name should be honored, but that doesn't mean that the state has to give you an id or anything else if you don't bring the prerequisite documents. A person asking for an ID under his birth name would have trouble too if he couldn't produce proof of it. So I could see potentially that the court upholds that "we agree that's your name, but you still need docs proving it to get an id or vote"
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
10m ago
arguing for physical resurrection
To be clear, Im in favour of all three points. I dont want to say agree, since Im an atheist and that would make it even weirder than it already is, but Im anti-gnostic.
I'm not against the idea of holy objects or corpses, but relics imo verge into idol worship, where they seem to have power of their own.
Certainly some people do that. I think personally seeing and maybe interacting with a semi-important piece of Gods history can have a big impact on someone. Its not separate in the sense that its an inevitable part of whatever happened to and with it in the first place. Visiting the holy land is similar, and propably seems less idolatrous.
while that may be symbolically violating Jesus I'm confident he's not actually harmed, so common sense tells me that the Communion isn't literally part of his body.
Is a sacrificial animal harmed by what you do to its flesh after the sacrifice? And yet that is clearly its body that youre eating. I dont think theres anything contradictory about it being both Jesus flesh and not part of his current living body. And since its apparently fine that heaven is made from divine matter thats invisible, I dont think the lack of apparent changes is a problem either.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
17m ago
I would say that any top-shelf alcohol* is weakly Blue-coded as part of the general pattern that allegedly refined taste = Blue, moar and bigger = Red.
I have never come across Bourbon - for whatever reason it doesn't get exported. The whisky market has this odd dynamic where most countries make whisky, many countries make expensive whisky (including Bourbon in the US), but about 95% of whisky consumed outside the country of origin is Scotch.
* Except Cognac, which is Black-coded in the US for reasons which are completely opaque to non-Americans.
ulyssessword
25m ago
(I wonder if we'll see the ACLU stepping up on this matter only after someone is actually refused a court order for name change... which they generally only do for sex offenders and other criminals whose “crimes involv[ed] moral turpitude”...)
My bets are on a transgender name change instead of any other type. They're the only thing I can think of that are culture-war enough to make for good publicity.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
25m ago
Sure, all of these are good reasons to want more white British doctors. But, other than the paperwork thing, which can’t plausibly represent some massive expense passed on to the consumer, what does any of this have to do with making things cheaper, which was the original claim?
TheBailey
soapy mop
42m ago
Spending $50 on a court-ordered name change is probably the simplest way to proceed.
Sadly, I already took this “coward's way out” cutting a check to the local probate court rather than raising the matter the hard way, and am now far too satisfied with my legal name to fuck with it any further; someone else with a similar impulse will need to tackle this.
(I wonder if we'll see the ACLU stepping up on this matter only after someone is actually refused a court order for name change... which they generally only do for sex offenders and other criminals whose “crimes involv[ed] moral turpitude”...)
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
48m ago
The Orthodox would grant the Pope primacy, but for the Orthodox that means a position of honor as the first among equals. The Pope would not have direct universal jurisdiction over the whole church and could not alter dogma, as he did neither of those things prior to (the lead-up to) the schism.
The Council of Rimini in 359 had over 400 bishops in attendance. This council produced and agreed to the Arian formulas that, "the Son is like the Father according to the Scriptures" and "the Son is not a creature like other creatures." Pope Liberius recognized this as an attempt from Arians to lead to statements that Jesus is not God Begotten and rejected the council. Many who signed the council documents then repudiated it. In view of the lack of approbation by the Holy See, it had no universal authority. We see Papal Authority define dogma, superseding the findings of a council of over 400 bishops from the East and West.
but at the Ecumenical Councils did everyone just defer to the Pope? (at some he was barely involved) Did all the apostles just defer to St. Peter? St. Paul resisted him "to his face". The Council of Jerusalem was not decided by St. Peter and was presided over by St. James (if you want to go all the way back).
Papal primacy does not require the Pope to be always correct, to never be resisted, or for him to be involved with every dispute. However, for there to be a teaching out of a Council that is binding on the whole Church, it does require the acceptance of the Successor of Peter. Peter was present at the Council of Jerusalem, even if he's not the one who wrote the Council documents he set the tone and James promulgated it:
After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
I think most people don't understand that the Catholic Church does not make claims that the Pope is always correct or that he can just make up a new doctrine. The claim is not that the Pope is the one who has to call each council or determine the final council documents. We don't want the Orthodox to believe anything like that. We would just like for the same position of honor that was held in the past, because that is the road to unity instead of division.
Prior to the last 50 years or so there wasn't much discussion between the East and the West, and lots of misconceptions flourished. We didn't have as clear communication as we have now. The Petrine Doctrine is not the cartoon that (some) Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants act like it is.
I think from the Orthodox perspective what you are leaving out about the schism is that the Roman Catholics made an addition to the Creed.
That's because Dag said Catholics went off the rails in 1054, which is after the Filioque controversy. I would argue that the Filioque controversy is another instance of the East being intolerant towards Latin customs and usages.
Rome has never asked the East to say the words in their Creed. Eastern Catholic Churches do not say the Filioque. The East grew upset that the West created a new translation of the Latin text for internal Latin use.
The trouble with the Filioque is that, in Latin, there is no obvious difference between Spirate and Generate. In Greek it is clearer. The Greek word ἐκπορευόμενον (ekporeuomenon) refers to the ultimate source from which the proceeding occurs, but the Latin verb procedere (and the corresponding terms used to translate it into other languages) can apply also to proceeding through a mediate channel.
But if the persons of the Trinity are only distinct in relation to each other, and there is no distinction in the Latin Creed, then the Latins risk falling into heresy that either the Son and Spirit are the same or that there are differences in the Trinity that are not relational. In the Latin Church, the formulation "From the Father and the Son" has ancient roots, far older than the schism. Tertullian, Jereome, Ambrose, and Augustine all used this formula.
What about Ephesus I canon 7? Didn't that say that no other creed than the one promulgated at the First Council of Nicaea should be used? If that's the case, the East is in as much trouble as the West here. Because the creed from the First Council of Nicea isn't the one you say at your Divine Liturgy. Both the East and the West use the creed from the First Council of Constantinople. Take a look here, which do you use?
Ephesus I Canon 7 wasn't actually considered a part of the universal deposit of faith. Ephesus I canons 7 and 8 are omitted in some collections of canons and the collection of Dionysius Exiguus omitted all the Ephesus I canons. At the time, it was not held that they concerned the Church as a whole.
ulyssessword
51m ago
It does seem like a sound argument, but it'll probably take the ACLU or a million dollars and a private lawyer to convince them. Spending $50 on a court-ordered name change is probably the simplest way to proceed.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1hr ago
Alright, alright.
If you think raising the kids is chilling, you’re going to consistently undervalue potential partners and mock their contributions, so you might be single for a long time.
WhiningCoil
1hr ago
There is a new Mechwarrior 5 expansion! This time we got a full campaign focusing on the Ghost Bears. Which is a huge callback to the Ghost Bear's Legacy expansion for Mechwarrior 2. Some people have fond memories of that I guess. I mostly just remember a bunch of broken missions that frustrated me to death, even attempting to cheat through them when I was 12. Like the super buggy underwater level. The MW2 engine was just not up to the challenge that the mission designers threw at it.
Anyways, I'm told this DLC is 12 missions, I've complete 3, I'm super into it. Story is good so far, none of the characters annoy me, and the Rifleman IIC with a targeting computer replacing the small laser, and some extra armor instead of jump jets is awesome. Just a really solid sniper mech. Haven't unlocked the Kodiak yet though, so we'll see.
I think the difficulty starts a little higher than the base game, which is to be expected. The first mission was a bit of a wake up call for me, and I had to knock the rust off real quick. Especially since you don't get to change your loadout or get a sense of your unit's strengths or weaknesses. After that I felt better. I noticed only two or three of your pilots have the evasion skill, and I don't see reduced armor damage on the research panel. Either because they removed it, or the game was balanced around it being maxed out from the jump. I kind of appreciate this because evasion and reduced armor damage were OP paths that the original campaign was balanced around you maxing out ASAP. I literally saw the CEO of the studio saying certain missions were effectively gated behind you having maxed those out by then. Kind of bullshit IMHO to softlock you in a campaign because you researched the wrong tech. Then again, this was in 1.0 of the game, and I know they rebalanced a lot of the missions people felt were just way too fucking hard since then. What I'm trying to say is, early signs indicate the balance in this expansion is more promising.
Alabama Code § 32-6-13 states:
The Director of Public Safety, with the approval of the Governor, shall establish and promulgate reasonable rules and regulations not in conflict with the laws of this state concerning … the enforcement of the provisions of [Alabama Code Chapter 6, Article 1: Drivers’ Licenses] [which includes Alabama Code § 32-6-4, on issuing driver's licenses].
The Alabama supreme court has held time and time again, most recently in State of Alabama v. Catherine Taylor, et. al., that one consequence of Alabama Code § 1-3-1 is the complete efficacy and legitimacy of so-called “common law” name changes (name changes done neither by a court action nor by any specific statutory process) in the eyes of the State:
The order entered by the trial court permanently restrained the State from refusing to allow plaintiffs … from registering to vote “under the names by which they have chosen to be known and have used subsequent to this proceeding.” … We hold that the trial court did not err.
… “Where it is not done for a fraudulent purpose and in the absence of statutory restriction, one may lawfully change his name without resort to legal proceedings, and for all purposes the name thus assumed will constitute his legal name just as much as if he had borne it from birth.”
We are not aware of any statutory restriction which requires that married women not be permitted to register to vote, if otherwise qualified, under the names by which they have chosen to be known and have used; provided, of course, it is not done for a fraudulent purpose.
… in view of the fact that the common law regarding "names" has not been altered by the legislature as far as we know, we adopt the common law of England in resolving this dispute.
… While the State suggests that allowing married women to register in their maiden surnames will create confusion, we believe that the legitimate interests of the State in preventing fraud in the election process can be satisfied without undue cost or harm.
However, the Alabama DMV has this policy currently in force for changing the name printed on Alabama ID cards:
If you have changed your name, you must…present valid name change documents (e.g., marriage certificate, divorce decree, court order or legal name change document), along with proof that your name has been changed with the Social Security Administration.
Now, being required to not just “present valid name change documents”, but have a federal agency pre-approve them, seems to be a central case (I'd argue even more central than voter rolls that no-one even sees) of requiring a person to “resort to legal proceedings” to make “the name thus assumed…constitute his legal name…for [this] purpose”, which would make it a “rule [or] regulation…in conflict with the laws of this state” and thus an illegal requirement for the Director of Public Safety to impose on petitioners seeking to update their ID card to reflect a common law name change.
This is not just a procedural nitpick, but in practice actually a blocker for any person attempting the process, because even if you could somehow generate (and were willing to generate) a paper trail for your common law name change that'd pass ALEA/DMV muster as substantiating the change, the SSA will reject it anyway.
Before I go knocking on the door of the ACLU, or spending a million dollars on a private lawyer to sue the DMV to avoid spending $50 on a court-ordered name change: does this argument seem sound?
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1hr ago
Well, yes, because Christianity is quasi- or proto- Communist.
Luke 12:48 has "from each according to his abilities", Acts 4:32-45 has "to each according to his needs".
roystgnr
1hr ago
I'm pretty worried modern games are crack
This is true of many modern games (nearly anything you can play on a phone...) but not all.
and educational benefits or whatever are oversold and not real.
This is true of nearly all games, both modern and ancient. Minecraft is a great way to share a game world with your kids, but unless/until you go down the "making a microcontroller out of redstone" path, it's not an educational game. By far the greatest educational benefit we've seen from any video games is the simple fact that our kids will happily do extra educational activities to earn a little more of the limited "screen time" we allot for them.
stuckinbathroom
1hr ago
Felagund
1hr ago
No, it wasn't? They changed which line was the official one in the 20th century.
HaroldWilson
1hr ago
the expected role of women ought to adapt to the circumstances.
I mean, it has? Women's labour force participation is nearly 80% in the 25-54 bracket.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1hr ago
The Pope is just the Bishop of Rome. There's no position available for "The Pope but not the Bishop of Rome."
The Bishop of Rome can only be elected by bishops in his rite. Eastern Catholic rites do not participate in the election of the Pope.
Nobody on either side of the debate wishes to force all Orthodox to change to the Latin rite. That would not be worth the fraction of political power gained by sending a cardinal to the conclave.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1hr ago
I was taught the Schism by a Ukranian Byzantine Catholic who didn't present it as a "Rome was always right" point of view, who clearly felt the wound deeply, but still felt like union was more important than our disagreements.
Tenaz
2hr ago
I wonder what you think of the Real Presence and relics?
Relics I pretty much think of as superstition. I'm not against the idea of holy objects or corpses, but relics imo verge into idol worship, where they seem to have power of their own. Even if Stephen was blessed for his faith, I'm not sure Stephen's fibula was blessed in the same way, and I especially don't think I'll be blessed for revering his fibula or carrying it around. It seems like a distraction pulling one away from Christ.
I've never really understood the Real Presence. It sounds like it means the bread and wine are literally Jesus' body in some sense, but in what sense? Clearly they don't actually physically become flesh and blood at any point--we would know if they did. I'm also sure that people have done unsavory things to bread and wine post-blessing, and while that may be symbolically violating Jesus I'm confident he's not actually harmed, so common sense tells me that the Communion isn't literally part of his body.
They seem in a similar spirit as physical resurrection to me.
The physical resurrection has a strong biblical foundation. I'd argue Christ made a concerted effort to teach his apostles specifically that the resurrection was both real and physical. As I said elsewhere:
It was important for us to learn, not just that Christ ascended to the right hand of God (which could be true in a purely spiritual/metaphorical/non-physical sense), but that his body came back to life, and even possessed some of the same functions as mortal bodies, such as being capable of eating food. He was really trying to prove, not just that death is not the end, but that the [physical] resurrection specifically is a real thing.
I guess you could see this as a "spiritual" resurrection, but then, what's the difference between a resurrected spirit body capable of eating food and otherwise interacting directly with matter, and a physical body? And why does the stipulation that the resurrection is non-physical matter so much, if these bodies possess important physical characteristics?
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
2hr ago
This strikes me as somewhere between a reach and imaginary. Scotch codes more old than red or blue, expensive bourbon and rye codes to me more hipster trendy than red tribe. Cheap liquor is just cheap liquor.
Most urban blue tribe hipster trends of 2010 have been picked up by red tribers recently anyway.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2hr ago
-
An owner wants to renovate a four-story building by adding an elevator and a library. He hires a drafter to draw up construction plans for the renovation. When the drafter is done, the owner likes the plans and wants to start construction, but the drafter informs him that permits cannot be obtained without the signature and seal of a "licensed design professional"—i. e., either an architect or an engineer.
-
The owner contacts a licensed architect. But he thinks that the architect's fees are too high, so he hires a licensed engineer instead. The architect complains to the state architecture board that the engineer is practicing architecture without a license.
-
At the proceeding before the architecture board, everybody involved concedes that the renovation involves components of both architecture and engineering. But the architect's expert witness testifies that it's 80 percent architecture and 20 percent engineering, while the engineer's expert witness testifies that it's 80 percent engineering and 20 percent architecture! The board sides with the architect, and imposes fines on the engineer (1 k$) and the drafter (300 $).
-
The appeals panel reverses the board's decision. If the architecture board were justified in imposing fines in this case, then the engineering board would have been justified in imposing fines on the architect if the owner had hired the architect rather than the engineer, and that would be a nonsensical catch-22. It makes much more sense to say that, if a project has substantial overlap between architecture and engineering, then either an architect or an engineer can sign and seal its plans without fear of being fined.
Note that this case is from Pennsylvania. In contrast, New Jersey eliminated this problem by specifically allocating different types of buildings exclusively to architects, exclusively to engineers, or permissively to both groups of licensed professionals. The building at issue in this case was in IBC occupancies B (business—law offices on floors 1–3) and R (residential—an apartment on floor 4), of which New Jersey assigns both exclusively to architects.
naraburns
nihil supernum
3hr ago
This post is fine, but given its relation with CW issues, should be posted in the CW thread.
Tree
3hr ago
In the series: Chads living their best lives (translated and truncated from the french wiki, clarifications in parentheses):
Pierre de Craon (circa 1345-1409), nicknamed the Great, lord of La Ferté-Bernard, of Sablé and Précigné , Viscount of Châteaudun, etc, etc.
Craon became attached to the Duke of Anjou, who was marching to conquer the Kingdom of Naples in 1384. This prince (brother of the previous french King) had only been able to keep the multitude of warriors who formed his retinue, and followed his fortune, by exhausting his immense treasury, which he had gotten by despoiling the corpse of France (in the middle of the hundred years war).
The Duke sent Craon back to the duchess, where he received considerable sums from her, and instead of taking the money to his lord, spent them foolishly in Venice, on gambling and debauchery, while the French army was besieged by famine and disease. Craon's infidelity completed the Duke of Anjou's misfortunes, and he died of grief.
The expedition was one long disaster, and when leaders and soldiers returned from Italy, staff in hand and begging for alms, the Lord of Craon dared to reappear at court in magnificent attire. The Duke of Berry (another uncle of the king), seeing him enter the council, cried out, transported with fury: "Ah! false traitor, wicked and disloyal, you are the cause of my brother's death. Take him, and let justice be done." » But no one stepped forward to carry out this order, and Craon hastened to disappear.
His influence and wealth saved him. He had won the favor of Louis, Duke of Orléans, younger brother of Charles VI (King of France) and nephew of Louis I of Anjou and John I of Berry. With this support, he returned to court and filled it with intrigue. He maintained secret relations with John IV, Duke of Brittany, his relative, and sought to destroy the Constable of Clisson, having no other cause for hatred against him than his reputation and authority.
Suddenly, Craon was expelled from court (1391), without anyone even deigning to reveal the cause of his disgrace. It was Louis, the king's brother, who had requested the exile of this dangerous confidant, to punish him for having revealed to Valentine of Milan, his wife, a romantic affair he was having with another lady.
Craon retired to Brittany. The Duke of brittany, who hated the Constable, represented him as the sole cause of Craon's misfortune. Craon believed him and swore revenge. While the court was occupied only with festivities and pleasures, he secretly brought into Paris weapons and a troop of adventurers devoted to him. He himself mysteriously entered this city, and on June 14, 1392, when the constable was returning at one o'clock after midnight from the Hôtel Saint-Pol, where the king held his court, the Sire de Craon and his mounted troop awaited him in the rue de la Culture-Sainte-Catherine, mingled among his people, and extinguished the torches they were carrying.
Clisson at first believed that it was a joke of the Duke of Orleans; but Craon did not leave him long in this error, and cried out to him in a terrible voice: "to Death, to Death, Clisson, you must die." - Who are you, said the constable? - « I am Pierre de Craon, your enemy. You have irritated me so many times that you must make amends."
Clisson had only eight of his men with him, who were unarmed and who dispersed. He wore a coat of mail under his uniform and was defending himself like a hero when a mighty sword thrust, hurling him from his horse, caused him to fall against a baker's door, which was not quite closed and which his fall finally opened. Craon, seeing him unconscious and bathed in blood, believed him dead, and, without dismounting, thought only of escaping.
The provost of Paris was immediately summoned by the king and ordered to pursue him and his accomplices. Craon arrived in Chartres at eight o'clock in the morning. Twenty horses were waiting for him, and he reached his castle in Sablé. However, one of his squires and one of his pages were arrested, beheaded in the market hall and hanged on the gallows. The concierge of the Hôtel de Craon had his head cut off for not having denounced the arrival of his master in Paris, and a canon of Chartres, with whom Craon had lodged, was sentenced to life imprisonment.
All of Craon's property was confiscated. His private mansion, located on rue du Bourg-Tibourg, was razed and the site given to the parish of Saint-Jean-en-Grève, to be converted into a cemetery. The street that bordered his paris residence, and which bore the name of Craon, was renamed. His castle of Porchefontaine was also razed.
Craon, not believing himself safe in his fortress of Sablé, withdrew to the Duke of Brittany, who said to him: "You are a puny creature when you were unable to kill a man whom you were above. You committed two faults, the first of having attacked him; the second, of having missed." "That is truly diabolical," replied Craon. "I believe that all the devils of hell, to whom he belongs, guarded him and delivered him from the hands of me and my men, for more than sixty sword and knife blows were hurled and inflicted upon him; and when he fell from his horse, in all truth, I thought he was dead."
Charles VI, encouraged by the Constable and his supporters, decided to take the war to Brittany, because the Duke Jean IV of Brittany refused to hand Craon over to him, and protested that he neither knew nor wanted to know anything about where he was hiding. The rendezvous of the royal army was arranged at Le Mans. It is known that, while crossing a nearby forest, Charles VI fell into madness (August 1392) (killing 4 of his subjects/servants, but who’s counting) (The King’s insanity, brought on by Craon’s antics, lead to a fight over the regency by his uncles and brothers, plunging France into a civil war and a new, more horrible, phase of the hundred years war).
The Dukes of Berry and Burgundy took the reins of government, and the latter began by declaring himself against Olivier V de Clisson, even having the king sign the order to arrest him. Meanwhile, Pierre de Craon had taken refuge in Barcelona, in the hope of leaving for Jerusalem. He was imprisoned by the Queen of Aragon but probably escaped in December 1392, returned to Brittany where Duke Jean, in February 1393, "put him at the head of one of the army corps charged with besieging the stronghold of Josselin, belonging to Clisson".
Clisson subsequently signed (1395) a suspension of arms with the Duke of Brittany, and expressed himself in these terms: "We want all acts of violence to cease, except against this wicked man Pierre de Craon." Craon led a wandering life for several years, to hide his head from the severity of the law. He was secretly protected by the Dukes of Burgundy and Brittany, even though they despised him.
Fearing the consequences of his crime, he placed himself under the protection of Richard II, King of England, paid homage to this monarch, who assigned him a pension, and obtained a pardon in 1396. He then returned to court; but now safe from prosecution for the assassination of the Constable, he could not be protected from those pursued by the Queen of Sicily to obtain the restitution of the sums she had entrusted to him during the Naples expedition, and the Parliament of Paris sentenced him to pay 400,000 livres.
Craon was arrested and taken to the Louvre Tower, but he remained there for a short time; and, through the intervention of the Queen of England and the Duchess of Burgundy, the matter was settled.
Craon's misfortunes had brought him to his senses. After monks were sentenced to death as sorcerers and convicted of casting a spell on Charles VI, the Lord of Craon obtained that confessors would henceforth be granted to convicted criminals, something that had not previously been done. Craon then did voluntary penance for his crimes. He had a stone cross with his coat of arms erected near the gallows in Paris. It was at the foot of this cross that criminals confessed before their execution.
Craon bequeathed a sum of money to the Franciscan friars, charging them with this work of mercy in perpetuity. Historians of France and Brittany do not provide the date of Craon's death, which was probably in 1409.
Trump's comments were incredibly influential in the election.
The boomer left has a very strange relationship with the US. They love Obama, vacation in the US all the time, and frequently fantasize about living in NYC. However they rage against the US and Americanization.
The "51st State" comments triggered a key part of their political identity.
The results aren't so much that Conservative support collapsed. It did go down a little, but the NDP basically committed suicide this election. Hyperbole, they can come back later obviously. But this is their worst result ever, and they've been running since 1963. 7 seats is 2% of the house. They got 9 seats in 1993, but that was 3% since there were fewer seats. They lost 70% of their seats in the House.
The Bloc Québécois also lost 10 seats, or 30% of their seats.
The Green Party went from 2 to 1.
Basically the Canadian left decided to rally behind Carney.
I think the motivation isn't so much that they thought anything would happen. It's more that they see Canada as a showpiece of centre left governance, and losing to the Conservatives after Trump's comments would be globally embarrassing.
There's a lot of dislike for how Trudeau II ran things but the Liberal Party brand is incredibly strong in Canada. Back in the run up to the first Quebec separation referendum in 1980, Trudeau I, in the name of national unity, talked the Conservatives (then the Progressive Conservatives) into backing a new national identity that was closely related to Liberal policies. So "Liberals Good" is basically taught to all school children east of Winnipeg.
Switching to Carney allowed them to create some space from the unpopular policies. Most of which are probably going to continue.
This is actually a very interesting topic. It's surprisingly easy and common for Canadians to not follow what's happening in Canada too closely.
Canada has two cable news networks, run by CBC and CTV.
What's the most popular cable news network? CNN.
Plus the Liberals ramped up subsidies to news media in 2018, so reporters have a strong financial incentive to stop the Conservatives from getting in.
As a result people tend to be less aware of problems than you'd expect. Things sort of have to penetrate their social networks to become aware of them.
Also the age breakdown is interesting.
https://x.com/JackPosobiec/status/1918071839365980483/photo/1
The Liberal victory came from voters aged 55+. People who are much less concerned about things like housing affordability. Also they probably figure that staying the course until they die will be less painful for them personally than making dramatic changes.
More options
Context Copy link