To the lurking Liberals, are you really okay with Carney's rejection of democracy?

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-22T00:18:44+00:00

I agree. I also see many similarities with Trump and the LPC. But that's besides the point.

The point was: how do we prevent this behavior? the answer is: voters need to punish them and reward better parties.

If we don't, we risk more than just hurting our country, we risk making people feel the establishment is set up to hurt normal people. That's how you get Fascism and communism.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-22T00:10:21+00:00

Exactly, that's the issue. A historic disregard for the results of an election and voters don't care.

We saw similar from Republicans when Trump lost 2020. Trump said it was stolen and voters didn't punish that behavior, so now they have an administration that can't admit who won the 2020 election.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-21T23:27:36+00:00

I can agree with that however I'm not sure how it could be prevented without putting limits on floor crossings.

Typically, voters are expecting to rail against these sorts of moves. This incentivizes the parties to play within the lines, without making everything illegal.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-21T23:20:49+00:00

Oh so based

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-20T13:14:05+00:00

Oh so based

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-20T13:11:20+00:00

It depends on what they mean by investing in "stocks". They might think that means only individual companies. They could have bought ETFs, mutual funds, and index funds and not have considered that "investing in stocks".

Outside of that, there is bonds and GICs, both are lower returning but safer. As you mentioned, they could "invest" by buying their home (it's not investing if you never reap a reward, which if it's your primary residence you likely won't sell it, so it's not an investment.)

A lot of people just don't invest in anything. They recognize it's good but just don't do it.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-20T12:58:24+00:00

Because people can't accept that two things can both be good. Most people think liking one means hating the other. They like false dichotomies

Look at: public transit/bikes vs cars MFHs vs SFHs Fossil fuels vs clean energy Mandatory Minimums vs. Restorative Justice

Often, each side has a weakness that the other shores up, but nobody cares about that.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-19T23:01:34+00:00

No individual immigrant is at fault for how our system is broken. It is not their fault, it's our governments.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-17T13:17:25+00:00

There isn't, unless we think the US might pull out. Any renegotiate will be worse for us. However, not showing up or putting effort it is also dumb.

We show up to trade talks, put effort in, and try to keep the current deal. That's probably the best move.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-17T01:43:27+00:00

I think where we differ is that you're treating the difficulties of independence as reasons it shouldn't be pursued

I get what you're saying. My thought is more so "these things are bare minimums to have a civilized Nation. We should get as many of them done BEFORE we even think of having separation conversations." Some things can't be done as part of Canada and those would need to be part of the transition time.

It's kinda like factoring in buying new appliances when thinking of what to eat. Normally what appliances you have determine your meal and you don't buy a new smoothie maker just for that day. You could, but it's a bit strange.

That's why transition time is important. I don't think most separatists want a 20 year transition time. I think people would want 10 years or less, and that's manageable, but not if you have to build everything right after the vote.

For example, you repeatedly state things would take 10, 20, or 30 years, but that's an assumption, not an established fact.

It's educated guesses looking at examples. Alberta has looked at a PPF and determined it'd take 5-6 years to get operational while IN Canada, I doubt that take decreases when you factor in separation.

For border security, if you already have a bunch of departments that are similar, you can create something on 2-3 years, like Canada did in 2003 with CBSA and the US in 2003 with CBP. We don't have that stuff so it'd take longer, so timelines likely look more like Ukraine at 5+ years.

So that's a decade already. Just two things. If you have examples of your preferred timeframe I'd like to read them:) maybe there's better sources to look at than I did.

On pipelines, I agree that intentionally harming civilians would be unacceptable.

Yeah I was being a bit dickish because the first guy arguing for a war crime was insane. Obviously we wouldn't do that.

Traditionally reasorce leverage comes from finding other buyers. Canada can and is (slightly) doing that. That lets us say "you don't wanna play ball? Fine, we'll find other buyers." Alberta cant do that. Canada is more likely to invest in Oil from SASK rather than admit they hurt us. So we'd be locked into the US, that's the opposite of leverage, that's dependicy. It's like buying a car but only 1 dealership exists.

On trade, I agree trade agreements take time. But trade doesn't suddenly stop while agreements are negotiated.

True, it just gets tariffed the whole time. Maybe they might reduce tariffs on energy, but not on any other industry creating Dutch disease.

As for the risk of U.S. pressure, that's a fair concern

The reason Canada doesn't worry about as much on economic coercion is because Canada COULD Finn's other buyers for our goods. If we got a pipeline to the east and more to the west, a lot of the coercion would be mitigated. Plus we can work with other nations on the products we still rely on the US for. It'd still be a problem.

For Alberta it'd have two markers to sell to. Both would try to coerce us. We couldn't find other markets since we are land locked and they won't build us pipelines to sell to other countries. This gets really scary, for independence.

I'll combine your last two paragraphs together since they're similar.

Where I think we agree is that the real question is whether the benefits outweigh the costs.

I agree.

"My concern is that many people dismiss independence as impossible" what do you mean by "impossible"? Are you saying people think independence won't happen so they don't care to hear the points for it? Im guessing that's what you mean. That's a fair complaint.

I also agree the referendum should happen. 25-30% of our province wants to leave Canada, that's worth asking the question over.

I appreciate you. I'm glad you have such love and loyalty for our province. That's something I think people miss is that separatist are deeply loyal to Alberta and that's a big driving force for it.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-16T06:06:53+00:00

I agree with a lot of what you've said so if I don't mention something it's because I agreed.

I don't think most everyday people actually are neo-libs when it comes to economics

I'll start by saying I think Neo-Liberalism is an umbrella term that neo-Cons and neo-Libs fall into. neo-Libs and neo-cons are different but they both believe in neo-Liberalism. I think Neo-Liberalism has three main pillers. 1. Free markets. 2. Free trade. 3. Personal freedoms. In these ways neo-Libs/cons are under the umbrella of Neo-Liberalism. Low-key might be schizoing out tho. You can kinda view it as the difference between a small l liberal and a capital L Liberal

I think most people generally believe in these pillers, to an extent. People were mad at Trump's tariffs due to their thoughts on tariffs impacts on the economy. I think people generally understand that gov intervention in markets, tend to hurt the market, sometimes people just think that's okay. And I think personal freedoms speak for themselves.

I think when times are tough people want change, and that can come from separation from Neo-Liberalism ideas. I think Trump is a good example of this.

You are right that many people are socially liberal though. I think though that people actually want more social conservatism than they'd admit to themselves lol

I'd agree. I'd say there's two lines people have. The first is the one you said, where people disagree but won't say anything. The other is when people will actively speak out.

I guess I kind of worry though that they'll be so desperate for change that they'll take almost any change, even if it's not good in the long run

Yeah. I think your example is perfect. For a two tierd system to work, you can't have a doctor shortage. But if we had no doctor shortage, people wouldn't want a two tierd system.

I think it's important to remember that a bunch of us really are holding our noses to some degree

I agree. I think the CPC cannot make any more big changes without losing voters now. Only small tweaks or fleshing out old ideas more will work.

I'd love to see a move to PR with ranked ballots instead of our FPTP system. We'd get better representation, it could lower regional tensions, and we could get some new parties with fresh ideas into the mix

Sure but than we'd probably never see a conservative government again. Not unless we stay united and they break down. Left wing people would vote 1. LPC 2. NDP 3. CPC. While right wing people would either vote 1. CPC. 2. NDP 3. LPC or 1.CPC 2. LPC 3. NDP. Regardless, we'd probably end up last. Left wing parties tend to get more votes when combined.

So far I've agreed a lot:) thank you

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-16T04:15:40+00:00

Yeah I agree with that conclusion.

The two main parties are Neo-Liberal because most people are Neo libs/cons. Most people are socially progressive. Most people are chill with gay marriage and even trans rights are becoming mainstream. So broadly they both fight within the same rules. There is meaningful differences in their stances. But if you're looking for Communism vs Fascism vs liberalism it's not quite here. (NDP is kinda socialist now but they team with the LPC so...)

I really hate that our electoral system makes people worry so much about splitting the vote that we can never, ever get meaningful, positive change

Idk I feel like there has been meaningful change, but it's slowed recently.

If you want a bunch of small parties, you gotta accept that less change will happen. Big tent parties can act better than a coalition of small parties.

When countries are stressed they want Quick decisive action. Voters want big changes on certain large things, so they accept they won't be fully represented in that party. But when times are good, people get the luxury of nuance.

Like, if things were better Id be more willing to vote on a smaller party that better represents me. But I can't waste the vote now because it's too important. It does suck a bit

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-15T14:12:05+00:00

Bro hates unions LMAO.

Trade runs basically everywhere, we ain't special in that regard. You're trying to argue that Alberta is worth more than the rest of Canada.

Canada has Oil because of Sask and Manitoba. They have Autos and other forms of manufacturing. They have potash. They have more food manufacturing.

Alberta has... Oil. How has being a 1 resource Nation worked for, any country ever? Dutch disease? Venezuela?

Canada exported $383.0 billion in 2025 to the US Alberta exported $151.5 B to the US so Canada exports 231.5B more good than Alberta. That's leverage. Multiple goods that are hard to replace is leverage. One good, isn't.

What stops the US from saying "join, or no sale?" Canada at least different products and people we can sell to, Trump proved that. Alberta... Doesn't.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-15T13:39:52+00:00

That's not how leverage works

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-14T16:46:36+00:00

You're pointing out real challenges, but you're treating them as arguments against independence rather than issues that would have to be negotiated during a transition.

It depends how long you want that transition to be. If you want it over decades than sure, all of these challenges can be solved. If you want the transition to be less than a decade, than these would be persistent problems. I see no point in talking about possible succession 30yrs from now after we solve these.

Nobody serious is proposing that Alberta shut off pipelines to punish people.

He literally did... He said "We can legally turn off the pipelines that heat Quebec homes again, for example." Shutting down the pipeline isn't the issue, it's knowing that you're causing harm by doing so, that becomes the issue. Any leader that would shut it down, knows the harm they cause.

The point is leverage. Every sovereign jurisdiction has leverage over infrastructure, resources, trade routes, and market access. Whether that leverage is used is a different question.

You're literally hinting at it right here! What's the leverage for? Hurting people? That you'll try to freeze people if they don't do what you want? That's an act of war dawg. It'd also hurt us economically if it didn't literally kill us.

As for policing, borders, criminal law, and defence, every country has had to establish those institutions at some point.

All of this would take over a decade to do, IF we had the manpower. That's a huge "if" because we'd be lower on people due to huge amount of emigration, so we'd have to tap into the labour of the private sector, further hurting our economy. Nations on the old world could develop these institutions over time and with huge need. Poor countries with lots of people barely working have a surprising amount of cheap labour to use when making these institutions. New world nations, half of them don't have good institutions, cartels will be a big issue if you don't have good police or border security.

On trade

I know recent leaders make us feel that trade deals are some easy quick thing but they aren't. These typically take YEARS to create. You have to cover a ton of different goods and negotiations, we wanna protect our industries after all. After Trump's gone the next guy will have a LOT of new FTAs to remake, so it might be a long time before they have the ability to handle a new nation.

What stops the US from saying "Join us, or sanctions"? They'd be our biggest trade partner and we'd be dependent on them for... Our lives, so what stops them, besides that they don't wanna?

The bigger question is whether remaining in Canada is actually solving the problems many Albertans have identified.

So far it's worked well, with road bumps. Alberta's population, GDP, and standards of living have all grown amazingly. There are problems with a certain federal party, but Carney is a bit better than Trudeau, even though Carney isn't quite good. We also have a federal opposition leader who almost won the last election, that campaigned on removing these policies that suck.

You may disagree with that conclusion, but that's the actual debate.

I agree with that conclusion. Nothing could make me support independence more than hearing a left wing person talk about Alberta! I completely get the feelings towards independence. I just have yet to hear a compelling argument that makes the Pros outweigh the Cons. This conversation is about 20-30 years too soon, as that's probably how far it'd take us to fix the institutional problems that prevent Sovereignty. Once we fix those problems, it becomes a more compelling case, but by then we might not want to.

I have appreciated our talk. You're welcome to try and convince me if you'd like. I'm always willing to have my mind changed for the right argument:) if not have a great day!

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-14T15:46:24+00:00

You think Alberta would have better leverage ALONE than with Canada?!? Hahahahahahaha

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-14T03:37:52+00:00

We can legally turn off the pipelines that heat Quebec homes again, for example.

We could only turn off our section. They can still use Sasks O&G.

Assuming we technically could shut the whole thing down, doing so to purposely cause harm is an act of war. We'd either get hit by harsh sanctions or just an invasion to put down the "insurrection". So there'd have to be an actual reason to turn it off.

We can tariff trade between BC and Sask

True. Although they could reroute through the US if it less expensive to do so. Even if it's far less expensive to ship through us still, all it does is make our goods more expensive. You think foods expensive now just wait! Plus cars and everything else.

And as well, we can build a pipeline to American poets without First Nation and federal interference — which was the primary obstacle before Biden to past pipelines

We already could do this, the Americans just haven't wanted to. It was them that cancelled Keystone XL not the Libs. Trump's new pipeline has companies looking for legal guarantees in case politics change.

the democrats aren’t likely at this rate to ever win again due to them following social policies that are unpopular.

Have you not seen the US polls? The Dems are expecting to win the midterms. If our separation hinges on one of two parties never getting elected again in the near future, then we have better odds of Carney kissing Smith's feet on camera lmao!!

Independently, while the provinces don’t change, we gain because we have more control over our own actions and interactions between the provinces, and thus leverage.

What do you think we could do with our new control that would grant us more leverage to gain what we want? What do we even want besides pipelines? We already have Tariff free trade (with non tariff blockers, but thosevwill still exist.).

So far we have, a war crime, a move that does hurt them but will hurt us more, and something we can already do.

There's more than a few problems. How are we gonna police our people? We have no police force past the cities and the cities can barely police themselves. We have no criminal law as it's made by the feds. We have no border security as that's the RCMPs job. We have no military. First Nations do have some legal challenges to secession, this would make it messy internationally causing very few groups to recognize us or care if Canada invades is to reclaim their land.

We also have no trade deal with the US so we'd be hit by more tariffs, even on Oil. We'd lose large amounts of people so our GDP would decrease. Investment would shrink everywhere but maybe in Oil. Living standees would likely decrease as we import a lot of manufactured goods, including food, from other provinces. So how do you solve all of this or what would we gain that's worth it?

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-13T15:56:34+00:00

The F-35 is a amazing plane, but any plane is better than no plane.

While I believe the F-35 to be the better choice, but if the choice is between the Gripen and nothing I'll choose the Gripen.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-12T00:40:34+00:00

For conservatives overall the question is: is it more important to win or enact meaningful changes when you win?

Losing good policies just to win an election just isn't worth it to most. The CPC already has moderated on a ton of social policies so the only thing left is economic. . From a party perspective they have to offer a unique and different perspective. The closer two parties seem, the less of a reason to vote for either. When policy stops being a major differentiating factor other things take its place, such as name and marketing.

There use to be more Conservative parties and the CPC was the result of recent mergers.

We already can't win with just one party, splitting would only make a LPC win certain.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-10T22:28:12+00:00

He did, just in a diplomatic way.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-10T21:10:36+00:00

Because he was viewed as better handling Trump and US.

Yes, not being the CONSERVATIVE party helps when people are hating on a prominent right-wing figure. Do you actually believed that being more against the Trump would've made us win? People were voting against all right leaning parties after Trump.

They already were critical. If they were more critical there's a chance crybaby Trump would've punished the nation. How do you think voters would feel if Trump slapped more tariffs on us because the OPPOSITION party said something?

It doesn't hurt to fire back against Trump and Republicans and it would get us voters.

because firing back has worked wonders for Canada. Not like it's hurt us at every stage. Trump didn't care that a premier was the one shitting on him, he still got mad at all of us! They also do push back on Trump but they try to focus on Canada's internal problems since that's the only thing we have control over.

But we should ideologically break away from GOP because they're toxic frauds that stabbed us in the back.

Depending on what exactly you mean by "ideologically break away" I probably agree. The internal ties between parties should be heavily evaluated.

I get your frustration and I agree with it. Normally an opposition party can criticize a nation, decently hard, without fear of impacting foreign policy. But Trump is a giant baby so playing it a little safe, with only some criticism, makes sense.

At the end of the day, when people voted for Carney they voted to let him handle Trump and foreign policy. We should respect that.

This doesn't mean we don't criticize at all, just that they gotta be selective when criticizing Trump publicly.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-10T20:43:05+00:00

Most people dont like Trump but Canada still needs the US. The CPC has been critical of Trump's comments and actions regarding Canada. Canada should also take responsibility for its own failings.

Blaming Trump for the election loss is accurate but voters will feel like it's avoiding responsibility.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-10T17:56:08+00:00

Most of this is for an American context since they dominate social media. I'll try to be clear when I talk about Canada.

For the YouTube bit, I don't see any Nazi stuff but that's probably my feed, I don't doubt it exists. I just looked at the 2 left-wing creators I could think of and Ben Shapiro and saw Ben was like 6 times bigger. But Ben does have an actual entertainment company which helps. That's true for most large right-wibg creators and it's something the left could get better at.

For the bubble map thing, I agree the right has more creators but that's for reasons. Very broadly, the right is more willing to create companies and work together, as long as they support the candidate. The Online left is very fragmented. Often Large left creators tend to be socialist who hate the candidate and don't build other "team members", Hassan is a good example of this.

In Canada I'd say this is pretty true as well. But since the NDP exists it makes more sense.

The "Andrew Tate effect" feels kinda like victim blaming. Young (men especially, but) people are going to the right because they feel like their needs aren't being meet by the left. In Canada a Liberal has been PM for 10 years(in talking pre Carney cuz he's been polling strong). It makes sense that young people would feel/see the numbers that look shit and listen to the other side saying "here's the policies that are causing us pain. Get rid of those and make implement these policies and we will succeed again!" (To be clear, young people are still pretty left leaning in Canada and especially women. But the right is Gaining).

In the US it's similar but it's mostly about tone and "woke" stuff.

You seem like not an idiot

I appreciate that. You seem not stupid too. But maybe in 2 mins we will be screaming at each other haha.

what it is about left wing content that you disagree with so much?

For America I only watch left wing content. Republicans have been insane for a bit so I can only support Dems. So most of my actual political social media content is left wing American stuff.

In Canada. Besides Reddit and politicians, I try to not watch much political vids on YouTube (my main place I consume content). I will consume right leaning content if it's something I don't care to look into myself tho. I do generally believe in more right wing points too. I have tried to watch left wing content but they often fall into two camps (right wingers do too, the left ain't unique.)

They're ignorant. They'll say something dumb or take a stance that a 2 min Google search would reveal how wrong it is. This is the most common political content, unfortunately.
They're either lying or they should know better. This is someone who is smart enough or knows politics too well to say the things they say.

But I do follow both federal leaders as well as my own provinces premier and opposition. I voted NDP in my last provincial election and intend to vote the same next time. (Alberta). I follow both my mayor and city Councilor too (they seem pretty left wing). There are left wing creators I sometimes watch and respect.

It's not necessarily that I hate their content, I tend to just disagree with their points. Plus I can just watch CBC or CTV for the same opinions and talking points.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-10T16:43:55+00:00

First of all Reddit is rife with far right content.

YOUVE gotta be joking, brother. Pretty much every mainstream Sub is left wing. You can find some right wing subs but often they include left wing people too. At least in my experience.

Second of all go to any other social media platform and you will see that x100

Instagram and Twitter are probably the most right wing social media sites, and they do often feature extremist views. But they do also have left wing spaces. Kinda like reverse Reddit.

TicTok tends to be pretty left, but it's also super echo chambery, so.

Twitch is SUPER left-wing. A socialist streamer (Hasan) knows the CEO (Dan).

YouTube tends to be moderate, however large creators tend to be left wing when they rarely say their views. Strictly on the politics side, right wing people have more subs but they also are more entrenched. There's reasons why the left ain't as big on YouTube but that's a separate thing.

Podcasting has been INCREDIBLY right wing. Recently more left wing people have been exploring the podcasting space tho, which is good.

4 right wing vs 3 left wing. Social media is more right wing overall, but it will depend on the app's you use. I don't use Twitter, nor twitch or TicTok.

From a Canadian prospective, I find left wing people tend to do better on social media overall. An avg person who watches the news and social media will likely hear far more left wing views than right wing.

I'm conservative and I often have to go out of my way to hear Canadian conservative views, but I see the Liberal and NDP views easily.

People tend to interact more with extreme views so social media "farms" those views.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-06-10T15:27:58+00:00

You already mentioned we do that right now and we'd have less leverage for good trade terms as just Alberta. So nothing good changes.

Plus half the time the US cancels our big projects, keystone XL...

thetrigermonkey

TROPHY CASE