but running isn’t gonna fix the problem. for better or worse, I’m staying in hopes of helping the kids fix things, and share their hardships until we do. It’s the only way.
As an American, you can even vote from another country if necessary. No need to remain on US soil to live a good life or to contribute to change from a far. Staying isn't going to fix the problem either if the electorate continues to vote poorly, which you as an individual have no control over. Optimize for your quality of life for the subject time horizon.
interesting point. would you say the same to people fleeing from other countries to the US ?
But if you're fleeing Armenia-Azeri conflicts... you can avoid most of that in Canada.
If you have such a bias, maybe Alberta would be tolerable but I doubt it. If you're from the coastal portions of the US, Canada would be quite reasonable.
Also citizenship and residence are not the same. As for that political view, the article deals directly with motivations for why Canadian citizenship via this new process has become popular.
I dont see that listed in this wiki entry. Perhaps this wiki is incomplete.
Ok, but I don't see how that's corruption. Switching to some American examples, I've never heard anyone refer to the jailing of MLK [0], the shooting of Vietnam War protesters [1], or Stonewall [2] as "corruption", and these are all much more extreme than the 2022 Canadian protests.
> This was later ruled to be an illegitimate use of this act.
Do you have a source for this? Because §28.7 of the report from the independent commission [3] states that its use was legitimate:
For these reasons, I have concluded that Cabinet was reasonably
concerned that the situation it was facing was worsening and at risk of
becoming dangerous and unmanageable. There was credible and compelling
evidence supporting both a subjective and objective reasonable belief in
the existence of a public order emergency. The decision to invoke the
Act was appropriate.
It was a decision made by the Cabinet while acting in its official capacity, so parliamentary privilege [4] means that there could never be any criminal consequences, no matter how severe what they did was. Political actions generally only have political consequences, and considering that Justin Trudeau and much of the Cabinet resigned a couple years later [5], I'd argue that there were in fact some consequences.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_campaign#Martin_Lut...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
[3]: https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/files/documents/Fi...
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege#Canada
[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024%E2%80%932025_Canadian_pol...
"The Federal Court of Appeal confirms that the federal government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act was unreasonable and ultra vires [beyond their legal authority], and that it infringed paragraph 2(b) and section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." [0]
I am also aware that parliament is supreme. This is because the structure of Canada is that of a British colony. However that doesnt change the conclusion of the courts.
Ironically the exit of the Cabinet members highlights further corruption. Canada has transferred ~25 Billion to Ukraine. The minister responsible for the debanking of Canadians has left Canada and taken an official post in the Ukrainian government for the distribution of this money.[1]
In short you have completely no understanding of the level of corruption in this country.
[0] https://www.fca-caf.ca/en/pages/decisions/plain-language-dec...
Huh, I wasn't aware of that, thanks. Looks like it only came out a couple months ago, which would explain how I missed it. But that indeed does seem pretty conclusive, so I'll gladly concede that point.
I'd still say that this is just standard government overreach/misuse of power and not corruption though.
> Ironically the exit of the Cabinet members highlights further corruption. Canada has transferred ~25 Billion to Ukraine. The minister responsible for the debanking of Canadians has left Canada and taken an official post in the Ukrainian government for the distribution of this money.
Ok, this one definitely sounds like corruption though. I haven't heard of this one before, so I'm not entirely sure about the details, but what you said does seem to broadly agree with what the linked Wikipedia article says.
And yeah, I agree that this sounds pretty bad.
> In short you have completely no understanding of the level of corruption in this country.
C'mon, there's no need for a semi-personal semi-attack here! I'm a Canadian living in Canada, so I like to think that I have a good idea what's going on in the country, but I'm of course mistaken sometimes.
Still, I think that you picked fairly weak examples; better ones would be the Sponsorship Scandal [0], the WE scandal [1], Aga Khan [2], and so on.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship_scandal
> I'm a Canadian living in Canada
I am not intending a personal attack. I see something different happening in this country than maybe others. Every aspect of the country has significant corruption. Most of it will not fall under normal (criminal) corruption.
I can leave you with two important highlights to help understand Canada:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/13/canada...
https://companiesmarketcap.com/cad/canada/largest-companies-...
Nothing you can get here you couldn't in Texas or California or NYC, outside of healthcare (which is slowly being peeled away).
"Highly liberal" is laughable. In most cases the same bad actors causing problems in the US are the same in Canada.