HungryJerboa

Not too hard to achieve after seeing how dead set Musk is on killing Twitter...

I completely disagree with the idea that people who do not choose to display unfettered consequentialism are responsible for negative outcomes, especially when the numbers are so small that it's barely relevant. Your view of politics is so polarized and embittered that it alienates anybody who looks at the world with shades of grey. Believe whatever you want, but if your takeaway is that the Liberal party should blame everybody else but themselves for their loss, then you will be just as rudderless as the party leadership when they lose the next election.

That is an absurd argument to make in a functional democracy, and I find it appalling you lack any self awareness of how entitled and cynical you sound. Why not direct this venom at the people of the riding who didn't vote, rather than the people who participated in democracy as intended? Why have venom at all?

If I was a swing voter, I would make sure any party whose supporters try to guilt trip me for exercising citizen's rights to vote (for whoever I want) is punished at the ballot box. That's not a winning strategy - that's being a sore loser.

I don't disagree with that. Poilievre won't want to burn political capital on this issue and would much rather neglect these services, even if it's fiscally irresponsible to saddle future governments with the bill for cleaning these messes up. Yea, it is exhausting to watch important services degrade day by day.

But once again, this only underscores the need to establish electoral reform so that a plurality of 40% will never again grant the Conservatives a majority government with which they can sledgehammer our institutions.

You aren't comparing Poilievre to Trump are you? Despite my misgivings with Milhouse, he is a regular political opportunist (though like Doug Ford, that can still cause problems for people). Swinging to the opposite extreme and making him sound like the antichrist erodes any chance of honest discussion we have with more moderate fiscal conservatives (the social conservative crazies that want to ban abortion will live in their own world no matter what).

You have a fair point about people displaying their privilege when saying they can tolerate a lost election. I know others don't have that luxury, but I'm not saying ignore everything, or don't vote. The climate is a wedge issue that affects everybody world wide, regardless of their political affiliation (or lack of), which is why I emphasized it.

This discussion started because of a comment supporting strategic voting, and extrapolated consequences and value judgments from there. It's an issue with the electoral system that requires electoral reform.

Hah, I don't care about Trudeau (and certainly don't want to sleep with him like some of the more vocal fans), and lose either way as an NDP supporter. The entitlement to other parties' votes is laughable. You're bothered by the vote splitting? Perhaps electoral reform would help with that (I would've even accepted the ranked choice system that the Liberals proposed back in 2015, but even that didn't materialize).

The NDP will only have a real shot at power if the Liberals crash and burn, similar to the provincial NDP (but fuck Andrea Horwath for wasting her party's chance).

As for dealing with a conservative PM, well, I'll be fine, but he's still going to drag the country backward on climate policy. I hope y'all are rich enough to handle the rising costs of climate change (which will continue to rise even if Poilievre axes the carbon tax in total denial)

No, you don't get to blame third party when this riding was overwhelmingly Liberal for 30 years. Plus, the margin of victory was so small that they didn't even need strategic voters to win it themselves.

This was a de facto referendum on Trudeau himself, and he would be wise to take heed of this warning.

Make an effort to Google. Marit Stiles has an online presence.

I like to use the Wirecutter from the New York Times as a starting point, though I often ignore the products recommended because the links are typically to American online retailers that I'm unlikely to use. I pay more attention to the various aspects used to recommend their choices, then check other reviews from specialized hobbyist forums when available. Finally, if I find the product in a store I will ask to demo it before buying.

YouTube can be helpful if you can cut through the clutter or need to see head to head testing between your short list items. Don't blindly search there though because the algorithm is shit.

It's simply part of an effort to impose moral beliefs on a world that to them, appears to work without them. Bringing order to chaos. Kind of like the Christian beliefs underpinning such cruelty.

Who the hell would want to live in a republican hellhole like this

This issue has been explored previously, and with a better example of the trolley problem that centers the ethical dilemma entirely on the autopilot.

I do agree that in most situations, the driver retains full control over the vehicle, and therefore remains fully responsible, even if there's a case to be made that the autopilot neglected the safety of others outside the car.

However, I'd also argue that this example leaves a possibility where fault cannot be assigned to them: If the driver became aware of the hazards at a reasonable time (i.e. spotting the pedestrians just around a sharp bend, rather than 200m down a straightaway), and made every reasonable effort to stop within that time but could not. There are limits to the driver's responsibility, but the most interesting cases are crashes that the autopilot is capable of preventing (even if the driver reasonably cannot), but fails to do so.