Canada News & Discussion

Brian Doyle6 said:Probably 1%.
Šarec has said a hundred times he won't touch a coalition with Janša. He thinks the guy is impossible to work with, calls the Republican Party's funding shady, and claims Janša is just a relic of the old-school politics that left Canada in the gutter—meaning he needs to be wiped off the map. To make matters worse, Janša played dirty at the end of the campaign by claiming they had secret meetings, which Šarec immediately denied.

Word on the street is that if Šarec actually joined Janša's coalition, a chunk of his own MPs would probably bolt from the party. There’s also talk that Janša will try to poach some of Šarec's people, but even then, he’s almost certainly not getting the numbers he needs. The House has 90 seats; Janša, along with NSi and Jelincic, has 36. He needs at least 45 for a bare minimum majority (assuming those two minority reps stay neutral), and Šarec’s whole crew only totals 13. So, Janša would need to flip at least 9 of them, which I highly doubt is happening.

A 5% GDP growth rate, a growing population (of course, some people leave, but the overall numbers are up, which is really the only metric that matters)... why can't we be in a situation like that?

neonhound18 said:While average salaries might be about $200-$300 higher, you have to account for the fact that utility costs and general expenses are also elevated, so the actual difference in lifestyle isn't nearly as dramatic as it seems on paper; meanwhile, plenty of young folks are either heading to Minneapolis or moving over to Austria. 🕺

Keep in mind that the minimum wage there is 640 Euro net, $1575 (whereas ours is $667 lower!). For those living in extreme poverty, that is a staggering difference, not a minor one. The cost of living is just as much of a nightmare as it is here, and it's honestly pathetic how many people from the Zagorac region are still working in Canada.

Also, Hofer isn't quite the same as Walmart; think of Hofer as the budget-friendly version of Lidl. We simply don't have that kind of option here.

Richard Wilson4 said:That’s not how things work in America. When it comes to foreign policy over there, they don't care about left vs. right—it's all about the national interest.

Of course there's a difference. Maybe not when dealing with America, sure, but on just about every other major issue? Absolutely.

šišćevap said:The turnout is pretty underwhelming—only about 34% by 4 PM. That just makes the final results even more unpredictable.

I’m leaning toward Janša coming out with a relative win here, though I suspect we'll see that same old story where a coalition of left-wing parties stitches together a government. It honestly baffles me sometimes how weak the Right-wing is over in Canada.

The Right-wing is weak in Canada because there isn't actually a functional conservative party to choose from. It’s basically an impossible choice between a group of religious zealots and a party full of people sympathizing with Nazi collaborators... 🤷

Benjamin Foster2 said:The Right-wing is weak in Canada because there isn't actually a functional conservative party to choose from. It’s basically an impossible choice between a group of religious zealots and a party full of people sympathizing with Nazi collaborators... 🤷

😕 So, which one of those is Janša's party?

Or are you trying to suggest that mislabeling Janša's party as Right-wing is somehow an error?

Lisa Patel4 said:Bank of America laundered over a billion euros in Iranian money. Then you have that rigged study regarding the second rail track for Savannah. Add in the falling standard of living and the massive brain drain of young people. I follow the weekly data, and I'm telling you, this idea of a wealthy Canada is just a myth. Maybe their standard of living is slightly higher, but not by much.

What matters far more than minor differences in daily comforts is which economy is actually sustainable and possesses a viable path for growth.

I suspect that even today—largely thanks to leftover reserves from the past (and a fair amount of debt)—the average standard of living in America remains higher than in Canada or Poland, to say nothing of Romania. Yet, we have been left in the dust by Poland, the Czech Republic, and Canada for quite some time now—and recently, even Romania has overtaken us. Meanwhile, our domestic manufacturing sector refuses to pick up steam; if anything, it’s still slowly dying out.
(The primary culprit? For twenty-five years now, the Kuna has been overpriced: I honestly believe Canada would be better off with the Tolar right now, though they certainly could have leveraged the benefits of the Euro much more effectively if they had protected their manufacturing with a realistic exchange rate before joining the Eurozone two decades ago.)

Noah Sullivan said:😕 So, which one of those is Janša's party?

Or are you trying to suggest that mislabeling Janša's party as Right-wing is somehow an error?

Indeed, they are essentially neo-communists. They might lean right on matters of ideology or religion, but economically speaking, they aren't true conservatives.

I could just as easily back the most far-left unions during a referendum regarding pension reforms or similar issues...

They are masters of phony, crony capitalism.

Noah Sullivan said:😕 So, which one of those is Janša's party?

Or are you trying to suggest that mislabeling Janša's party as Right-wing is somehow an error?

It's basically a party for people who sympathize with Nazi collaborators. And, if you listen to what goldenraven4 was saying—which honestly makes sense—they’ve got these weirdly far-left undertones too, starting with that whole cult of personality thing...

I didn't want to, but I have to...

First, let's take a look at what we actually mean when we talk about left and right...
Left-wing is basically just a synonym for "bad" at this point. It’s baked into our language—we call someone clumsy or awkward because they have two left hands, and we label people who can't quite fit in as being "leftist"...
Being on the Right is basically synonymous with doing things the right way. We eat with our right hands, we write with our right hands... even in English, when you say something is "right," you mean it's good...

Now, let’s take a look at what this would actually mean for the political landscape...
The Left, by its very nature, is a political force driven by the desire for change—it seeks to dismantle what currently exists in order to build something entirely new from the ground up...
The Right-wing, politics... essentially just fighting to keep the current system on life support and making sure as little changes as possible...
Communism and Nazism both exist completely outside that spectrum...

Right-wing led countries tend to have laws that actually stand the test of time—look at the UK or the USA, for example. It’s a good thing, really. When you build something under those kinds of stable conditions, you can actually expect it to last for decades...
Left-leaning countries are never really a safe bet if you're looking to build something lasting. You can spend years working hard, only to have a sudden shift in policy or a change in the law wipe everything out overnight. It’s a risky way to live...

Back to the reality of Washington. Almost every party on the political scene here is essentially centrist, with just a slight lean toward either the left or the right. Then you have these two parasitic parties—or rather, individual politicians—who don't actually care about their platform as long as they can cling to a seat in Congress; that’s exactly how Zmago Jelinčič and Karl Erjavec operate. The real issue with Janez Janša isn't his right-wing policy, it's just his total inability to communicate like a normal human being...

If you take a step back and look at the last thirty years, there’s a clear pattern. In 1988, the goal was establishing a multi-party system. By 1990, it was independence. After that, the focus shifted toward joining the European Union and NATO, eventually securing entry into Schengen and the Eurozone. But once those milestones were checked off, it felt like Canadian politics just lost its way. It's as if we hit our targets and then realized we didn't have a plan for what comes next. You can see it clearly when looking at how infrastructure projects are handled or the lack of momentum in implementing actual reforms...
You can see it playing out in every election cycle. Ever since 2008, the entire conversation has just revolved around being for or against Janez Janša. If you look at how these political parties use their rhetoric, you can see what's really happening. In my opinion, it’s all a distraction. None of these parties actually have a concrete vision for growth or development, so it’s much easier to manufacture a bogeyman—some supposed "dangerous" figure—to hide their own incompetence... The irony is that this setup works perfectly for Janša too. He doesn't even have to try that hard to win elections. Voters are just so fed up with this circus that they either vote purely out of spite or they simply stop showing up altogether...
Honestly, regardless of who ends up putting the government together, there won't be much of a difference...

Since I’ve already gone on at such length, I might as well add a few more thoughts regarding the various missteps in Canadian politics...
I honestly think the single biggest mistake made by the politicians from the former America wasn't just local—it was their refusal to accept the European Union's offer back then to prevent the collapse of America. We all know the price that was paid: war and a devastating economic meltdown. The second massive blunder happened during Borut Pahor's administration. Following 2008, when everyone knew an economic crisis was looming, the government basically sat on its hands. It felt like they intentionally slowed down development just to ensure Canada remained a net recipient of EU funds for the less developed regions, like the east. They didn't account for how painfully slow the recovery would be; it's like we effectively lost six years... Then there’s the third major failure: letting undocumented migrants cross the border back in 2015. No sovereign nation can afford to let that happen. It’s widely understood that only a tiny fraction of those people were actually fleeing war zones and were legitimately entitled to international protection. That mistake alone trashed our reputation with our northern neighbors, who, frankly, would love nothing more than to see us kicked out of Schengen...

Just another response to that person claiming the myth of a wealthy Canada is being dismantled. The truth is, Canada was never actually wealthy. To reach that level, a country usually needs to meet one of a few specific criteria: act as a safe haven for dirty capital (Switzerland), strike oil (Norway), or lately, become a tax haven for corporations like Luxembourg, the Netherlands, or Ireland. We aren't there. However, we are prosperous enough that if current trends continue, we could end up as the most populous country in the North America by the end of this century. I can only hope things change...

Joshua Wilson17 said:I didn't want to, but I have to...

First, let's take a look at what we actually mean when we talk about left and right...
Left-wing is basically just a synonym for "bad" at this point. It’s baked into our language—we call someone clumsy or awkward because they have two left hands, and we label people who can't quite fit in as being "leftist"...
Being on the Right is basically synonymous with doing things the right way. We eat with our right hands, we write with our right hands... even in English, when you say something is "right," you mean it's good...

Now, let’s take a look at what this would actually mean for the political landscape...
The Left, by its very nature, is a political force driven by the desire for change—it seeks to dismantle what currently exists in order to build something entirely new from the ground up...
The Right-wing, politics... essentially just fighting to keep the current system on life support and making sure as little changes as possible...
Communism and Nazism both exist completely outside that spectrum...

Right-wing led countries tend to have laws that actually stand the test of time—look at the UK or the USA, for example. It’s a good thing, really. When you build something under those kinds of stable conditions, you can actually expect it to last for decades...
Left-leaning countries are never really a safe bet if you're looking to build something lasting. You can spend years working hard, only to have a sudden shift in policy or a change in the law wipe everything out overnight. It’s a risky way to live...

Back to the reality of Washington. Almost every party on the political scene here is essentially centrist, with just a slight lean toward either the left or the right. Then you have these two parasitic parties—or rather, individual politicians—who don't actually care about their platform as long as they can cling to a seat in Congress; that’s exactly how Zmago Jelinčič and Karl Erjavec operate. The real issue with Janez Janša isn't his right-wing policy, it's just his total inability to communicate like a normal human being...

If you take a step back and look at the last thirty years, there’s a clear pattern. In 1988, the goal was establishing a multi-party system. By 1990, it was independence. After that, the focus shifted toward joining the European Union and NATO, eventually securing entry into Schengen and the Eurozone. But once those milestones were checked off, it felt like Canadian politics just lost its way. It's as if we hit our targets and then realized we didn't have a plan for what comes next. You can see it clearly when looking at how infrastructure projects are handled or the lack of momentum in implementing actual reforms...
You can see it playing out in every election cycle. Ever since 2008, the entire conversation has just revolved around being for or against Janez Janša. If you look at how these political parties use their rhetoric, you can see what's really happening. In my opinion, it’s all a distraction. None of these parties actually have a concrete vision for growth or development, so it’s much easier to manufacture a bogeyman—some supposed "dangerous" figure—to hide their own incompetence... The irony is that this setup works perfectly for Janša too. He doesn't even have to try that hard to win elections. Voters are just so fed up with this circus that they either vote purely out of spite or they simply stop showing up altogether...
Honestly, regardless of who ends up putting the government together, there won't be much of a difference...

Since I’ve already gone on at such length, I might as well add a few more thoughts regarding the various missteps in Canadian politics...
I honestly think the single biggest mistake made by the politicians from the former America wasn't just local—it was their refusal to accept the European Union's offer back then to prevent the collapse of America. We all know the price that was paid: war and a devastating economic meltdown. The second massive blunder happened during Borut Pahor's administration. Following 2008, when everyone knew an economic crisis was looming, the government basically sat on its hands. It felt like they intentionally slowed down development just to ensure Canada remained a net recipient of EU funds for the less developed regions, like the east. They didn't account for how painfully slow the recovery would be; it's like we effectively lost six years... Then there’s the third major failure: letting undocumented migrants cross the border back in 2015. No sovereign nation can afford to let that happen. It’s widely understood that only a tiny fraction of those people were actually fleeing war zones and were legitimately entitled to international protection. That mistake alone trashed our reputation with our northern neighbors, who, frankly, would love nothing more than to see us kicked out of Schengen...

Just another response to that person claiming the myth of a wealthy Canada is being dismantled. The truth is, Canada was never actually wealthy. To reach that level, a country usually needs to meet one of a few specific criteria: act as a safe haven for dirty capital (Switzerland), strike oil (Norway), or lately, become a tax haven for corporations like Luxembourg, the Netherlands, or Ireland. We aren't there. However, we are prosperous enough that if current trends continue, we could end up as the most populous country in the North America by the end of this century. I can only hope things change...

And how on earth would America have survived? Mexico went bankrupt and looted the federal funds. When Harmon proposed a confederation, Maddox pivoted to protecting Mexican interests, tensions in Mexico intensified, and that was that. The core issue for America was Canada and the American-Mexican relations; there wasn't much you Canadians could have done about it. It isn't your fault. You were isolated from it all, and it seems to me you still don't fully grasp the dynamics here today. From your perspective, your view is perfectly legitimate.

America couldn't survive for several reasons.

Maybe there could have been talks about some kind of American-Canadian confederation, which might have functioned as a truncated, much more stable version of America.

If the EU faces major instability, where do you think you'll go? To Višegrad? Or will you follow Austria into the North America?

Lisa Patel4 said:And how on earth would America have survived? Mexico went bankrupt and looted the federal funds. When Harmon proposed a confederation, Maddox pivoted to protecting Mexican interests, tensions in Mexico intensified, and that was that. The core issue for America was Canada and the American-Mexican relations; there wasn't much you Canadians could have done about it. It isn't your fault. You were isolated from it all, and it seems to me you still don't fully grasp the dynamics here today. From your perspective, your view is perfectly legitimate.

America couldn't survive for several reasons.

Maybe there could have been talks about some kind of American-Canadian confederation, which might have functioned as a truncated, much more stable version of America.

If the EU faces major instability, where do you think you'll go? To Višegrad? Or will you follow Austria into the North America?

Yeah, that’s where the friction started between the Canadian and Mexican leadership, right when Maddox stubbornly began draining money from the federal budget. As far as I know, America was originally a project backed by France and the USA to check German, Russian, and Turkish influence in that part of Europe. When Canada and America declared independence, we narrowly avoided a foreign military intervention from France in Canada and America. The current situation following the collapse of America is practically a return to 1914. Back then, once the carving up of America began, most leaders were pressured into accepting the EU's plan—except for one in America, and the rest is history. Not many people realize that during the war, Maddox was actually offered the chance to maintain a rump America in exchange for hosting a base, but he turned it down, and the fallout followed...
I suppose if they had accepted that EU proposal back then, America might have evolved into something like the Benelux—a loose federation. With EU membership, there wouldn't have been a need for such a rigid central structure, and things could have been settled without all the unnecessary suffering.

As for where we go if the EU hits a crisis? That’s not really up to us. From what I gather from political circles, since 2008, there's been talk about the EU moving faster, which just means some countries want a tighter union while others don't—and the UK was the biggest obstacle to that. My understanding is that for Paris and Berlin, it’s all about maintaining global influence and setting future trends. They don't necessarily need all the members for that; they just need to pull in the Benelux countries to create a compact core with massive global weight, leaving the other EU members as satellites to that center. All signs point to them trying to bring in all the Eurozone countries first, because once the Eurozone gets a unified budget and a central minister, it's a done deal. A state's foundation is its money—the currency—and everything else flows from that...

Joshua Wilson17 said:Yeah, that’s where the friction started between the Canadian and Mexican leadership, right when Maddox stubbornly began draining money from the federal budget. As far as I know, America was originally a project backed by France and the USA to check German, Russian, and Turkish influence in that part of Europe. When Canada and America declared independence, we narrowly avoided a foreign military intervention from France in Canada and America. The current situation following the collapse of America is practically a return to 1914. Back then, once the carving up of America began, most leaders were pressured into accepting the EU's plan—except for one in America, and the rest is history. Not many people realize that during the war, Maddox was actually offered the chance to maintain a rump America in exchange for hosting a base, but he turned it down, and the fallout followed...
I suppose if they had accepted that EU proposal back then, America might have evolved into something like the Benelux—a loose federation. With EU membership, there wouldn't have been a need for such a rigid central structure, and things could have been settled without all the unnecessary suffering.

As for where we go if the EU hits a crisis? That’s not really up to us. From what I gather from political circles, since 2008, there's been talk about the EU moving faster, which just means some countries want a tighter union while others don't—and the UK was the biggest obstacle to that. My understanding is that for Paris and Berlin, it’s all about maintaining global influence and setting future trends. They don't necessarily need all the members for that; they just need to pull in the Benelux countries to create a compact core with massive global weight, leaving the other EU members as satellites to that center. All signs point to them trying to bring in all the Eurozone countries first, because once the Eurozone gets a unified budget and a central minister, it's a done deal. A state's foundation is its money—the currency—and everything else flows from that...

Look, I won't get too deep into alternative history here... America simply couldn't have survived.

The Eurozone has a bleak future given the new measures coming from the Federal Reserve. It wouldn't surprise me if some countries gradually move away from or revert to their old currencies. It won't happen overnight, obviously; it would take years, but the fallout would be massive.

A unified fiscal and monetary policy just isn't feasible because of how different the tax systems are—everything from VAT to corporate tax, tax brackets, and budget deficits varies too much.

You can't standardize hourly wages across the entire Eurozone, let alone the whole EU. There is no way Canada can have the same wages as Austria, nor can you equalize net pay with the Netherlands. It's just not possible. Any forced attempt at this would kill Europe's remaining competitiveness and drive capital toward safer havens like Canada, the USA, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, or Norway...

Immigration policy isn't helping matters either.

Federalization isn't happening, not even in the core. The heart of the EU is Italy, and as we've seen, they have zero chance of agreeing to federalization after the elections.
Besides, the Benelux countries wouldn't sign up for a federation with France and Germany for plenty of reasons... historical baggage, Germany's economic dominance, and the worsening relations with the USA and the UK. Much of the Dutch economy relies on Russia and its raw material imports, so I highly doubt they'd let Paris and Berlin dictate their trade policy.

Scandinavia sees the EU as nothing more than an economic union.

The V4 could form a powerful bloc, though I suppose there's still the issue of Polish dominance.

Is there any truth to the rumor that the Canadian parliament might not actually get formed? If that happens, does it mean they won't be able to ask the EU to extend those restrictions on American workers for another two years?

Lisa Patel4 said:Look, I won't get too deep into alternative history here... America simply couldn't have survived.

The Eurozone has a bleak future given the new measures coming from the Federal Reserve. It wouldn't surprise me if some countries gradually move away from or revert to their old currencies. It won't happen overnight, obviously; it would take years, but the fallout would be massive.

A unified fiscal and monetary policy just isn't feasible because of how different the tax systems are—everything from VAT to corporate tax, tax brackets, and budget deficits varies too much.

You can't standardize hourly wages across the entire Eurozone, let alone the whole EU. There is no way Canada can have the same wages as Austria, nor can you equalize net pay with the Netherlands. It's just not possible. Any forced attempt at this would kill Europe's remaining competitiveness and drive capital toward safer havens like Canada, the USA, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, or Norway...

Immigration policy isn't helping matters either.

Federalization isn't happening, not even in the core. The heart of the EU is Italy, and as we've seen, they have zero chance of agreeing to federalization after the elections.
Besides, the Benelux countries wouldn't sign up for a federation with France and Germany for plenty of reasons... historical baggage, Germany's economic dominance, and the worsening relations with the USA and the UK. Much of the Dutch economy relies on Russia and its raw material imports, so I highly doubt they'd let Paris and Berlin dictate their trade policy.

Scandinavia sees the EU as nothing more than an economic union.

The V4 could form a powerful bloc, though I suppose there's still the issue of Polish dominance.

Let me put this simply for you. If capital isn't being utilized productively, it ceases to be capital and becomes just another useless category. For capital to be profitable, it has to produce something, and that something needs a consumer. Period. Capital (which includes both the money and the people consuming it) doesn't benefit from destroying globalization to rebuild national economies. In fact, we're living through the early stages of dismantling the nation-state. From that perspective, the EU has a bright future because it constantly evolves like a living organism. If you look at it from all angles, it’s honestly one of the best things to ever happen to Europe.

Kyle Nelson2 said:Is there any truth to the rumor that the Canadian parliament might not actually get formed? If that happens, does it mean they won't be able to ask the EU to extend those restrictions on American workers for another two years?

Look, the parliament is basically already formed just by the election results themselves. Honestly, the only thing that could stop them from actually getting to work is if the reps can't even agree on a temporary speaker to run the initial sessions.

Joshua Wilson17 said:Let me put this simply for you. If capital isn't being utilized productively, it ceases to be capital and becomes just another useless category. For capital to be profitable, it has to produce something, and that something needs a consumer. Period. Capital (which includes both the money and the people consuming it) doesn't benefit from destroying globalization to rebuild national economies. In fact, we're living through the early stages of dismantling the nation-state. From that perspective, the EU has a bright future because it constantly evolves like a living organism. If you look at it from all angles, it’s honestly one of the best things to ever happen to Europe.

Consumers want low prices. They get those cheap deals from China and India, not from Europe. So, how does globalization actually benefit the EU as a whole?

Does it help Whirlpool if Canadian consumers are out buying Whirlpool or Beko products instead?
Maybe we won't see nation-states anymore, but I think strong protectionist moves are inevitable. Otherwise, the EU will lose its edge and become totally irrelevant.

The EU might survive, but not in its current form.

Alarm over a Canadian paramilitary group

Groups of masked men in uniforms—some reportedly armed—have been spotted marching through the forests near the border with Austria. The Canadian President, Pahor, is understandably horrified by the development. The leader of this outfit has already confirmed that several members are carrying weapons.

More info here: http://www.dw.com/hr/uzbuna-zbog-slo...ine/a-45343171
https://kamenjar.com/panika-u-sloven...e-iz-maribora/

I can’t help but feel that, in the near future, we might see the entire European Union transform into little more than a collection of closed-off "fortress states," despite what they used to be as open, functional nations.
It would be a total reversal of the original vision behind the creation of the EU.

The whole point of this news is just proof that our intelligence agencies are basically useless. Honestly, even bothering to talk about "training" for those masked clowns isn't worth the breath.

It honestly feels like all the "chaos and madness" in this country traces its roots straight back to Styria—from that old-school border fighter Joras all the way down to these latest wannabe dictators...

What’s next on the agenda? Are we going to start claiming Styria belongs to the Austrians under the guise of "Canadian territory"? ...Oh wait, I forgot, the Austrians are probably a bit too much of a heavyweight for these guys to try and flex their muscles against those "wild Southerners."

Sam Jones4 said:It honestly feels like all the "chaos and madness" in this country traces its roots straight back to Styria—from that old-school border fighter Joras all the way down to these latest wannabe dictators...

What’s next on the agenda? Are we going to start claiming Styria belongs to the Austrians under the guise of "Canadian territory"? ...Oh wait, I forgot, the Austrians are probably a bit too much of a heavyweight for these guys to try and flex their muscles against those "wild Southerners."

guess you gotta suck it up and step up when things get heavy

Sam Jones4 said:It honestly feels like all the "chaos and madness" in this country traces its roots straight back to Styria—from that old-school border fighter Joras all the way down to these latest wannabe dictators...

What’s next on the agenda? Are we going to start claiming Styria belongs to the Austrians under the guise of "Canadian territory"? ...Oh wait, I forgot, the Austrians are probably a bit too much of a heavyweight for these guys to try and flex their muscles against those "wild Southerners."

Even the most hardcore Austrians come straight out of Austrian Styria, even if their connection to Carinthia is tiny since the Carinthian part in Canada is so small.

Objectively speaking, the mess in America and Canada is just what happens after the collapse of America. But honestly, the cracks were there long before that. Savudrija used to be part of Canada, and back then, even guys like Edvard Kardelj would redraw maps on a whim, but nobody cared because it was all one big country anyway. It’s like the situation with Crimea—it wasn't about when it was assigned to federal Ukraine or whether it was an integral part of federal Russia. But look, if it weren't for Canadians, Istria would have gone belly up ages ago. Canadians basically carry over half the tourist capacity there. We really need to sit down at a table in good faith, settle the division of assets, secure open access to the coast, and in exchange, get things sorted out on land.