This is definately going to back fire on him and his administration. There weren't any major incidence of violence or rioting. They got the bridge cleared. He should've left it at that and let it fizzle out.
People support military force until they see the consequences of it, then it turns on its head. If 90% of the truckers are vaccinated, then what is the point of the mandate at this point anyhow? It's a lose/lose for the administration. It's also weird to see how so many people freaked out about Tom Cotton's Op-Ed about getting the military to restore order to cities that were being ransacked every day (to such a degree that the NYT's apologized)...and now suddenly those same people supporting military action to restore order.
In the early 20th century, eugenic policies were considered progressive among many Canadians, including some socialists, feminists, farmers and psychiatrists. Their assumption was that Canadian society could be improved by encouraging reproduction among certain groups — particularly Anglo-Saxon Protestants — and discouraging or limiting reproduction among other groups, including Eastern European immigrants and, increasingly, Indigenous people. (Similarly, immigration policies like the Chinese head tax were aimed at limiting the population of Asian Canadians.)
Many prominent Canadians of that era were advocates of eugenics philosophy and eugenic sterilization, including Dr. E.W. McBride, Professor Carrie Derick and Dr. Helen MacMurchy. Support for eugenic sterilization was also expressed in the 1920s by many prominent Alberta women, including Emily Murphy and Nellie McClung. Maternal feminists like McClung, for example, argued that women were the mothers and guardians of their “race.” They therefore championed legislation, including sterilization, which aimed to curtail prostitution, alcoholism and “mental defectiveness.”"
Eugenics was part of a first utopian thought wave for an optimized, managed populace, which fell out of fashion due to the events of WW2. It is being woven back into the political conversation in the name of medical security.
I got upvoted a couple times, then downvoted a couple times, I guess there's a bit of an even split between smart people on whether or not you should be "punished" for talking about these kinds of realities. I think for the sake of marketing, the powers that be will want a new word, for what we're going to be doing as a society to the human genome. Something that means eugenics, but sounds different, somehow safer, and altogether moral, and encompasses traditional eugenics, but also extends to edits made to already living organisms through tools like CRISPR.
How about... Life-Safe Code. DNA is effectively code, code is editable for the betterment of people, riiiight? And it's Life-Safe - like if you wanted to oppose Life-Safe Code you're saying "I want code that isn't safe for life to promulgate", which should help diminish the effectiveness of any rhetoric towards enshrining inherent rights that protect people's read/write/execution permissions over their own genetic code. And if you want Free Lifeware, or whatever, well, do you have problems with seatbelts? Because clearly there is a major inconsistency to your worldview if you accept seatbelts but won't promote the deployment of Life-Safe Code to all humans by any means deemed necessary.
We could engineer new sub-races of human beings, starting from ethnic templates that are already healthier and more Life-Safe, and edit them responsibly to optimize them for performance, health and safety in their specific work environments, phasing out all but a small helpful "stock" of the "heirloom races" to copy-paste from as needed like a genetic palette. All disease could be completely eliminated, with Life-Safe Code and a healthy, well-maintained walled-garden of people-platforms. "Terroristic" enemies of the state-corp agglomeration who politically threaten our health and safety with their enclaves of unedited harmful genomes could all be converted into slug-things (a form fitting of their pathetic, childish tantrums) with a totally sound-proof membrane over their mouth; after all they have a right to speak, but there's nothing about a right to be heard.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, using 2016 to argue polls are massively off is basically admitting you don't understand what you're talking about.
The article lists other sources and a quick search will get you a lot further than wanting me to be AI to fulfill your every request. Point being they were wrong and surveys are not as reliable as fact and can be manipulated.
You're talking about completely different things. Odds are an estimate of who will come out over the line quicker, polls are the underlying data used to calibrate that model.
The odds set in 2016 by various groups were often wildly bearish on Trump winning, the polls were not so much. Political polls and surveys are usually not off the mark by all that much, especially if you have good demography data.
Surveys can be manipulated but they are also much better than flying blind with no data at all.
I can see why you used a throwaway. No need to godwin this up. It’s already clearly been stated the military will not be used. This is about enforcing laws which have been flouted for weeks, to the significant harm of citizens and industry.
The presence of the vehicles themselves is an act of intimidation. This could be a reason why Ottawa police have been so timid. Not hard at all to drive forward and injure and kill someone. There's video footage from the Vancouver protest that shows a truck attempting this, and the counter protestor attempting to block the truck had to step aside.
This novel use of trucks for protest has been enormously effective and I expect we'll see this replicated all over from now on.
Whereas in the past it took a mass movement of thousand upon thousands to block a bridge, now a few dozen people in trucks can do the same thing.
Trucks enable a protest to be incredibly paralyzing with a fraction of the amount of protestors.
well back when government buildings were being burned down and people were getting shot - it was commonly and correctly referred to as "mostly peaceful protesting"
Unproductive though it may be, consider the (extreme) hypothetical of a government arresting someone and forcing a needle into their arm, administering a biological agent against the recipient's will. I believe that would satisfy a literal (if unconventional) definition of "political violence".
So, what's left to litigate is whether the threat/coercion of "you will lose your job unless you let us do this to you" makes the definition no longer apply.
I would say that (hypothetical) refugees fleeing a government-orchestrated pogrom are still victims of "political violence" even though they had the "choice" of leaving the country (and their job); but perhaps some would argue they are merely choosing to avoid a mandate passed by their democratic government.
I agree with you on both of those statements. Unfortunately that doesn't resolve the thorny issue of whether forced or coerced vaccination can count as political violence, but perhaps this thread will not uncover a unanimously accepted answer to that contentious question.
"smash through" is not consistent with "avoid the collision". I don't see any evidence of your claim of smashing through. Did you embellish the story in your head and only realized you'd been fooling yourself when somebody asked for evidence? Isn't that a red flag that you may have been misled in many other aspects of this topic?
Now you're claiming it was "forcible"? What does that mean? With the application of force? It's not forcible if there's no contact. You really did make a misleading claim about smashing through barricades which shows you are either trying to mislead people with false information or have been misled yourself.
I feel like there were a decent amount of people, blocking various places, that said the only way this was ending/they were being moved was in a violent shootout.
Do you understand how much $ worth of mobilization has to happen to safely attempt to deal with people who say they’re going to start shooting at you in a city?
It’s a lot of time, money, & other resources. You can choose to cognitive dissonance this fact, but it doesn’t change it.
IMO, Canada didn’t use as much force as they should’ve to remove people who literally told them they were going to fight to the death instead of moving. Pretty big threat.
