And yes, like i was trying to get at before, more class focused, then race/feminism focused.

Which is much like sanders

Though i havent seen them call for taxing the rich to pay for university or some such

So less extreme then sanders in some ways with that.

Heavily pro-union, Pro low small buisness tax, pro heavily progresssive income tax

Ah. there we go. A Union party.

er. labor union party.

Though low taxes on small business is unusual.

Maybe. But its coherent.

"Kick-start the economy and build needed infrastructure, starting with:
? Cutting taxes for Canada’s job creators by reducing the small business tax from
11 to 9%.
? Supporting innovation and investment in companies creating jobs in Canada,
with an early focus on the aerospace, automotive, forestry and mining sectors.
? Creating jobs and building our economy with $1.5 billion per year in new
infrastructure funding to municipalities to fix roads, bridges and water
treatment systems."

Was watching Tim's video from a few days ago in which he mentioned Directive 51 again

Each time he mentions it, he tends to leave out the part about a mass casualty, government-interrupting event that forms the prerequisite for it

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

Sure, that happened

But that changes fuck all for me honestly

The bill's fucking atrocious

```"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;```

Oh

'Directive' 51?

That isnt Canada?

Nevermind me.

I thought of C-51.

Sorry, I kind of came in here with my own topic in mind

Though speaking of Canada, my big issue with how Tim talks about Directive 51 is how it requires something so ungodly catastrophic to occur before it can even be an option on the table,

in contrast to a place like Canada, where the Queen could dismiss your parliament tomorrow

That... No.

We wouldnt stand for that 😛

She knows it, we know it.

Australia stood for it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

In 1975.

Nearly half a century ago

Australia had their duly elected prime minister dismissed due to little more than bad poll numbers and a gridlocked legislature

and Australia just laid down and took it

And then the minority party's leader was put into power as head of government

Sounds interesting

and as far as I know, this is an area where Canada and Australia have virtually identical laws

The Queen meddled with us in the past a bit, but it was mostly political bullshit our politicians were asking for.

Canada's armed forces swear allegiance to the Queen personally

as do Canadian politicans

Yes, because we were both previously colonies

I cant say you're wrong in terms of laws