MiraMe2🇨🇦🍎

Federal deficit could top $100B by 2035, economist warns nationalpost.com/news/canada/de…

‘No risk’ of potential conflict with Champagne’s partner working for Alto: ethics commissioner ctvnews.ca/politics/artic…

@mario4thenorth @EvelynSmit95492 She did and we need a by election

You Weren’t Informed. You Were Used (If you’re the smartest voters in the country, why are you the easiest to manipulate?) Dear Liberal Voters in the By-Elections There’s a particular kind of confidence that comes with believing you’re the smartest person in the room. It allows you to skip steps, to assume you already understand, to trust your instincts instead of verifying your conclusions. And right now, that confidence is doing a remarkable amount of damage. Because what’s unfolding in ridings like Scarborough Southwest and University–Rosedale is not intelligence in action. It's a reflex dressed up as reasoning. You are preparing to vote Liberal again, not after scrutiny, not after interrogating the facts, but because the man at the centre of it all “sounds” calm, carries an “impressive résumé,” and has been presented to you as competent by a media class that increasingly behaves like a reputation management firm. That’s not due diligence. That’s brand loyalty with a marketing tone. Would you hire someone to run your company this way? No references checked, no past performance examined, no uncomfortable questions asked. Just a polished CV and a reassuring voice? Or is that level of care reserved for things that actually matter to you personally? To your bottom line? Here’s a question that should be embarrassingly easy to answer if your position is grounded in reality. What, specifically, has improved in your life? Not theory. Not slogans. Your life. What costs less, what works better, what has become easier? What government system or service has made a meaningful, positive difference for you in the last year? The last five? Do you have a doctor? A home? Affordable groceries? If the answer is yes, ask yourself why. Is it because things have improved, or because you’re insulated enough not to feel the decline yet? And if the answer is no, why are you still defending the very choices that helped produce that outcome? Never forget this. The man now presiding over Canada, @MarkJCarney, is the same man who advised Justin Trudeau and his government on economic direction for years before stepping into the role himself. The results you’re living under did not appear out of nowhere. They were shaped, in part, by the same thinking, the same approach, the same circle of influence. So what exactly are you supporting? Because if you rejected Justin Trudeau for that atrocious record, why are you now embracing Mark Carney for continuing it? Take your time. Strange how quiet it gets, isn’t it? So what exactly are you voting for? Improvement, or the idea of improvement because someone authoritative told you it exists? And if it’s the latter, what exactly makes you different from the people you spend so much time mocking and lording your so-called superior intelligence over? The Election You Still Haven’t Processed... Let’s talk about something you’ve avoided thinking about because it cuts too close to the identity you’ve built for yourselves. You were played. Not in some vague, partisan sense. In a very specific, very practical way. You voted for candidates who, by all appearances, had no intention of remaining in those roles long-term. They ran, they campaigned, they asked for your trust, and then almost immediately after securing the seat, they exited the stage. Conveniently. Strategically. And Rewarded for doing it. So ask yourself the question you haven’t asked. Chrystia Freeland and Bill Blair knew they weren’t staying, so why were they running? Was it to represent you, or to hold the seat until someone else could step in? Because those are not the same thing. If the objective was simply to secure the riding under a recognizable name, block a loss, and transfer control afterward, then what exactly were you participating in? A democratic decision, or a taxpayer-funded placeholder exercise designed to lock in the outcome before you ever had a second look? Does that sound like a smart use of public money? Does that sound like integrity? Or does it sound like a political machine that understood something very precise about you, that you would vote for the colour, the brand, the familiar face, without ever asking what comes next because they knew you were intellectually lazy and wouldn't look below the cover page of Carney’s resume? The Part That Should Sting... You pride yourselves on being the most informed voters in the country, so why were you the easiest to predict and manipulate? Why were you the safest ridings to “park” a candidate in, knowing full well the result was already baked in? Doesn't sound very intelligent to me. Normal people would be angry at being used like that. That’s not respect. That’s calculation. Because if a party genuinely believed you were discerning, critical, and difficult to win over, they would never risk treating your riding like a temporary holding zone. They would expect pushback. They would expect scrutiny. They would expect consequences. Instead, they expected compliance. And they got it. The Things You Didn’t Bother to Check... If you are as informed as you claim, the contradictions should have been impossible to miss. China. You were told it was the most serious geopolitical threat facing this country. Then, without explanation, the posture softened, engagement resumed, and doors reopened in areas previously treated as sensitive. Did the threat disappear overnight, or did your curiosity? The EV Push. You were sold a polished vision of the future, clean, strategic, inevitable. You accepted it without asking who benefits, who pays, and what dependencies are being quietly locked in. When did sounding virtuous become a substitute for being viable? The Conflicts You Chose Not to See... This is where things stop being theoretical and start becoming uncomfortable. You are watching a man with significant financial ties to a global investment firm move into power and advance policies that align almost perfectly with that firm’s interests. Climate finance, carbon markets, institutional embedding, same sectors, same direction. No mandate. No explicit voter approval. No meaningful oversight. Just a steady placement of familiar figures from the banking world into positions surrounding the office he holds, that shape national policy in ways Canadians were never asked to endorse. So what is this supposed to be? Coincidence, alignment, or a seamless transition from private interest into public authority? If this is all above board, why does it require this level of willful incuriosity from the people who claim to care most about accountability? The Promise Problem You’re Ignoring... You were sold competence on a very specific premise, that this leadership could manage the relationship with Donald Trump, stabilize trade, and protect Canadian interests. That was the pitch. So where is the effort? Where are the visible attempts to engage, negotiate, or recalibrate that relationship in any meaningful way? Or was the entire strategy to point south every time something breaks here and hope no one notices? If everything is Trump’s fault, what exactly is your government responsible for??? The Media You Trust and Why That Matters... Let’s address the commentary class reinforcing all of this. Voices like Robert Fife and Andrew Coyne who increasingly sound less like analysts and more like participants in narrative maintenance. When the argument becomes “you can’t blame the Liberals, it’s Trump,” despite years of policy direction shaped by the same leadership now in power before Trump ever graced the White House with his vitriol, what exactly is happening? Is that analysis, or is that insulation? Because every measurable pressure Canadians are living under today did not appear overnight. It was built, layer by layer, decision by decision. So when those realities are waved away in favour of convenient external blame, are you being informed, or managed? Compassion Without Curiosity... You pride yourselves on compassion, on tolerance, on being better, but compassion without curiosity is just performance. You avoid opposing viewpoints, dismiss without investigating, and rely on curated information streams while calling it awareness. If your position is truly strong, why are you so reluctant to test it? What are you afraid of finding? That you might have been wrong? Final Question... If you are the smartest voters in the country, why were you the easiest to game? The easiest to fool in a liberal con game meant to take your vote but not your concerns? Why were you the safest bet? And why, after watching it happen once, are you lining up to prove it wasn’t a fluke? At what point does this stop being loyalty…and start looking like you’re volunteering to be used? It’s like watching battered wife syndrome applied to politics. You defend the abuser, excuse the abuse, and call it progress because you’ve learned how to please your abuser to make it all stop. Take a step back and look at what you've become. A political tool for a corrupt party that sees you as easy to manipulate for their personal gain. And you call yourselves the smarter, enlightened, intelligent ones.🤦🏻‍♀️ Please. Spare me the performative bs. Melanie in Saskatchewan Off platform links: 👇🏻 buymeacoffee.com/melanieinsaska… 👇🏻 open.substack.com/pub/melanieins…