Trudeau must go


I am a dedicated Liberal. I’ve volunteered for the party for nearly 10 years, frequently supporting their efforts. However, last night’s results in Toronto-St. Paul’s were a complete disaster. Canadians have sent a clear message; this election turned out to be a referendum on Trudeau and his leadership, despite the party’s attempts to spin it otherwise.

I’ve believed for a while now that Trudeau needs to step down. I’ve expressed these thoughts privately to fellow Liberals and others in my life. However, my perspective isn’t coming from a Conservative viewpoint, as I believe much of the right-wing backlash against Trudeau is unjustified. I think the Freedom Convoy and other forms of right wing populism that have surged against Trudeau is stupid and hateful and most importantly, wrong. The far-right populism from the United States has infiltrated the Conservative Party, and Poilievre has adopted talking points reminiscent of this ideology. He reminds me of figures like Ben Shapiro or the annoying kid with the glasses from “Polar Express.” His aggressive approach, attacking the media and politicians, is something I cannot support. Any politician who undermines freedom of the press is someone I could never vote for. The day I consider voting Conservative will be the day hell freezes over. Blaming Trudeau for every problem in our country is illogical, but there is a grain of truth in some criticisms.

The crises of rising living costs and housing are complex and multi-layered. All levels of government are involved, with provincial and municipal governments often having a more direct impact than the federal government. However, under Trudeau’s leadership, the federal response to the housing crisis, which falls within its jurisdiction, has fallen short. While I’m not an expert on housing or economics, I believe the average person with a mild interest in politics can see these issues. Personally, I haven’t been overly critical of the government’s handling of these crises, understanding their complexity and the impossibility of instant solutions. I believe policies akin to those of Bernie Sanders would be beneficial for Canada—a more compassionate form of capitalism. I’ve identified myself as a Orange Liberal in recent years, although according to an Angus Reid Poll, 37% of Canadians feel the party has not made sufficient progress on these issues.

This is also not to discount the policies and hard work Trudeau has done. I think he’s brought alot of great and important change to Canada.

While the NDP has little chance of forming a national government, I generally agree with most of their policies. Liberals, for the most part, have adopted much of their platform, particularly in areas like universal healthcare. I see the Liberals as a better path to achieving these policy goals.

For me, Trudeau’s mishandling of the First Nations issue and the numerous scandals are primary reasons why I believe he should step down. His response to the issue has been particularly disappointing. While his government has achieved some milestones, such as addressing water advisories and establishing a National Day of Truth and Reconciliation, their overall approach has been inadequate. Trudeau’s decision to go surfing on the National Day of Truth and Reconciliation was particularly insensitive and symbolic of his detachment from this critical issue. This act was a major insult to First Nations people, especially following Canada’s reckoning with residential schools. It was, in my opinion, one of the most disrespectful responses to First Nations people in modern times, and I cannot forgive him for it.

Additionally, Trudeau has made too many mistakes. In my view, any respectable politician would have resigned after the SNC-Lavalin scandal. The blackface scandal was outrageous to me, as someone I once considered a role model committed such a hurtful act. While this occurred over 20 years ago, the repetition of such behavior troubled me deeply. Moreover, his handling of foreign interference has been a disaster. The reluctance to hold a public inquiry into this serious threat to our democracy is deeply concerning. It gives the impression that our government is beholden to foreign interests rather than accountable to Canadians. While other parties, including the Conservatives, are also culpable, as the governing party, Liberals bear the responsibility to address and inform Canadians about threats to our democracy. Transparency is crucial for safeguarding our democratic institutions and maintaining public trust, especially in a time of global democratic challenges.

Despite these criticisms, I remain a proud Liberal and continue to support the party. However, if Liberals wish to preserve the party and prevent Poilievre from gaining a supermajority, as polls suggest, there is much work to be done. The party needs introspection and must confront its identity. Liberals have historically prided themselves on being Canada’s governing party and enacting progressive legislation that has shaped Canada’s international reputation. To ensure the survival of the Liberal Party, the Trudeau brand must go.

Even if Trudeau were to resign or be replaced as leader, it may not immediately improve our standing in the polls. However, it would allow us to salvage what remains of the party and rebuild its reputation. A fresh face could potentially rejuvenate the party’s appeal among Canadians and rebuild trust. I believe someone like Mark Carney would be an ideal candidate, as he is not closely associated with the Trudeau brand and polls positively among voters for the leadership role. While I admire Chrystia Freeland and find her intelligent and capable, her association with Trudeau may not serve the party well in the current climate.

Preventing a Conservative supermajority government is crucial to me. Many of my fellow Liberals argued before the Toronto-St. Paul by-election loss that now isn’t the right time for Trudeau to resign or that a leadership change would distract from pressing issues. However, after last night’s results, I find it difficult to support this argument. The 2025 election will likely be a “change” election, much like 2015 was for the Liberals. The fact that the Conservatives made significant gains in Toronto, traditionally a Liberal stronghold, should alarm us all. Polls indicate many ridings in the Greater Toronto Area are now toss-ups or leaning Conservative. Perhaps what we need right now is exactly what we’ve been avoiding. Canada is on the brink of change, and so must the Liberal Party.

Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of Canada

We need new, decisive leadership and immediate action on critical issues like housing, living costs, and foreign interference. We cannot afford to hand the government to someone who courts extremists, supports the Freedom Convoy, attacks the media, opposes abortion rights within his party, denies climate change, and seeks to roll back LGBTQ rights. Continuing on our current path is akin to a train on fire hurtling toward a cliff. Trudeau must step down, and we must stop Poilievre at all costs.


What would a Trump presidency look like in prison?


Trump at the hush money trial

Trump’s first criminal trial of many is starting to wrap up. This trial deals with Trump making false statements on business records regarding payments to cover up an affair with Stormy Daniels. Daniels is a famous adult film star, and it has been alleged that she and Trump had an affair in 2006. Before the 2016 election, Trump had his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, pay Daniels $130,000 to keep silent. While this act itself is not illegal, Trump used campaign money to do so and falsified business records as a result. Currently, he faces 34 criminal counts related to this matter. Trump also has four other criminal trials due to start, including the Georgia election interference case, where we got the infamous Trump mugshot, a trial related to the events of January 6th, and another regarding Trump’s refusal to hand over classified documents.

Stormy Daniels testifying at the trial

If Trump were hypothetically convicted on all these charges, he would spend several lifetimes behind bars. Obviously, this is unlikely, and Trump is already 77 years old. The longest a human being has ever lived is 122 years. Unless he’s somehow secretly immortal or a Vulcan, it’s not happening. I feel like Trump will go scot-free regarding the Stormy Daniels case. I question the strength of the case against him; it’s taking place in a highly partisan environment and is not as severe compared to the other cases. I would personally love to see Trump behind bars, as I believe he’s a horrible human being, but it won’t be for the Stormy Daniels case.

Trump mugshot

I would argue the classified documents case is the most serious since it violates the 1917 Espionage Act. I don’t know how he’s going to escape that one. So, with Donald Trump facing potential prison time, what would it look like if he were elected again, and how could he be president?

There’s nothing stopping anyone from running for president from jail and being president while in jail. As long as you meet the constitutional requirements—being 35 years of age, a natural-born citizen, and having resided in the States for 14 years—you can run for and be president. Candidates have run for president from jail before, with the most famous case being Socialist candidate Eugene V. Debs, who ran in 1920. He was charged under the Espionage Act in 1918 for denouncing U.S. entry into WWI and was sentenced to ten years in prison. Despite not being able to campaign, he still managed to receive a respectable 3.4% of the vote, nearly a million votes. The infamous Joe Exotic also tried to run for president in 2020 and 2024 from prison as a Libertarian but later withdrew his campaign. So, there’s nothing stopping someone from running, but in most states, they wouldn’t be able to vote for themselves. Depending on the crime, most convicts can’t vote, which largely affects people of color.

Photo of Eugene V. Debs in prison for a campaign poster

It baffles me how this happens, as in Canada, you don’t lose that right and can even vote in prison, but I digress. So, what would a Trump presidency look like from prison? Depending on where Trump is jailed, he wouldn’t be able to occupy the White House unless placed under house arrest there. The logistics of assembling a cabinet, greeting foreign leaders and dignitaries, traveling to respond to natural disasters, and visiting foreign countries would be a massive headache in itself. Given his high-profile status, he would have to be kept separate from the general prison population and probably would end up in a minimum-security prison to facilitate better movement and security. All of this would be done under high security. A likely option is that many of his cabinet meetings and meetings with foreign leaders would be done virtually, solving many logistical and security issues. If under house arrest at the White House, I imagine many of those meetings would take place there, as they normally would during any presidency.

Foreign leaders, journalists, and any sort of visitors would be under immense security and scrutiny to ensure they aren’t carrying any illegal contraband. There is so much else in terms of logistics and security that I could write many pieces on it. The other thing to consider is what the legal, moral, and ethical concerns of a prisoner-in-command would be like.

The most immediate impact would be on the Republican party. They would literally be supporting a criminal as their leader and the leader of the free world. What message does that send to their voters and the world? If convicted, would a second civil war start? What potential ramifications would convicting a president have?

For starters, in other Western democracies like Japan, France, and Israel, presidents and prime ministers have been convicted of crimes. The political system and country didn’t fall apart; I would say it strengthened it. It showed that nobody, not even the highest person in the land, can escape justice and should be held accountable like everyone else. The belief that the president has executive privileges and can’t be tried under the law is nonsense. You could, however, argue that Bush Jr. and Obama should be tried for war crimes under that same logic. You could argue most presidents could be. This is why it’s such a slippery slope because it questions what can be counted as a crime. But in Trump’s case, it’s crystal clear. Given the current highly polarized political nature of the United States, how would the nation react to such a thing? If convicted of a crime, 13% of Republicans said they would vote for another candidate, including Joe Biden. This would also be a boon for Democrats, as they would have the moral high ground if Trump is convicted. Any logical, sane person would not want a criminal as their president. But that wouldn’t stop people from voting for him.

Trump is highly likely to be convicted of crimes related to his four ongoing federal and state-level trials. What do you think a Trump presidency from behind bars would look like? Please let me know.


Javier Milei: Failure or Sucess?


For nearly 80 years, Argentinian politics has been dominated by the ideology and economic policies of one man: Juan Perón.

When Perón came to power in 1947, he nationalized key industries, advocated for women’s suffrage, paid off the country’s external debt, and developed a system of social assistance for the most needy. Peronism is described by three core principles:

  • Economic Independence: An economy that does not depend on other countries, achieved by promoting national industries.
  • Social Justice: The fight against socioeconomic inequalities.
  • Political Independence: The non-interference of foreign powers in the country’s domestic affairs.

Perón ruled from 1946 to 1955, was forced into exile, but returned briefly in 1973 amidst intense political strife, dying of a heart attack in 1974. His second wife, Isabel, ruled for the next two years until she was deposed by a military coup.

Since the return of democracy in 1983, Peronist candidates have often dominated elections. Presidents have shifted the party’s policies from center-right, advocating free-market policies and good relations with the United States, to more left-wing social democratic policies in the 2010s.

Argentina once had the potential to be an economic superpower. Over 100 years ago, it was one of the richest countries in the world, exporting a lot of oil. However, economic mismanagement and crippling inflation throughout the 20th century led to the largest government bankruptcy in 2001 after the IMF withdrew support when President Carlos Menem linked the peso to the US dollar. The 9/11 attacks and the subsequent economic slowdown crippled Argentina’s economy, setting the stage for economic challenges in the 21st century.

I don’t have time to cover all the details of Argentina’s economy and its mismanagement, but I highly encourage you to research it. It’s an incredibly interesting read on what can go wrong.

This brings us to 2023 and the election of Javier Milei. Milei identifies as a right-wing libertarian but is widely viewed as far-right by most political commentators. He is known for his abrasive and controversial views, following the Austrian School of Economics, and his flamboyant personal style. He often insulted or cursed at other commentators or reporters during his time as a television commentator in Argentina.

Milei supports laissez-faire economics, aligning with minarchist and anarcho-capitalist ideologies. Minarchy, or a night-watchman state, advocates for a limited government focused on enforcing the non-aggression principle by providing military, police, and courts to protect citizens from aggression, theft, fraud, and breach of contract. Anarcho-capitalism seeks to abolish centralized states in favor of stateless societies where private agencies enforce systems of private property.

The term for minarchism was coined by Ferdinand Lassalle and derived from the watchman system used by various European cities starting in the medieval period. The voluntary militia functioned as a city guard for internal policing and against external aggression.

Milei’s key policies include:

  • Free Market Economics: Deregulating markets to allow competition to drive efficiency and innovation. He opposes government subsidies and favors privatization of state-controlled industries.
  • Fiscal Conservatism: Advocating for a balanced budget and reducing government debt, believing excessive spending crowds out private investment and leads to inefficiency.
  • Monetary Reform: Criticizing central banks for inflationary policies and advocating for a stable currency, possibly tying it to a commodity like gold or implementing strict money supply growth rules.
  • Individual Liberty: Emphasizing personal freedoms and limited government intervention, opposing regulations that restrict individual choices and supporting private property rights.
  • Privatization: Promoting the privatization of state-owned enterprises to foster competition, reduce government inefficiency, and improve service quality.

Milei seeks to radically overhaul the Argentine economy and government policies. He supports freedom of choice on drug policy, firearms, sex work, and same-sex marriage while opposing abortion and euthanasia. In foreign policy, he advocates closer relations with the United States and Israel, supports Ukraine in response to the Russian invasion, and aims to distance Argentina from China.

One of his major economic policies is the dollarization of the peso. In his first few months in office, he pushed for austerity and deregulation measures. According to Wikipedia:

“Argentina’s inflation slowed in February for a second consecutive month as Milei continued to push austerity and deregulation measures to revive the struggling economy. Monthly inflation slowed to 13.2% in February, compared to 20.6% in January and 25.5% in December. Argentina’s dollar-denominated international bonds reached new highs in March, with the 2029 and 2030 issues close to or at record high prices. The bonds have rallied from lows that took the 2030 issue to 18.125 cents in July 2022, fueled by investor bets that Milei’s cabinet will successfully transform the economy.”

One of his major decrees, signed on December 23, 2023, called Decree 70/2023, aimed to:

  • Convert state-owned enterprises to Sociedades Anónimas, exposing them to risks like bankruptcy if poorly managed and allowing state shares to be transferred to employees.
  • Reduce compensations owed to terminated or laid-off employees and allow workers to choose their own healthcare providers.
  • Make permanent traffic obstructions against organizations illegal.
  • Abolish registries and authorizations for importers and exporters, aiming to reduce paperwork and digitalize processes.
  • Remove rent control regulations and allow rents to be set in dollars instead of pesos.

Milei and his cabinet after signing the degree

To discuss Milei’s policies, I interviewed Andre Malebran, a reporter from Santiago, Chile.

Interviewer: Please state your name for the record. What do you do?

Andre: My name is Andre. I’m a Chilean journalist.

Interviewer: What are your thoughts on Milei in general?

Andre: Milei has two important sides. Economically, he offers something radical, especially for Argentina, which has been largely defined by socialism under Peronism. His view of liberalism is a significant departure. He is also a charismatic right-wing politician with strong support for Israel and an interest in Judaism, possibly linked to his economic policies and foreign investment opportunities. However, his confrontational politics could create diplomatic tensions, which may destabilize the government. Despite managing inflation well recently, making enemies could be detrimental.

Interviewer: Do you think his radical economic policies will fix Argentina’s economy?

Andre: So far, inflation has decreased to 90% in five months, which is historically significant. Similar shock policies have worked in other countries, like Chile during Pinochet’s regime. Despite facing major strikes, Milei’s approach of reducing spending and not printing more money is causing deflation. If the measures hold, we might see positive results by year-end. However, the current reduction in inflation might mask underlying issues like deflation and reduced production.

Interviewer: Is he doing the right thing in addressing inflation in Argentina?

Andre: He hasn’t passed any laws in Congress, which has been rejecting his agenda. Recently, he stated he won’t approve new budget changes involving payments. This tension aims to stop economic bleeding by cutting payments, including pensions, and managing the peso’s devaluation. Transitioning Argentina’s economy to a dollar-based system by year-end would be a significant achievement.

Interviewer: How do you think his social policies will affect his economic policies?

Andre: Diplomatic tensions are rising, with incidents involving Spain, Israel, Russia, and China. Argentina, dependent on financial swaps from China, is now seeing those payments stop due to Milei’s stance. His lack of diplomatic caution might open new issues for Argentina.

Interviewer: Is he a true libertarian, or more like Jair Bolsonaro as a far-right populist figure?

Andre: Milei’s rhetoric borrows heavily from libertarian ideas, unlike Bolsonaro, who was more conservative. Despite being on the right, Milei’s recent political entry contrasts with Bolsonaro’s long-term involvement. Milei’s refusal of his congressional salary and direct public engagement show his dedication to his principles. Fundamentally, they are different, and Milei seems poised for a more significant impact than Bolsonaro.

Interviewer: Could the libertarian wave replace the pink tide of socialist governments in South America from the late ’90s and early 2000s?

Andre: Milei represents a new phase mixing totalitarian elements with basic democratic protections. In South America, security is deteriorating, and public sentiment is shifting towards harsher measures. While we might not see a return to full totalitarianism, democracy could face crises, especially regarding security. Over the next two decades, we might see increased fragility in democratic institutions and significant human rights issues, with governments focusing more on security than on upholding rights.

Interviewer: Thank you for your insights.

Andre: You’re welcome.

It’s too early to say if Milei’s policies will solve Argentina’s economic problems, but they represent a major shift in the political landscape. This shift is not just in Argentina but also in South America and globally. Similarly, in El Salvador, Nayib Bukele has undertaken drastic economic and political reforms, including accepting Bitcoin as legal tender and implementing a tough-on-crime policy. While this has brought wealth and reduced crime rates, it has also led to overcrowded prisons and concerns about innocent people being jailed.

Libertarianism has never taken off globally, despite being the third largest party in the United States. However, Milei’s election could signal a shift in global politics toward radical change or be a brief hiccup. It’s too early to tell.


Who should Trump pick as his VP candidate?

With the anticipation for the upcoming presidential election mounting, one question looms large: who will be Donald Trump’s vice-presidential running mate? While the former president has yet to unveil his pick, speculation abounds as rival parties have already made their selections.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wasted no time in announcing Nicole Shanahan as his VP, echoing Joe Biden’s early commitment to Kamala Harris. With these decisions in mind, attention now turns to Trump’s camp. Who will fill the coveted VP slot alongside the former president?

Amidst the pool of potential candidates, three figures stand out:

  1. Marco Rubio

Rubio has been considered as Trump’s VP candidate for quite some time. Despite their intense back and forth in 2016, they have grown very close. Rubio functioned as a de facto Secretary of State for the Southern Hemisphere because of his Cuban background and his ability to speak Spanish. During Trump’s presidency, he sent Rubio to most Latin American countries to represent his interests. Rubio also had a significant influence on Trump’s Cuba policy, advocating for a return to a pre-Cuban Thaw relationship with stricter sanctions. Notably, Rubio has remained loyal to Trump, defending his false claims that Biden stole the election in 2020. Additionally, he is a person of color and seen as more moderate compared to other potential picks like Governor of South Dakota, Kristi Noem, or Vivek Ramaswamy.

However, the major issue preventing Rubio from being Trump’s VP pick is the fact that they would both be running from the same state of Florida. Since Rubio is a senator from Florida, he would either have to move, or due to a hiccup in US law, the electoral votes for him and Trump would not count. While Florida is barely a swing state anymore (some classify it as a red state due to Miami-Dade County becoming increasingly Republican each election since 2016), losing those electoral votes would be a blow to their campaign. In most elections, this wouldn’t be an issue, but given Florida’s status as a bellwether state for some, a very close result in Florida in favor of Biden would not bode well.

This issue arises from the 12th amendment, which mandates a separate ballot be cast for President and Vice President. This rule was instituted due to chaotic elections in 1800 and 1804, preventing an elector from voting for two people from their home state. One can only imagine the plight of the poor voter in Florida.

The closest instance resembling this issue was with Dick Cheney in 2000. Both Bush Jr. and Cheney were from Texas, raising concerns that their electoral votes wouldn’t count because of this rule. Cheney, unfortunately, put his house on the market in Texas and obtained a Wyoming driver’s license, changing his voting record to Wyoming in time for the election. Given the events of the 2000 election, one might wish he hadn’t taken this route. The world might have been a better place.

2. J.D Vance

J.D. Vance is a famous Republican senator from Ohio, best known for his book “Hillbilly Elegy.” It’s a memoir detailing his upbringing in the Appalachians and how his family values strongly influenced him. The book gained significant press during the 2016 election, and Vance was able to launch a successful Senate bid in 2021. Starting off as a critic of Trump, much like Rubio, he has since become a strong Trump loyalist. He also served in the Iraq War from 2003-2007. In terms of major policy, his response to the East Palestine train derailment was viewed as a major failure. He supports Trump’s claims of a stolen election, backed Trump’s border wall, anti-climate change stance, and many of Trump’s other major policies. While he is a Trump loyalist, he is also viewed as a moderate due to his pro-NATO stance but vocal criticism of US support for the War in Ukraine.

The major factor preventing Vance from being Trump’s VP pick is the issue of having two white men on the ticket. Given how Trump lost in diverse states like Georgia and Arizona, he may opt for someone of color like Tim Scott. South Carolina is also expected to be a major state in the upcoming election, making someone like Tim Scott an appealing choice. Trump also aims to regain the votes of independents and moderates, many of whom voted for Joe Biden in 2020. Having someone like Scott on the ticket could provide a significant boost to the Trump campaign. However, insiders suggest that Vance remains Trump’s second or third pick, indicating that he is still in contention.

3. Tim Scott

Tim Scott is being viewed as the favorite for Trump’s VP pick at the moment, as he’s mentioned the most along with Rubio, Vance, and others. Scott is a senator from South Carolina, a state Trump won by 11.8% in 2020, but down three percent from 2016. Given shifting demographics, there is a small but significant chance that South Carolina could flip; however, the last time this occurred was in 1976 under Jimmy Carter. There is a chance Biden and co. could win the state. Therefore, Trump wants to accomplish two things: assure minority, moderate, and independent votes and ensure South Carolina doesn’t flip.

Scott supports Trump’s border policies, stricter immigration, opposes same-sex marriage, urged Trump to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, takes a tougher stance on China, voted against creating a 9/11-style commission for January 6th, and is generally pro-Trump on a lot of policies. The only split between them is the issue of racism, with Scott declaring it “alive and well.” Scott was highly critical of Trump’s response to the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally and his “both sides” comments. But like former critics, he’s fallen in line and is supportive of Trump. Because of these factors, I highly believe that Scott or Ted Cruz will be Trump’s VP pick. Scott would simply be the safest choice and could bring back voters Trump lost and would allow Trump to appear diverse.

Here are some bonus picks:

  • Doug Burgum
  • Rep. Elise Stefanik
  • Ron DeSantis
  • Tom Cotton

Please let me know who you think Trump’s VP pick will be.