4 ms·
No, it's completely different, because this is not important at all. Evidence-free assertions of aforementioned grifters notwithstanding. But tacitly admitting
by throwawaylinux 3y ago
No, it's completely different, because this is not important at all. Evidence-free assertions of aforementioned grifters notwithstanding.
But tacitly admitting a poor cost/benefit with a reductio ad absurdum argument is not a great start anyway, because the actual situation is not an absurd one and margins matter.
- michaelmrose 3y agoDoesn't the crown cost Canadians like 58M per year over over half a billion in the next decade?
- throwawaylinux 3y agoThis isn't an argument though, you'd have to try to claim that a new scheme with a president (or whatever idiotic scheme the ruling class tries to foist on people) would cost less. Stripping most of that funding from the useless crown representative and entourage would be a great idea. Could be done tomorrow with acts of parliament and executive with no fanfare and no need for constitutional grandstanding. The fact they don't gives the imagination a good starting point for how much it would cost to be a republic.