Extremist ideologies are eerily similar though. They're pretty much in a class of their own. There are normal people's ideological differences, and then there are radical/reactionary beliefs. Neither of the extremes represent many normal people and the philosophies don't really differ a whole lot except who they want to eradicate; the rich on the left, the minority races in their home countries on the right, and the religious people that don't agree with them on both sides. Not a whole lot of difference in my opinion. China is persecuting Muslim and Christian minorities and they're supposedly on the left. Extremists don't give a damn about politics in my opinion...
That's kind of my point. Context is important. We cannot import our understanding of the political spectrum and expect it to hold up when applied to another nation. China is a good example. There are clearly communist influences in China, but there are also clearly the hallmarks of far-right policies and philosophies at play.
It's also true of the Soviet Union.
Nations are made up of people. People are complex. So nations are complex.
However - I do still stand by the idea I think it's important that we understand how or why extremists are the way they are. Fundamentally, the reason for this is that almost every case of extremism that has been born in the world started from a group of people who werent yet all that extreme, and radicalized thereafter. If you know what to look for, you're (hopefully) more equipped to deal with them.
Look at the AFD in Germany. They're a far-right, nativist and populist party. They're kind of extreme, and because we know what happened the last time the far-right were in charge in Germany, really really bad things happened. If we pay attention, we can try to figure out if that's happening again or not.
I agree but I will say that if the majority is watchful this should never happen again in civilized nations. Making people who don't agree with you the same as extremists is what seems to be happening now. That is very dangerous in that it forces people into the extremist camps in order to be heard. If everybody who disagrees with you is an extremist then even the moderates are extremist, so what's the difference? I see that happening all too much these days...
Question for everyone on this thread; shouldn't moderates be the majority? If that's the case, how can a two-party system possibly represent the majority???
Edit: Sorry, this is only a question for my fellow Americans. If others want to comment though, feel free (especially those in Parliamentary systems that I actually prefer!).
Which in turn was said to be in retaliation for things like the truck attack here in Stockholm. Which in turn etc. etc... I swear, if these terrorists were actually interested in avenging people killed in other terrorist attacks, you'd think they'd have a go at each other instead. In the end, I think jihadists and far right terrorists would get along just fine with each other. Seeing how much they have in common in how little they care for the victims and how much they care about creating needless suffering.
Jihadists are far right terrorists.
Never said they weren't. And that was basically my point, that these terrorist group that are quite similar claim that they are on opposing sides in some grand culture war. Even though they basically need each other to push more recruits into their ranks.
Question for everyone on this thread; shouldn't moderates be the majority? If that's the case, how can a two-party system possibly represent the majority???
Edit: Sorry, this is only a question for my fellow Americans. If others want to comment though, feel free (especially those in Parliamentary systems that I actually prefer!).
The way that can and I think should be done is by parties, whatever their political beliefs, aiming to govern for the good of the whole country (as opposed to just their own supporters). I agree with you that the majority of people are moderate, so parties that attempt to take account of their views will naturally be more moderate than those concerned only with their core support. That seems to me to be a recipe for more stable, as well as more moderate, government.
it may be that moderates are in majority, but it may also not be. however, there is no reason they should be in majority in a sense that being the majority is intrinsically moderate or somethimg like that. since the majority of us public wants single payer healthcare, which in the current political spectrum is certainly not moderate, it can probably be said that moderates are not in the majority. also, moderates are not a coherent group. is someone who supports single payer and unrestricted gun rights a moderate? technically yes, i suppose, but politically (in terms of representation) it's ultimately meaningless - no reason to presuppose he would be attracted to a centrist-moderate candidate
The way I see it. If you just sit on your ass and vote you are going to be disappointed. Like praying for a saviour, easy cop-out. That's the majority of people these days, bitch, moan, and complain that nothing is being done for them or they aren't getting enough. Bullshit. Take care of your self/own and those close to you that can't, make a better life for yourself in your own community and help each other. It doesn't matter who is President/Premier/Queen we are just serfs and expendable.
Question for everyone on this thread; shouldn't moderates be the majority? If that's the case, how can a two-party system possibly represent the majority???
Edit: Sorry, this is only a question for my fellow Americans. If others want to comment though, feel free (especially those in Parliamentary systems that I actually prefer!).
It doesn't. /micdrop
Unless you have a handful of issues, you will quickly fragment a party.
For example, major wedge issues include:
1. Taxation and government spending in general
2. Abortion rights
3. Gun control
4. Environmentalism
5. Worker's unions
6. LGBT rights
Just using T and F for support or oppose, you could have:
Liberal A is T, T, T, T, T, T
Liberal B is T, F, T, T, T, F
Liberal C is F, T, F, F, F, T
Liberal D is T, T, F, T, F, T
Liberal E is F, F, T, T, F, T
Etc.
It boils down in a two party system that rather than fragmenting into a bunch of parties that then form coalitions (I guess you could call it a party of parties), you instead get two parties where neither accurately represents any significant group, but are basically two nexii where coalitions would form.
For another analogy, it is rare that a person is defined by the average. An average has no physical basis, unlike a min, max, or median (something DEFINITELY makes up the top, bottom, and center of a group).
We should get rid of parties altogether. Present candidates with their legislation history and what they claim to want to actively work towards as president. Combine with their name and picture. Done. All the info needed.
So.....the White House doesn't want the guy who testified under oath to Mueller's team that Trump ordered him to fire the Special Counsel to do so in front of the entire country so they can hear it for themselves in a House hearing. Can't imagine why that would be. But while we're at it, why don't we just say f**k it. Why make anyone who works at the White House ever appear before any House panel again?? Shit, let's just GET RID of the House of Representatives while the Democrats hold it, and then bring it back whenever Republicans take control of it again.
Better yet, let's get rid of both parties altogether and vote on each candidate's individual viewpoints. I know, 'Imagine all the people, voting for what's best. Yoohoo, ooh, ooh, ooh, you may say I'm a dreamer...'
Nothing prevents an independent candidate from running and winning a seat in either house. It’s rare because American public is “trained” to vote in black and white and I bet, the next time you do go and vote, there will be more than just option A and option B on the ballot.
Then 'by law' they should win their court case hands-down. Trump is not a career politician so he hadn't worried about his 'reputation' before. Don't get me wrong, I don't like him, but it doesn't bother me as much as it does you that he doesn't 'appear' as white as snow like our typical politicians. I don't trust any of them any more than I trust Trump.
So on the one hand, you don't trust politicians because they "appear" to be nice and clean, and (sometimes) turn out to be total trash underneath the facade.
But then you DON'T want to investigate Trump, because you KNOW he's not nice and clean, you KNOW he is total trash underneath no facade whatsoever.
Why not? You don't want to see how far down the rabbit-hole the filth goes?
Honestly, I don't really expect politicians to be squeaky clean. I'd rather they don't try to appear to be one of us to begin with. It's a bunch of shit. Squeaky clean isn't reality. I'd rather have everything up-front and let us (the voters) decide what we can live with and what we can't. If a politician makes some money that's fine by me as long as he helps us regular folks out along the way. I'm not one of those people who thinks life is 'fair' and expects my representatives to be Mother Theresa (and I hear even she had skeletons in her closet). Total transparency would be my preference, but most people wouldn't be able to handle reality in my opinion...
So you DO want to see the tax returns, which falls under "total transparency" and "rather have everything up-front"?
Yes, ideally I'd like to see them. I don't think it's in Trump's best interest to do that in this current political reality, however. The general voter lives in La La Land so I don't think that a rich person who tries to pay the least amount of tax possible will come out looking very good. Personally, if I were Trump, and likely if any of us were, I'd try to pay as little as possible too. I'm not a hippocrite who thinks he should behave any different than I would...
This also isn’t about attempting to pay the least amount of taxes possible. Everyone does that and I think that was part of Trump’s charm during the election. He was basically saying “I am the one percent, I know all the loopholes that people like me use to pay less taxes. Who better to close those loops holes than me,” but instead of closing it he ripped them open.
Seeing his taxes is all about looking for (or just getting evidence of, you really do not need to look) conflicts of interest, or foreign influence and then put pressure on him (by creating and passing legislation) that limits what he can do for or against those conflicts or influences, either by having further oversight on his actions or by making sure any corrupted gains are paid back to the government.
Ranked ballot voting would be a nice antidote to the narrow two-party divide. It wouldn't necessarily neutralize the two main parties or result in any third-party candidates, but it would still be a superior alternative to our winner-take-all system.
On a previous issue, China is most definitely not left-leaning. It hasn't been since Deng Xiaoping took over in 1978 and more or less erased Communist ideology among the government and replaced it with lip service to Communist theory. The Chinese government has no Communist policies in place, nor even any socialist ones; it's a near-pure capitalist system with few regulations or limits on free enterprise and a fascist and unambiguously pro-business government.
China is even less socialist than the U.S. It doesn't have strong regulations against unsafe food and drugs, companies are generally free to pollute the air and water however they please, businesses can easily bribe government officials into failing to enforce the rule of law, and wealthy corporations and business interests are even more powerful in China than in the U.S.
It represents an improvement compared to the Mao era, of course, for numerous reasons, but that's not saying much.
While we should have seen this coming from 100 miles away, the strategy is now clear. In nearly EVERY instance over the last few days, the White House is simply refusing the respond to Congressional subpoenas. It doesn't much matter that the Democrats won the House when the Executive is essentially declaring they are a law unto themselves, accountable to no one. And, again, we are seeing there are no actual mechanisms in place to combat these tactics. It's only a matter of time before they start ignoring court orders as well. Out entire system of government is being dismantled piece by piece.
Trump is also now saying that if the House votes to impeach, he will take it to the Supreme Court, which is such a fundamentally laughable misunderstanding of how all this works that it would embarrass a freshman high school student, much less the President of the United States. Saying the House doesn't have that power is quite simply the DUMBEST take on how powers are separated imaginable.
Criminals don't get to resist arrest because the cops don't have their best interests at heart. If there was nothing to hide, no illegality, then why all the fuss from Trump?
Maybe the only reason he's avoided prosecution thus far is because he's the President, not because of lack of evidence.
Wtf not normal. We got a mAGa attorney general. Remember when Republicans investigated Benghazi 18 times and Obama directed people to not comply. Yeah no Republicans are lawless pieces of work who need to be voted out, every single one.
WILLIAM BARR DIRECTS DOJ OFFICIAL TO DEFY CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY ABOUT 2020 CENSUS
As I've been saying, there is hardly any reason at this point for the House chairs to issue subpoenas. Like everything else, it operated on norms, and Nancy Pelosi cannot just send people to arrest White House or Executive Branch staff who defy them. The Trump strategy on everything is now clear. No one is going to appear before Congress on anything. They won't answer questions, they'll just file lawsuits and run out the clock to 2020. As has been proven time and again the last 3 or 4 years, the only thing stopping this was that no one was brazen enough to think they could get away with it. Once McConnell stole the Supreme Court seat, it was off to the races. I believe when history is written that will be the turning point when things fell apart completely, never to be recovered. Because whatever the f**k is going on right now is not working. Not by a long shot.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has again defended arbitration, a devious legal trick that allows corporations to essentially block lawsuits in favor of company-controlled arbiters who consistently rule in favor of the company itself. Countless people have been denied their right to even have a chance to defend their interests against wealthy corporations because of these arbitration clauses, and this is just making it even easier to rob people without facing legal consequences.
I'm honestly not sure how someone could justify forced arbitration clauses when the Seventh Amendment explicitly says that folks have a right to trial by jury in civil cases concerning more than $20.
5-4 decision of course being the Republican activist judges who voted against common people in favor of corporations again. As these activist judges always seem to do.
Remember Gorsuch and the ice road trucker decision? Gorsuch was the judge who said that an ice road trucker experiencing hypothermia and passing out should have died before abandoning his corporations truck.
As I've been saying, there is hardly any reason at this point for the House chairs to issue subpoenas. Like everything else, it operated on norms, and Nancy Pelosi cannot just send people to arrest White House or Executive Branch staff who defy them. The Trump strategy on everything is now clear. No one is going to appear before Congress on anything. They won't answer questions, they'll just file lawsuits and run out the clock to 2020. As has been proven time and again the last 3 or 4 years, the only thing stopping this was that no one was brazen enough to think they could get away with it. Once McConnell stole the Supreme Court seat, it was off to the races. I believe when history is written that will be the turning point when things fell apart completely, never to be recovered. Because whatever the f**k is going on right now is not working. Not by a long shot.
White House won't let Stephen Miller testify on immigration to Congress either.
There's a full blown Constitutional crisis going on.
Question for everyone on this thread; shouldn't moderates be the majority? If that's the case, how can a two-party system possibly represent the majority???
Edit: Sorry, this is only a question for my fellow Americans. If others want to comment though, feel free (especially those in Parliamentary systems that I actually prefer!).
Most people tend towards being moderates within their speech communities over time, whether those are online, work, family etc. However the parameters of acceptable discussion within different communinities (The Overton Window) will vary, so someone who is a moderate at a socialist student rally and someone who is a moderate on a forum discussing WW2 history may be rather different. (By extension the views expressed and held by the same people can vary slightly according to the context & media of expression.) The issues are of course, also multiple, and we are more likely to act on beliefs which we hold strongly.
Biden finally announced that he's running for President joining 5900 other Democrats, one independent, and one Republican primary challenger (so far).
I've never seen so many candidates think that a first term President was so vulnerable and ripe to beat. Like when Obama was running there was a handful of GOP in the primary. After he couldn't run anymore then there was a bunch of GoP who ran and a few Dems but nothing like we are seeing now.
I wonder why they all see Trump as so weak and bearable. Could be the scandals, lies, and low polling.
Looking up Biden on OnTheIssues.org, he supports increasing teacher pay and hiring more teachers to improve the teacher-student ratio, supports funding for renewable energy, is okay with nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels but doesn't seem as enthused about it as I do, wants to remove tax cuts for the wealthy, and apparently has supported campaign finance reform as early as 1975, including public financing of elections.
I don't see much to disagree with. The only thing missing is full-throated support for a single-payer healthcare system instead of Obamacare.
Looking up Biden on OnTheIssues.org, he supports increasing teacher pay and hiring more teachers to improve the teacher-student ratio, supports funding for renewable energy, is okay with nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels but doesn't seem as enthused about it as I do, wants to remove tax cuts for the wealthy, and apparently has supported campaign finance reform as early as 1975, including public financing of elections.
I don't see much to disagree with. The only thing missing is full-throated support for a single-payer healthcare system instead of Obamacare.
I like Joe Biden personally, but he is a complete paper tiger in this race who is coasting on name recognition. He is the old Democratic Party, and the old Democratic Party isn't going to beat Trump. You can completely write-off most of the field before this even starts. There are only 5 contenders despite the completely absurd number of people jumping in. It's Biden, Sanders, Harris, Buttigieg, and Warren. No one else has a chance in hell of securing this thing. Warren is BY FAR the one working the hardest. Bernie still bothers me because he is MUCH less policy oriented than Warren and only SLIGHTLY more liberal, and I can't shake the overwhelming sense that 25% of his supporters will choose to burn it all to the ground if he doesn't win. Buttgieg is the current media darling, and Harris is doing actual leg-work in the South (which Bernie is likely ignoring for the second straight-time). The rest are in it for name recognition and to be a on a few debate stages. Tulsi Gabbard doesn't even have a campaign staff (which shows you how serious SHE thinks her campaign is). Biden is Biden. I don't want him in this race, but what are you gonna do......
I guess it's a good thing for this judge that the entire Republican Party has told us that obstruction of justice is completely meaningless 24/7 for the last week. Oh wait, it does matter??
I guess it's a good thing for this judge that the entire Republican Party has told us that obstruction of justice is completely meaningless 24/7 for the last week. Oh wait, it does matter??
Let's hope that this vigilante witch doesn't get a second chance. The next time she pulls a stunt like this an innocent may lose their life.
At least Trump and her will get to vote in prison. -Bernie Sanders
I thought I might mention the climate change protests in London by Extinction Rebellion. Those have just ended after 10 days or so (though as the group is newly formed and has no clear leadership structure, I wouldn't be surprised if some protests still continue). An interesting point about those was that a specific aim of the protests was to cause disruption to the general public. That's very unusual in the UK (unlike France for instance), where there's plenty of history of protest - but that's normally aimed at more specific targets. In this case the protesters obviously felt that there was a need for people generally, as well as politicians more specifically, to 'wake up' to the problems.
There was an interesting contrast between the tactics of this group and a recent visit by Greta Thunberg to the UK. She's a 16 year old Swedish school girl, who's had an amazing impact across Europe following her decision to skip school and go and picket the Swedish parliament to take more action on climate change. Her tactics are all about quiet reasoning, not noisy protests, and have clearly struck a chord with an awful lot of people (not just school children looking for any excuse to skip school ).
Edit: I just got around to watching the recent documentary from David Attenborough about climate change. I'm not sure if that's accessible outside the UK, but the link is here. There was nothing new in the documentary, but I was struck by the evidence on deforestation - when you see satellite images of the extent of that, it does help bring home the extent of the changes we're making without fully understanding the potential impacts of those (and Greta Thunberg features in that documentary). On the positive side, if Attenborough can still look so good just coming up to his 93rd birthday, there must be hope for all of us .
Comments
That's kind of my point. Context is important. We cannot import our understanding of the political spectrum and expect it to hold up when applied to another nation. China is a good example. There are clearly communist influences in China, but there are also clearly the hallmarks of far-right policies and philosophies at play.
It's also true of the Soviet Union.
Nations are made up of people. People are complex. So nations are complex.
However - I do still stand by the idea I think it's important that we understand how or why extremists are the way they are. Fundamentally, the reason for this is that almost every case of extremism that has been born in the world started from a group of people who werent yet all that extreme, and radicalized thereafter. If you know what to look for, you're (hopefully) more equipped to deal with them.
Look at the AFD in Germany. They're a far-right, nativist and populist party. They're kind of extreme, and because we know what happened the last time the far-right were in charge in Germany, really really bad things happened. If we pay attention, we can try to figure out if that's happening again or not.
Edit: Sorry, this is only a question for my fellow Americans. If others want to comment though, feel free (especially those in Parliamentary systems that I actually prefer!).
Never said they weren't. And that was basically my point, that these terrorist group that are quite similar claim that they are on opposing sides in some grand culture war. Even though they basically need each other to push more recruits into their ranks.
The way that can and I think should be done is by parties, whatever their political beliefs, aiming to govern for the good of the whole country (as opposed to just their own supporters). I agree with you that the majority of people are moderate, so parties that attempt to take account of their views will naturally be more moderate than those concerned only with their core support. That seems to me to be a recipe for more stable, as well as more moderate, government.
The way I see it. If you just sit on your ass and vote you are going to be disappointed. Like praying for a saviour, easy cop-out. That's the majority of people these days, bitch, moan, and complain that nothing is being done for them or they aren't getting enough. Bullshit. Take care of your self/own and those close to you that can't, make a better life for yourself in your own community and help each other. It doesn't matter who is President/Premier/Queen we are just serfs and expendable.
It doesn't. /micdrop
Unless you have a handful of issues, you will quickly fragment a party.
For example, major wedge issues include:
1. Taxation and government spending in general
2. Abortion rights
3. Gun control
4. Environmentalism
5. Worker's unions
6. LGBT rights
Just using T and F for support or oppose, you could have:
Liberal A is T, T, T, T, T, T
Liberal B is T, F, T, T, T, F
Liberal C is F, T, F, F, F, T
Liberal D is T, T, F, T, F, T
Liberal E is F, F, T, T, F, T
Etc.
It boils down in a two party system that rather than fragmenting into a bunch of parties that then form coalitions (I guess you could call it a party of parties), you instead get two parties where neither accurately represents any significant group, but are basically two nexii where coalitions would form.
For another analogy, it is rare that a person is defined by the average. An average has no physical basis, unlike a min, max, or median (something DEFINITELY makes up the top, bottom, and center of a group).
Nothing prevents an independent candidate from running and winning a seat in either house. It’s rare because American public is “trained” to vote in black and white and I bet, the next time you do go and vote, there will be more than just option A and option B on the ballot.
This also isn’t about attempting to pay the least amount of taxes possible. Everyone does that and I think that was part of Trump’s charm during the election. He was basically saying “I am the one percent, I know all the loopholes that people like me use to pay less taxes. Who better to close those loops holes than me,” but instead of closing it he ripped them open.
Seeing his taxes is all about looking for (or just getting evidence of, you really do not need to look) conflicts of interest, or foreign influence and then put pressure on him (by creating and passing legislation) that limits what he can do for or against those conflicts or influences, either by having further oversight on his actions or by making sure any corrupted gains are paid back to the government.
On a previous issue, China is most definitely not left-leaning. It hasn't been since Deng Xiaoping took over in 1978 and more or less erased Communist ideology among the government and replaced it with lip service to Communist theory. The Chinese government has no Communist policies in place, nor even any socialist ones; it's a near-pure capitalist system with few regulations or limits on free enterprise and a fascist and unambiguously pro-business government.
China is even less socialist than the U.S. It doesn't have strong regulations against unsafe food and drugs, companies are generally free to pollute the air and water however they please, businesses can easily bribe government officials into failing to enforce the rule of law, and wealthy corporations and business interests are even more powerful in China than in the U.S.
It represents an improvement compared to the Mao era, of course, for numerous reasons, but that's not saying much.
Trump is also now saying that if the House votes to impeach, he will take it to the Supreme Court, which is such a fundamentally laughable misunderstanding of how all this works that it would embarrass a freshman high school student, much less the President of the United States. Saying the House doesn't have that power is quite simply the DUMBEST take on how powers are separated imaginable.
Maybe the only reason he's avoided prosecution thus far is because he's the President, not because of lack of evidence.
WILLIAM BARR DIRECTS DOJ OFFICIAL TO DEFY CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY ABOUT 2020 CENSUS
https://www.newsweek.com/william-barr-doj-congressional-subpoena-1404879?amp=1
I'm honestly not sure how someone could justify forced arbitration clauses when the Seventh Amendment explicitly says that folks have a right to trial by jury in civil cases concerning more than $20.
Remember Gorsuch and the ice road trucker decision? Gorsuch was the judge who said that an ice road trucker experiencing hypothermia and passing out should have died before abandoning his corporations truck.
White House won't let Stephen Miller testify on immigration to Congress either.
There's a full blown Constitutional crisis going on.
Looks like these people just pulled a "Smollett".
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/bermax-winnipeg-antisemitic-arrest-1.5109224
Most people tend towards being moderates within their speech communities over time, whether those are online, work, family etc. However the parameters of acceptable discussion within different communinities (The Overton Window) will vary, so someone who is a moderate at a socialist student rally and someone who is a moderate on a forum discussing WW2 history may be rather different. (By extension the views expressed and held by the same people can vary slightly according to the context & media of expression.) The issues are of course, also multiple, and we are more likely to act on beliefs which we hold strongly.
I've never seen so many candidates think that a first term President was so vulnerable and ripe to beat. Like when Obama was running there was a handful of GOP in the primary. After he couldn't run anymore then there was a bunch of GoP who ran and a few Dems but nothing like we are seeing now.
I wonder why they all see Trump as so weak and bearable. Could be the scandals, lies, and low polling.
I don't see much to disagree with. The only thing missing is full-throated support for a single-payer healthcare system instead of Obamacare.
But...
He's a hugger. Gotta watch out for those guys!
Ay Caramba!!!
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/25/us/massachusetts-judge-indicted/index.html
I guess it's a good thing for this judge that the entire Republican Party has told us that obstruction of justice is completely meaningless 24/7 for the last week. Oh wait, it does matter??
Let's hope that this vigilante witch doesn't get a second chance. The next time she pulls a stunt like this an innocent may lose their life.
At least Trump and her will get to vote in prison. -Bernie Sanders
There was an interesting contrast between the tactics of this group and a recent visit by Greta Thunberg to the UK. She's a 16 year old Swedish school girl, who's had an amazing impact across Europe following her decision to skip school and go and picket the Swedish parliament to take more action on climate change. Her tactics are all about quiet reasoning, not noisy protests, and have clearly struck a chord with an awful lot of people (not just school children looking for any excuse to skip school
Edit: I just got around to watching the recent documentary from David Attenborough about climate change. I'm not sure if that's accessible outside the UK, but the link is here. There was nothing new in the documentary, but I was struck by the evidence on deforestation - when you see satellite images of the extent of that, it does help bring home the extent of the changes we're making without fully understanding the potential impacts of those (and Greta Thunberg features in that documentary). On the positive side, if Attenborough can still look so good just coming up to his 93rd birthday, there must be hope for all of us
I've been saying that Facebook is a Data mining trojan for years.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/privacy-watchdog-cambridge-analytica-facebook-1.5110304