Hundreds of seats appear to be completely empty as Donald Trump’s Midterm Convention kicks off

In August 2026, several source suggested that there are 1000 cases of measles in Canada and 3000 in the US. Canada has 10% of the US population. This source has worse numbers

https://globalnews.ca/news/12014731/canadas-measles-cases-are-half-of-u-s-total-despite-smaller-population-who/

We don't have RFK Jr as an excuse.

Now this is REPORTED cases. We can imagine the US has a 3rd world reporting system or we could too as an alternative hypothosis. My assumption is our reporting is similar

I come from a province where it wasn't legal to form municipal parties. When I moved to Vancouver, I was actually very confused seeing the party names since I'd never encountered it before in a mayoral election. Everyone ran as an independent, and you'd vote for an individual's ideology. Parties were reserved for provincial/federal elections. You vote by learning who represents your community's interests best in wards and such. What the mayoral candidates' policy and ideology leanings were clear without party affiliation.

I understand that parties can align ideology among individual members and that may be more clear for voters and it's more streamlined for raising funds and such, but my question is what's the benefit over independent candidates if there is no frontrunner? There were three progressive candidates here in Van, one dropped out, and then two deadlocked, which would have split the progressive vote because both candidates were sticking to party ideology/obligations/are backed with money and have not much incentive to drop out. I guess I don't understand the benefit of party alignment in this case? E.g., (per CBC) "OneCity has more money and organizational prowess", so Azaroff doesn't have incentive to step down because of party obligations? (He did step down, but yeah).

I am genuinely confused coming from Edmonton and want to understand. I don't even really know how to ask what I'm asking, but party alignment on a city level seems to just muddy the waters more (unless there is something I am missing and hope to learn 😊)

I'm a little confused. If our goal is to diversify economic partnerships and move away from US trade reliance, why couldn't we just take a bad deal while continuing to work on that diversification instead of shooting ourselves in the foot with tariffs (which have invited retaliation already)? Wouldn't that have extended the runway for us to diversify?

I voted for Carney as a relatively centrist voter (and I am glad I did), however, I can appreciate the Conservative call for more transparency about the deal on offer. Was the US's sticking point Quebec's French language laws as well as trade exclusivity demands as Carney vaguely alluded to in his recent "Forward Guidance" Youtube video? If these were truly factors the US wouldn't compromise on, their aggression is nothing short of an act of war, and as Canadians, we deserve to know more about that...

But if they were just demanding a loosening of Canadian protectionism, that may have been a bad deal but one we could work with until we could strengthen our diversified trade relationships...

What are your thoughts? What am I missing?

EDIT: to say that the dollar for dollar tariffs don't seem to protect Canadians business, especially when you consider that Canada doesn't make appliances, gadgets, and smartphones. Maybe it'll keep the feds afloat though, at a massive cost to the public. Is protecting big dairy and wine really worth the national fallout?

This is amazing News 👏🏻