Isn't match already such a unified expression? Especially once you extend matches with guards, it seems to me like this is a solved problem. E.g.,

if x == 1.0 then "a" else "x"

is

match x with | 1.0 -> "a" | _ -> "b"

and

if x ==
  1.0 then "a"
  2.0 then "b"
      else "z"

is (and IMO reads much clearer this way):

match x with
| 1.0 -> "a"
| 2.0 -> "b"
| _ -> "z"

and

if xs
  .isEmpty then "e"
  .contains(0,0) then "n"
  else "z"

is

match () with
| _ when x.isEmpty -> "e"
| _ when x.contains(0,0) then "n"
| _ -> "z"

and

if person
  .age < 18                 then 18
  is Person("Alice", _)     then person.age
  is Person("Bob", let age) then age
                            else -1

is

match person with
| _ when person.age < 10 -> 18
| Person("Alice", _) -> person.age
| Person("bob", age) -> age
| _ -> -1

.

Finally,

if person is Person("Alice", let age) then age else -1

Would be the simple

match person with
| Person("Alice", age) -> age
| _ -> -1

Seems to me this reads more clear in general and has less magic. Plus, it's already implemented in a bunch of languages.

part of the psyop is to claim a large or majority view, then push the view, normalize it, get even the opposition to validate it and respond to it.

I am completely opposed to U.S. imperialism, but it's important to note that Puerto Rican's are U.S. citizens.

The person you are replying to is an anti immigration advocate. It’s all they talk about and they’re only point in any issue.

How legal is this kind of activity? Do we not have regulations against CPAC-like activity?

Ah, true. Reading https://liberal.ca/cstrong/build/ I don't see anything that says these affordable units will be kept off the market, or that ensures they will be rented at affordable rates.

I also think land taxes seem promising, and taxes on uninhabited excess square footage, that are earmarked exclusively for building high quality public housing.

I agree that such tax reform (and other regulatory measures) is really needed.

But, if the units are purpose built for affordable housing (as proposed federally in https://liberal.ca/housing-plan/ , for instance), this should at least not fall into the investor problem, no?

IMO one of the really critical takeaways of this historical survey given the current climate is this: The claim that immigration has caused the crises is completely B.S. With the dynamics in place to drive the crises, increasing population can exacerbate the problem on the margins, but population growth didn't cause the problem and deportations won't fix it.

We need systemic fixes, like public development of purpose built affordable housing and regulation to prevent finalization of the human right to housing.

Worth noting that https://smartvoting.ca/ projects a better outcome for greens, NDP, and libs using strategic voting. But I respect your view, and in general I agree that a minority lib government in coalition with the NDP would be preferable. But with what is at stake, it just seems like too big a risk IMO to not be really clearly working the levers of power that are available to progressives.

I would also really encourage us to not spread complacency and an assumption that the polling will foretell outcomes. Polling in the current climate has proven to be really iffy (see https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-polls-were-mostly-wrong/). Demographic shifts, new media and habits, and generally instability make this stuff really unpredictable. We should vote like our country depends on it.

You don't have to be a "fan of the established order of capitalism" to see that moving towards authoritarian hyper-nationalism, destroying international trade relations, and tanking the economy to consolidate power for oligarchs is bad.