Leaderboard

You"ve also said all terrorists are just mentally ill people (which is insulting to people who struggle with mental illness) and that they have no religious motivation, that terrorism is because of Western influences (which may have some truth, but unlikely to be the only cause, is insulting to all the rest of the world, like we deserve to be bombed and killed indiscriminately. And it's insulting to anyone who was truly bullied in their life and didn't choose to bomb and kill innocent people.) When pushed, yes, you will condemn terrorism while still making excuses for it. You regularly deride, insult, reword posts to the point of ridiculousness and namecall anyone here who dares to suggest there may be a problem in Islam or with misogyny. Barbaric cultural practices practiced mostly by Muslims are excused because a minority of christians living in those Muslim countries also do it and besides, "they'll figure it out eventually." In the meantime, people are dying. Muslim needs, wants, perferences and demands are always what is most important to you, f**ck everyone else. That's my take on it.

I'm skeptical of the kind of consultation usually conducted by mainstream parties. As you might recall, Trudeau's government went through such an exercise when first elected mainly to justify a policy approach on immigration that it had long intended to follow. The Lib consultation was risible. I gave up on it after having to endure the introductory propaganda and I believe that relatively few people actually participated. Trends in recent polling on the kinds of concerns Bernier has raised seem pretty clear. Many Canadians feel we can't economically and/or socially adequately absorb the sheer volume of immigrants/migrants now coming into the country. Many voters are concerned about the deterioration in the quality of life, particularly in big cities where transit and health care infrastructure as well as the availability of reasonably affordable housing simply haven't kept pace with the rapid and constant influx of newcomers. Were the newcomers being spread evenly across the country, perhaps these concerns wouldn't be as acute, but that's not happening. Successive governments have botched immigration policy by not considering and responding to its broader impacts. I think a lot of Canadians believe, in effect, that we need breathing room to catch up to this. It's not rocket science.

The left and right have no logic to what they support and don't support... it's not consistent for either group.

I think Canada's politics are dynamic enough that it's hard to predict, and not useful to simply resign to the idea that the right vote will be split and that otherwise things will remain the same. The Liberals went from the dominant party to a distant 3rd and then back to power in the span of a decade. The decades-long BQ dominance in Quebec disappeared in a single election. Reform went from 1 seat to 52 in 1993, and was gone 7 years later. Unlike Canada's neighbor to the South where politics is static and all depends on tiny 1-2% variances between the two established parties, Canadian parties come and go rapidly, and their fortunes can change greatly from one election to the next. In France, a new party formed in 2016 won the 2017 election. The same can happen in Canada. It just depends on if the party and its leader resonates with voters or not.

What we can take from history: When Conservatives divided: 1993: Liberal majority 1997: Liberal majority 2000: Liberal Majority When Conservatives united: 2004: Liberal minority 2006: Conservative minority 2008: Conservative minority 2011: Conservative majority Divided there is no chance of forming a gov't.

There's speculation today that Maxime Bernier could start a new political movement or party. If he does, at least some topics, including immigration and refugee policy, will become matters of public debate, thus breaking the consensus imposed by the current tri-party cabal in Ottawa. I think it's time for fresh air, and it's long overdue that public attitudes and concerns be considered regarding contentious matters. At the very least, a new political movement, should it draw considerable support, could pull other parties in the direction of reflecting broadly-held views in this country. Trudeau, you might just have real competition to contend with! https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-maxime-bernier-to-make-announcement-ahead-of-conservative-convention/

This issue is pretty clear cut for a soldier and other service members I've talked to. I don't know why it is so difficult to understand, the conflict in ideologies of the west and fundamental Islam. They are WILLING TO DIE for their belief. There is no point in reasoning with someone when they've made it their decision to blow themselves up for their cause.

Mollie Tibbetts would be alive today if America enforced federal immigration law.

I read the article when it appeared on the CBC site a while back. Interestingly, it contains information about the average cost of providing health care to seniors in this country, which is pegged at $12K per capita annually. Extrapolating the health care burden associated with Trudeau's immigrant grannies and grandpas isn't that difficult. An immigrant who enters Canada at 65 and lives to 85 will on average cost taxpayers almost a quarter million dollars, not adjusting for inflation of course. Not a bad deal if you haven't paid a cent in taxes into the system during your working years, right? Assuming 20 years of longevity in this country per senior immigrant, Trudeau's yearly influx of 20,000 seniors will generate an additional unfunded liability of $5 billion for each annual cohort, again, not adjusting for inflation, and if this level is sustained for a decade will generate a $50 billion unfunded liability, not adjusting for inflation. As our health care system has deteriorated significantly over the past couple decades, we have to wonder whether this is sustainable. Can we afford Trudeaunomics (i.e. unlimited taxpayer money for Lib votes) or will it drive us collectively to the poorhouse?

My take on Bernier is that his feelings were hurt that the party did not elect him, so he decided to blow it up on his way out the door. He ignores the fact that Sheer won. What does that make Max? A LOSER. Now he will appeal to his base and share the electoral wilderness with the NDP and all the other Losers. He is not just a loser, he is stupid. He left secret cabinet documents in the house of a Hells Angel's girlfriend. He ignores the science of climate change. His idea of fighting the trade war imposed on us by Trump is to whimper, "we surrender." As James Moore pointed out, Max would give away supply management and get nothing in return. Elections are won by winning the centre, red tories and blue liberals. Parties which are contenders form policies based on what analysis tells them the voters want, whether it is energy, trade or immigration. Go off on some idiotic ideological tangent and you face disaster. Do what the voters want. Its what we call democracy. Max is an idiot.

Meh. Everyone who doesn't wave pom poms for Islam and make excuses for terrorists is a liar to you.

My take on the "morally corrupt" comment is that it likely reflects Bernier's frustration with the CPC's tendency to practice the same kind of identity and interest group politics the other two mainstream parties do. The biggest clue to this is his criticism that if Scheer becomes PM we'll just get a slightly improved version of the current government, or Trudeau-lite, as some might have it. Bernier obviously believes we need to do politics differently and that a majority or populist view needs to be applied to policy development. I think a lot of Canadians likely agree with him. At least a couple delegates indicated yesterday they were receptive to Bernier's message when being interviewed on news coverage of the CPC's Halifax convention. I suspect that sentiment is even more widely shared among grassroots Conservative supporters. As Toronto Star columnist Tim Harper noted in his column today, Bernier's appeal shouldn't be underestimated. Personally, I think that if he's serious about promoting a populist agenda, Bernier may well have the field to himself. If populist sentiment appeals to, say, 35 to 40 percent of eligible voters and the other three parties are competing for the remaining 60 to 65 percent, Bernier might truly shake up Canadian politics.

I don't want to see us divided. In the end, we have to seriously consider what will be best for the party, otherwise we'll be having a succession of Liberal government in our future.

The main claim of the left is its desire to help the poor. The dairy cartel benefits farmers at the expense of poor consumers. I don't see how any principled leftist can support the dairy cartel. Free trade helps poor Canadian consumers and poor foreign workers. How can the principled left oppose free trade? The left generally supports more open immigration to help the poor, but how does spending millions of poor working-class people's hard-earned taxes help the poor? Now let's say Bernier made it easier for a foreign national to visit, study, work, or do business in Canada but more difficult for that person to collect social assistance in Canada, that would still present the argument of giving poor foreigners more opportunities without burdening poor Canadians so much, and so helping the poor all around. I think if he adapts his policies to show Canadians how these policies can benefit the world's poor, he might stand a chance to win over at least some moderate left voters.

As strange as it might seem, a principled conservative, a principled liberal, and a principled socialist will share far more in common with one another than with the unprincipled of any stripe. To take supply management as an example. A conservative would oppose it because of its conflict with the free market. A liberal would oppose it for the same reason and the fact that it hurts the poor. A socialist would oppose it because it hurts the poor. So that says a lot about the parties that defend it.

Bernier should have bided his time and challenged Scheer after an election defeat. He seems unaware how far from the centre of Canadian politics his ideas are. He almost sounds like Rand Paul.

I'm unaware of any disunity in Japan. The disunity in Scandinavia definitely has 100% to do with immigration. Not sure which Asian country you're referring to. AFAIK all disunity is because of different ethnicities and religious groups in the same country.

His halting English? He makes Harper seem charismatic?

Against the carbon tax: http://www.maximebernier.com/unleashing_canada_s_potential

My tribe is non-hyphenated Canadians. Wait a sec, there’s a hyphen, and the word hyphen in that. Now what?

And once again , you missed the entire point of what I said and decided to refute something that wasn't my argument. This is a very bad habit of your's, both with myself and others. My argument was not that "No Muslims have ever condemned terrorism." My argument was that they will have trouble refuting terrorist ideology using the Koran because the Koran contains the very commands that terrorists are following. Slow clap at the excellent attempt to detract and paint me falsely, though

Again, there is no command in the Bible's New Testament to kill, dominate or subjugate the rest of the world. It is very easy for Christians to condemn the actions of violent people who use the Bible to support a violent agenda, because there is no command to do so. Violent Christians are acting completely contrary to the Bible's instructions. No so with the Koran. Extremists have actual commands that they are following. It's right there. No one can argue the commands are are not there. So Muslims will have trouble refuting extremist ideology, as they are really the only ones doing Allah's full will. I suspect this is why most Muslims have little to say about Islamic extremists and have little interest in removing extremist imams and literature from their schools and mosques. They don't have a leg to stand on.

Bernier's position on supply management/trade, immigration is compatible with mine. I'm interested.

Sponsorship doesn't matter because the sponsors are not responsible for health care costs. But yes, we're talking about elderly people being sponsored by their immigrant children here in Canada.

I don't know why you're citing an American source for this? The Canadian government's site for newcomers states: "If you are a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, you may apply for public health insurance. With it, you don’t have to pay for most health-care services." The only restriction that can be applied, as is done in some provinces, is the imposition of a three month waiting period for eligibility. As sponsored landed immigrants are by definition permanent residents, most qualify from the outset, or near outset, for the same coverage that's available to Canadian citizens. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/new-immigrants/new-life-canada/health-care-card.html

Sponsorship doesn't pertain to health care costs. I believe that for sponsored landed immigrants, health care costs are borne from Day 1 by taxpayers. This should be changed, of course, and sponsors should be required to purchase health insurance to cover their relatives during the sponsorship period (which I believe for sponsored seniors is generally 10 years) but as immigration is now a vote buying scheme don't expect this to happen anytime soon. By the way, the Canadian Medical Association has calculated current per capita annual health care costs for seniors as amounting to roughly $12K (see link), so if an average senior arrives in this country at 65 and lives to 85, it's reasonable to assume their health care needs will cost taxpayers almost a cool quarter-million bucks, not counting for inflation. Not a bad deal in return for paying, well, nothing into the system, eh? For Canadian seniors who toiled and paid high taxes for decades only to endure an increasingly terrible health care system in their old age it's a real bummer. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senior-health-care-federal-1.4749684

Leftists generally display a poor grasp of economics. Where large refugee flows and high immigration levels do "help" the economy, this is a function of the impact of new entrants into labor markets, which suppresses wages, and into the broader marketplace where they bid of up the price of goods and services, including housing, that are in short supply. In other words, it's a boon for capital but lowers living standards for many, particularly for those who lack economic resources and stability in the first place, and exacerbates economic inequality. The respected British economist, Sir Paul Collier, has discussed the negative implications of large-scale migration in developed economies, but you won't hear people like Trudeau discuss anything but rainbows and unicorns.

The problem is that openness and democracy are not very satisfying to people of wealth and power. Push and they will shove, especially if we try to fuck with the money...mark my words.

As with science, The Quran is not open to expert opinion. It says exactly what it says as the immutable word of Allah. I'll trust Allah over your biased video.