turningrite

No, actually it's incumbent on you to reference the post(s) to which you were/are objecting. I started this topic, after all, so when objecting to your statement ( "Hahahaha. Doesn't take much for the meltdown to begin! Hahahaha) I had every reason to believe you were/are denigrating the content or nature of the entire discussion, including my contributions. The etiquette on this site, reasonably and logically, assumes that where a post doesn't quote or cite a specific post or comment it's essentially responding to the initial post and/or topic. There's a tendency among many on this site to post interjections and truncated critiques, which in my opinion isn't conducive to constructive debate. Perhaps your little meltdown is now under control? I hope so.

I suspect that what we'll hear will be little short of a horror story. I believe the Auditor General has already determined that the actual budget deficit is $11B+ - far higher than the Wynne government admitted to - and I doubt the situation has improved in the few weeks since the election. I'm a bit skeptical of the need for a special inquiry into the province's finances when the AG has demonstrated competence, independence and transparency. But if it's necessary to shock the province's residents into acknowledging that big program changes and cutbacks have to start immediately, perhaps the price paid for the inquiry might be worth it. Ontario is truly broke.

I believe that Trudeau is beholden to the globalist agenda although I suspect he doesn't understand the degree to which he's simply a front man. I think the big problem with all politicians, whether intelligent or otherwise, is that they pay little attention to the real impacts of their actions and policies on ordinary people.

1.) You're going there? Really? I'm simply saying that most in his base, like most Americans, are legendarily ill-informed about matters beyond their country's borders. It's a general observation made by many notable commentators over the years. 2.) Is Trump really standing up for Americans when he blames them for America's poor relationship with Russia and castigates his own government's intelligence community for conducting a witch hunt concerning Russian meddling in U.S. politics? (Clue: He's really plugging for his own interests and trying to dispel any impression that his election victory was in any way illegitimate.) But back to the Helsinki disaster: What did one major British publication call him in a blaring headline today? Oh yes, "Putin's Poodle." Standing up for America for sure. Get real. 3.) Unemployment had reached a record low in the wake of the policies implemented by the previous administration. Now, with Trump in power, the stock market performance for which he once took credit has wobbled and many economists are predicting an economic downturn. I read a recent piece by the economist Paul Krugman who noted that Trump's tariff policies are irrational and ill-advised. Oh well, as long as the base is happy that's all that matters, I guess. 4.) If you read my posts on this site you'd understand that I utterly deplore strongman politics. In Canada, I think majority governments are the handiwork of the devil. I am by nature a libertarian, something I picked up from my well-educated, libertarian, American mother.

Others have explained in detail why the arguments for religious freedom often have little or nothing to do with actual freedom. The point is that nobody should have the option of being able to impose their religious ideology on others, including family members, against their own preferences and/or beliefs. Ultimately, secularism is the only model that sustains actual freedom.

I think you've lost the thread of the debate here.

I think you're responding to the wrong post here. In any case what I read before responding to you earlier was your accusation that others (with whom you apparently disagree) are having a meltdown. That's kind of judgmental on your part, don't you think? Fair comment on my part, I think.

No, I'm fascinated by the whole Trump thing in the same way some people are fascinated at watching train wrecks or airplane crashes. I don't think Trump has a consistent philosophy and I believe much of his recent foreign policy and trade bluster amounts to smoke and mirrors intended to obscure some of his bigger domestic political challenges. Trump scores points, especially with his base, when he hammers on foreign governments even though a lot of those who support this have no idea about the underlying facts and/or the implications relating to his policies and pronouncements. "He's just being strong" is the predominant reaction among this group. It'll be interesting to see how long he can stay on this channel, though, as he tends to have a short attention span.

Have you calmed down yet?

1.) LOL. Dream on.... 2.) I don't think you understand the concept of prevention of harm. We often require people to do some things or not do some things because the law intends to protect people from harm. If a single person might be harmed by being forced into adherence to a dogmatic religious ideology, surely banning any practice that would appear to encourage or sustain such an outcome is justifiable in a free and democratic society. This in fact of the basis of the continental European idea of secularism. In our society, freedoms of speech and expression are not absolute. Nor should freedom of religion be.

So, you didn't read or watch the U.S. media coverage of the Helsinki fiasco, right? Nor apparently have you considered in its entirety the context, content or implications of Trump's commentary, which was stunning on the face of it, particularly where he blatantly contradicted U.S. government security assessments and decades of official policy. To describe the subsequent reaction among American media sources as gobsmacked is an understatement. But you seem oblivious to the entire reaction, preferring your own personal interpretation. Ignorance is bliss, for some, I guess.

You raise some valid concerns. The woman I reference in my post, with whom I did volunteer work a couple decades ago, adamantly opposed the notion that wearing the hijab and/or niqab has anything to do with "religious freedom" in the Western meaning of that term. She likened it, instead, to a freedom to oppress or to be subjected to oppression. I thought of this a few years ago while sitting near a group of hijab-wearing high school girls in a restaurant where one removed her hijab while her mates shrieked in unison, a couple of them noting that their parents would surely punish them if they became aware of any such public behavior. Is that real freedom?

1.) Is it really? 2.) Huh? That's the best you can do? In many ways, the hijab represents a repressive ideology. I recall a woman who escaped the religious regime in Iran expressing this very sentiment to me. I guess we can all agree that it's bad to force people to accede to such beliefs and practices but is "forcing" them not to comply with such beliefs and practices really as bad? To me, it seems a false equivalency.

I believe the American Conservative site falls into the partisan press rather than mainstream category. In any case, its assessment is remarkably constrained, noting that "With his remarks in Helsinki and at the NATO summit in Brussels, Trump has signaled a historic shift in U.S. foreign policy that may determine the future of this nation and the fate of his presidency." In other words, the eventual impact of his approach can't at this time be determined. Remarkably, as has been pointed out repeatedly since yesterday, Trump's foreign/security policy is an almost complete break from the Reagan Doctrine, which is ironic given that Trump channeled Reagan's memory when running for election. Many Americans, and particularly those of Republican persuasion, seem to believe the world order built following WWII was somehow foisted on them by foreigners whereas the more accurate interpretation is that it's a structure of their own making. Self-delusion seems a weak basis upon which to justify a major power's foreign policy. As for NATO being obsolete, I tend to agree with you. As I asked in another topic I recently started, does Trump's behavior make it necessary to disband NATO? I'd have to go back and re-read your posts as I haven't been on this site for a few days, but I don't recall you supporting my position that NATO's time has come and gone. The U.S. can, and likely will, retreat into its historical international isolationism. Its importance will inevitably decline further in relation to the broader world. Maybe that won't be such a bad thing, right? With Trump in charge, many in the rest of the world will no doubt want to wear MAGA caps, but the meaning will be Make America Go Away!!!

You're being disingenuous here, of course. The point is that the criticism was so universal as to sustain my original position that Trump's meeting in Helsinki constituted a debacle. Can you point to any mainstream U.S. media coverage complimentary of Trump's behavior yesterday? I haven't yet found it.

It's an odd argument to make because it applies only to the interaction of some groups with peoples of European extraction. But what about all the oppression by and toward others that's characterized human history? Discrimination, slavery and other depredation have characterized collective human interaction since the beginning of time. What can fairly be said is that the mainly European-derived Western countries, and particularly those that have integrated large numbers of immigrants, have been among the most prominent in promoting diversity (in the non-political sense of that term) and tolerance. Even in their treatment of indigenous peoples, places like Canada and Australia acknowledge past problems and mistakes while trying to find productive ways to move forward. And where else but in the West has the LGBT population found general acceptance and inclusion? We in the West like to castigate ourselves for our supposedly insufferable intolerance but I think this amounts in many cases to genuflecting to politically correct dogma.

Maybe you'd be happier living on Mars?

I'm referencing the U.S. news coverage over the past 24 hours, where descriptions like "disaster", "capitulation" and even "treason" have been commonplace. Trump's Helsinki performance has even been panned on Fox News. The breadth of the negative coverage suggests a pretty resounding condemnation, if you ask me.

1.) As Christiane Amanpour noted during an appearance on a CNN panel last week, after the collapse of the Berlin Wall the Europeans sought to extricate themselves from the embrace of the American security model only to see the U.S. strenuously argue for its maintenance. So, which side needed the other more? I suspect few outside of the former Soviet client states that eventually joined NATO are begging the U.S. to remain. Western democracy will survive even if American democracy does not. 2.) The U.S. is the same as it ever was... well, until it ceases to be. Undermining a free press, as Trump seems anxious to do, along with obliterating the independence of the judiciary, as the U.S. has inexorably been doing in recent decades, could well have permanent consequences. Trump's base seems to long for a "strongman" leader, but the history of such leadership elsewhere suggests this can only undermine American democracy. The "founders" of the U.S. constitution, who believed the country should never have a monarch (nor presumably, an equivalent - a dictator) and developed a governance model grounded in the division of powers and strong checks and balances, would no doubt be appalled by recent developments. 3.) I didn't raise Brexit, so I'm not sure sure why you're referencing it? But it's now it's believed that the Brexit result, which was decided by a relatively thin margin, may have been influenced by foreign meddling.

It's not really an effective debating strategy to hold that because you think others are exaggerating their case you too can do so. According to polling, two-thirds of Ontarians (and probably an equal proportion of Canadians in general) agree with Ford's position on this issue. Obviously, a great many of these people are not Conservative partisans. And Canadians have never been afforded much say about immigration and refugee policy as the political compact (sometimes referred to as a "consensus") in Ottawa has largely precluded public debate. But when a specific policy is so clearly wrongheaded as is the current approach to the migrant problem, is it really wise to denigrate those who oppose your position? What you really appear to be saying is that Canadians can go f*** themselves, right? This appears to have been the consensus position among our federal politicians on immigration for quite some time. But once the pandora's box that is immigration and refugee policy is opened, can it be shut? Progressives have walked right into this with their eyes closed.

The big risk for the Americans is that the "free world" might very well figure out that it can survive without the the U..S., which would indeed constitute a new world order. I was watching a debate on CNN the other night (well before the Helsinki fiasco) where a former U.S. government security analyst noted that the U.S. is beginning to tick off several boxes its own security apparatus use to determine whether a country is starting to fail. When listening to Trump on U.S. news coverage yesterday evening I couldn't stop thinking about that security analyst's assessment. Already among the least "free" among Western democracies, is the U.S. actually slipping into outright autocracy?

Even some Trumpistas are upset with their man after yesterday's ignominious show in the Finnish capital. Now that the Russians are the good guys and Canadians, Brits and Europeans are the baddies, is a New World Order upon us? Trump does love dictators, apparently. What does the Helsinki debacle portend for America's place as the defender of, well, despotism and autocracy? Can America as we've known it survive Trump?

I think it's actually worse than that. I think he's a "useful idiot" for the globalist movement. According to Wikipedia, a useful idiot is defined as "a propagandist for a cause of whose goals they are not fully aware and who is used cynically by the leaders of the cause." I believe he probably thought the PM role would be an easy gig but is coming to realize that the real world is a complicated place - more complicated by far than he can fathom. He'll never be ready to be a real leader.

Many would argue that we've pursued policies of extreme economic and cultural integration without getting much benefit. I agree that militarily Canada simply can't defend itself against its only realistic opponent, the U.S., so, what else can be done? Trump's approach seems to be to tell us we must simply follow his orders.

You're on a slippery slope on this. Is it not the right of any Canadian to question or criticize any government policy? You seem to believe that unquestioning fealty to the sitting Liberal government is the only acceptable position. Further, most of those crossing illegally (yes, it's illegal to cross anywhere but at an authorized entry point, as the signs along the border point out) from the U.S. into Canada are simply migrants. They can't file refugee claims here until they're on Canadian soil at which point they become refugee claimants rather than refugees. The most recent flows seem to be dominated by migrants from countries that are not today war torn. Finally, as some lawyers have noted, Canada doesn't have a legal obligation to guarantee those crossing from the U.S. asylum as applicable international law requires such migrants to claim refugee status in the first safe country they reach (see article at link below). The fact that the U.S. system is more stringent than ours doesn't render it illegitimate. Our laws and processes are at present more permissive and lenient than international law requires. Maybe the current situation should be taken as a lesson on why we must change our system. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/trudeau-is-exaggerating-what-international-refugee-law-compels-canada-to-do