I am Groot

I get that you guys over there on the Left hate it when anyone points out the realities of life, but what I'm not a fan of is tokenism, paternalism, and virtue signaling. I'm also very much not a fan of equity (as opposed to equality). And as a guy who invests heavily in the stock market, I'm not a fan of a company that deliberately chooses to alienate large portions of its potential audience just to give the finger to conservative Americans.

Trudeau's DEI obsession has spread to the military and is helping destroy it - along with his budget cuts. Turns out, open hostility to white men isn't great for military recruitment Identity-driven policies and rhetoric only serve to alienate the military's biggest pool of recruits Like every army ever, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) have always been predominantly male. And, as a country with a majority of the population being of European descent, its members have been predominantly white. These facts should be uncontroversial. But unlike every army ever, the CAF is using the identities of its historic membership to promote an ethos of guilt and shame within the institution. This isn’t fixing the present recruitment crisis and it’s doubtful that it ever will — but this approach has the firm support of scholarly military voices, the latest example coming to us from Paul Mitchell, a defence studies professor at the Canadian Forces College. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamie-sarkonak-turns-out-open-hostility-to-white-men-isnt-great-for-military-recruitment

In this case it DID use to be better. How is this country better today with 40 million people than it was in 1967 with 20 million?

The bill the Republicans rejected at Trump's instigation would have given the US government the legal authority to do just that.

We accept 78% of those who claim asylum. You'd have to be the most naive person in the world to believe these people are all legitimate refugees. Especially when there's such huge traffic back and forth to their home countries from these 'new Canadians'. What really pisses you off is that I'm smart and you've always resented those who are smart. One of the reasons why so many people are accepted is because the Trudeau government has broadened the definition of what constitutes a refugee. When we signed the original treaty a refugee was someone fleeing persecution due to race, religion, ethnicity, or political views. We now accept refugees because they claim they're gay or trans (we have no way to challenge that and don't), or that as a woman, they face discrimination, or that there are wars and crime and violence in their homeland. This is very nice of us but it basically gives virtually everyone in the world outside Europe a valid claim for asylum. Last year, 60k refugee applicants were accepted by the US and 75k to the UK as opposed to 120k in Canada. Germany got the most refugee applicants in the EU with 37k last year. Canada got 157k.

Trump used Covid as an excuse to close the border. And even that was challenged and heading for the supreme court when Biden tossed it out. In November 2018, as reports circulated about a “caravan” of migrants from Central America making their way through Mexico en route to the U.S. border, Trump issued a proclamation barring the entry of migrants unless they entered at ports of entry. The same day, the administration issued new regulations making those who entered the U.S. illegally between ports of entry ineligible for asylum. Trump’s proclamation largely relied on Section 212(f) of the INA, the same section cited by Johnson in his social media post arguing that Biden already had the authority to “close” the southern border. The courts, however, blocked Trump’s effort. A federal District Court judge in California temporarily halted Trump’s effort, after concluding that barring migrants who enter outside of designated ports of entry from seeking asylum violated federal immigration law, international law and “the expressed intent of Congress.” “Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” the judge wrote. In a 2-1 decision in December 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals denied the Trump administration’s emergency motion for a stay of the District Court’s order. The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, but its motion to stay the District Court ruling blocking enforcement of the policy was denied. “The President does not have the authority to close the border under 212(f),” Denise Gilman, co-director of the Immigration Clinic and law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, told us via email. “That legal provision provides for a bar on the entry of certain individuals or specific categories of persons. It does not allow for closure of the border and wholesale exclusion of all arrivals at the border.” Provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act “make very clear that all persons arriving at the border or entering the United States, without regard to status, must be processed for asylum if they indicate a fear of return to their home countries,” Gilman said. “These provisions cannot simply be trumped by 212(f). Under current law, they must be given effect and asylum seekers must be able to present their claims.” https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/unraveling-misinformation-about-bipartisan-immigration-bill/

It would not have been had the system been sane. Yes, but Mexico is a safe country. Literally millions of Canadian tourists visit there, as do millions of other foreign tourists. But we're talking about refugee applicants, you silly twat. You are actually comparing rejecting asylum applicants at the border with machinegunning them? By the way, the East Germans shot people trying to escape, not enter their country. Lots of countries refuse refugees, even legitimate ones. I'm talking about refusing the illegitimate ones.

We're Canadians but our entire creation story is closely tied with Britain and many, if not most of our institutions were formed by British people or in imitation of theirs. And what identity are you talking about? You lefties start getting enraged the moment any anglophone even suggests English Canada HAS a culture or identity of its own.

Yeah. I have no issue with culture evolving naturally. It's when it's done deliberately by government that I dislike. Especially when it's a deliberate effort to erase our connection with our past in order to please Quebec. There is no such thing. Government can't and never has guaranteed rights. And judges certainly can't. People guarantee their own rights or they have none. The Soviet constitution guaranteed free speech, as does the Russian constitution. But when the government gets to appoint judges and police and military officials a constitution guarantees nothing. Because judges get to 'interpret' it any way they want to based on their own ideological beliefs. Which is why the judges of the US supreme court were okay with slavery and segregation. Until they weren't. Change the judges and their ideological beliefs, and now the law changes. You have to rely on the people themselves. You have to rely on too many MPs in the government caucus refusing to go along with it so that they lose their majority. Or in an extreme case the governor general, presuming he or she is not a lackey of the present PM, can boot them out of power. You also need to rely on the people themselves to protest, to riot, to refuse to accept a dictatorship, and the knowledge by the government that this would happen if they dared try. How are we more free today than in 1980? See, I remember being here in 1980 and I don't seem to recall being constantly harassed by police or government agents. No one I know was a political prisoner, and there were no reports of torture in prisons. And you think such things happened more often than they do now? We have cameras on cops now not because of the constitution or judges but because of the government responding to public pressure. If they're making laws by changing laws then they are, in effect, ruling.

Once they had their own divisions they fought under the red ensign. And Canadian warships always flew the red ensign. Why is it you flakes on the far left seem to think anytime anyone disagrees with you they must be enraged and banging their fists on walls or something? Is that because you assume they must be of the same angry mentality as you have yourself? Yes, and the Liberals have, for many decades, deliberately sought to erase symbols that suggested any linkage or historical ties between Canada and Great Britain because they thought they were offensive to Quebecers. Almost no one knows the history of street or place names. And I note that again, left-wing governments at a lower level in Canada are doing their best to rename symbols that tie us to our British or colonial past with new names - native names most people can't even pronounce. I'll remind you that deserving is an improper judgement when you demand equity in jobs and positions. The RCAF and RCN had their royal designation removed by the Liberals. They were only recently renamed by the Harper Conservatives. And the RCMP are about the last major organization or institution they hadn't yet been able to remove the royal designation from. But I'm seeing a lot of feelers out there about getting rid of them and replacing them with some smaller organiziation that doesn't do local policing. Only the $20 still has the monarch on it. They're changing the coat of arms, and the citizenship oath has had a lot of challenges from the Left but it's in the constitution. And the Liberals, NDP and BQ would very much like to get rid of it if they could. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-king-charles-oath-monarch-canada/ She was in no way a civil rights activist. She was a beautician. She never campaigned for anything. You really are a pathetic little twat. She was not remotely comparable to Rosa Parks. She was not an activist. She lost her court case, appealed, lost again, and refused to carry it any further, going back to doing hair and makeup. And if the racism here offended her so much she didn't seem to mind moving south to live in the US under segregation.

No. I care that the little mermaid was black because knowing Disney they made a deliberate decision to cast a black actress to virtue signal. And the reason I know that is black lead actors/actresses rarely make as much money as White ones. Don't bother pointing out the movies where they did. Those are the exceptions that prove the rule. There are a very few well-known black actors who can carry a movie, but only a very few. Wil Smith used to be one but probably not so much anymore. Disney does this stuff on a regular basis. And it does it with no bones about why it's doing it. Its directors and showrunners are very public about them deliberately casting women instead of men and 'racialized people' instead of white people. Just look at what they've done to the Marvel and Star Wars universes. Three quarters of the fan base are males and they keep trying to shove female heroes into their faces and having flops because of it. Not that men won't see movies and TV shows with good female characters. But Disney doesn't really know how to write live action female characters. It makes them all Mary Sues, and thus bland, boring and uninteresting. Nor is it helped by the actresses it casts, or the directors it hires, who tend to not be very good at their jobs. Have a look at what the director of the next Star Wars feature film has to say. She's never directed a movie before, by the way. She has limited experience directing feminist documentaries. On the other hand, she has ovaries and is racialized so... good enough! Anyway, she likes to make men uncomfortable, she says. Well, I'm sure the 75% of Star Wars fans who are male will appreciate that. https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2024/1/3/ceagg7u4inz180nfgp3su5tm479opi#:~:text=There hasn't been a,be directed by Obaid-Chinoy.

It barely made enough to cover the cost of making and marketing it. And a big part of the reason why was that it flopped in Asia, which is a huge market. You might not be aware of it but the Chinese are not big fans of Black folks. https://movieweb.com/the-little-mermaid-box-office-success/

If it was a business decision I wouldn't care. But instead they made a decision that would actually COST the company hundreds of millions of dollars. Little Mermaid barely broke even and lagged far beyond the box office of other cartoons brought to life films they've done.

You cult members live in a world of your own. Oh, did they obey the law? I know you Trumptards hate that. Don't worry, if your glorious God gets elected there'll be no more interference from the courts! His people have already suggested they'll just ignore the courts! Damn those law-abiding Democrats! Yeah? When did Russia first invade Ukraine again, Dum-Dum? It was under Trump. And what did Trump do? Nothing. He's terrified Putin will release details of his money-laundering and sanctions-busting activities.

Yeaaah, if only it wasn't ILLEGAL.

No, we absolutely do not. That's why we're getting growing numbers of applicants from Mexico. And accepting many of them! They even accepted one from the US the other day who said it was too dangerous to be trans there, until the courts overruled them. And many, if not most of those who fly in come through France or Spain because their own countries don't have direct flights with Canada. You mean suggestions that would actually WORK? Unlike you people on the fringes I don't have anything against using a clause deliberately placed in the constitution for when the courts got out of hand.

You want a solution? Sure. Withdraw from any international treaties that REQUIRE we allow all asylum claimants into the country and give them hearings. Refuse to accept anyone who came here from a safe third country, be it the US, France or wherever. Build detention facilities. Everyone who applies for asylum goes into them until their hearings and appeals are done. Toughen up the requirements for qualifying for asylum, and vastly speed up the process by hiring more immigration judges. Place all fo the above in a law passed under the Notwithstanding clause. Problem solved. The number of asylum claimants will plummet. Do you know we get twice as many as the UK? Why do you imagine that is except that people think we're suckers.

The bill Trump told the Republicans to turn down - which was mostly a Republican bill - would have paid for more detention facilities so they didn't have to release asylum claimants into the country, would have paid to hire more border patrol officers, to hire more asylum officers and immigration judges to speed up asylum claims so they didn't have to just catch and release them, and it would have raised the bar for what qualified for asylum. It also would have given the president the legal authority to close the border, to summarily remove people who cross into the US illegally. Now, suppose you tell me what about any of that you don't like.

Perhaps in future when people ask what happened to Canada they'll answer "The schools collapsed under the onslaught of left wing ideologues. Equally disturbing may be the content being taught. In Canada, as in the U.S., primary school curricula are becoming increasingly politicized. There’s a sense, derived from the universities, that Canada’s past is essentially a record of evil and that the country is itself fundamentally illegitimate, the product of colonial political oppression rather than a flawed, but ultimately successful nation. Canadian children are in danger of losing their own heritage, of being deprived access to anything bright in their history. .. The roots of this decline stem from the universities, which train school teachers and administrators, and the educational fads they proffer. We may think of schools as incubators of thought and technology, but they can also serve as tools of autocracy, as was clear even in Medieval times. One of the first great higher education institutions, the University of Paris also served as a staunch guardian of orthodoxy, and in the 1300s it held a conclave to affirm the reality of demons that were supposedly infecting society. The historian J. B. Bury, in 1913, described the Middle Ages as a time when “a large field was covered by beliefs which authority claimed to impose as true, and reason was warned off the ground.” https://nationalpost.com/opinion/joel-kotkin-decolonized-universities-dividing-canadians

The "Canada hall" was closed for reconstruction when I was there. And I can't say I'm overly impressed with what I can see online. It looks like it's a gallery of big wooden placards. I worked in the museums several decades ago and they were a lot more intimate and colourful in their connection between people and the exhibits. And btw, having one hall in a museum devoted to Canada after confederation, a chunk of which is also devoted to the natives, is hardly enough for a national museum dedicated to Canada's history.

It's a constitutional monarchy. Look it up sometime on that Googly thing. What do YOU value about our history?

You have no idea what's going on on the Texas border. Nor how much it's costing Texas (billions). There's no evidence it's working. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/record-number-migrant-border-crossings-december-2023/

👮‍♂️ Hang on there, Dum-Dum! You're on the fringes of something almost correct! The Democrats want to solve this damned issue so Trump and the Republicans can't use it against them in the election. Which meant they were weak, vulnerable. The Republicans pushed hard during the negotiations and got almost everything they wanted! It would have been a great victory in halting the influx of illegals the Republicans have been harping on. Then The Donald spoke. He wants this as an election issue. Kill the bill. Of course, in his clumsy way he has actually screwed the usefulness of having this as an election issue because now the Dems can all shout back "We had it solved and you said no!" Further. More than a million more people will come into the US because of this. Which means some people will die because of this. Some people will die crossing the border. Some Americans will be killed by those crossing the border. Because Trump, in his clumsy way, wanted to use this as an election issue he could hammer Biden with. But now it's no good. Just like people are dying in Ukraine right now because they don't have the ammunition and weapons Trump is holding up to please his master, Putin. Human beings, men and women are dying and will die all year because of Trump's venal political hopes and corruption.

👮‍♂️ Hold on there, dum-dum. I'm entirely consistent. I'm a Law and Order conservative. I've been calling for stringent laws against illegal immigration in Canada since forever, as well as less immigration overall. And the one thing I agreed with Trump about was securing the US southern border. My position hasn't changed one bit over the years. Unlike the Republican party and Donald Trump, who no longer wish to secure their southern border. For some reason.

I dunno. I'd be willing to vote for legislation to stop it. Why won't the Republicans do that?