I am Groot

Too bad the Republicans refuse to do anything about it, huh?

Yeah? But the monarchy is just about all that's left that Liberal governments haven't eliminated. Yet. Nonsense. I'm all for memorializing the great points of Canada's history. Unfortunately, we don't do that. The last time I went to the National History Museum in Gatineau it had virtually nothing about Canada there other than the natives. Exhibit after exhibit after exhibit on natives but ZERO on how confederation came about. IS that weird and wild or what? Nothing on our prime ministers through the ages. Nothing on the struggle to unite the country, on building the railroad, on incorporating Newfoundland. Lots of natives, though! That place has been decolonized like hell. It's a perfect Liberal museum! By the way, have you heard we have no core identity? Nice straw man! Except it's pretty obvious. I'm sure you can do better if you work at it. In other words, the laws in place were controlled by the people we put in place. And if we didn't like those laws we could replace those people and get new ones. I like that concept! It's call de-mo-cra-cy, I think. Now our rights are decided by unelected people based on on their own ideological views and beliefs. And we can't do a thing about them. And yet, oddly, you haven't done so. Because I like rule by elected rather than appointed leaders?

It was the flag the Canadian military fought under in WW2 and Korea. It was the flag flown by Canadian warships in both wars and afterward as well as at Canadian military bases in Europe after the war. But they do have symbols of England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland to symbolize the union. Which was considered somewhat more important than the 'migrants' who arrived many hundreds of years earlier. There's only so much you can put on a flag, after all. The Red Ensign symbolized Canada through its coat of arms and the union jack as our historical foundation. The maple leaf symbolizes uh... well... uh... it's the same colour as the Liberal Party! Just a coincidence, I'm sure. If you have to develop an identity by government forcefully removing symbols and ties of your historical origins then you're in trouble. And hey! We're in trouble! Our own prime minister (proudly) says we HAVE no core identity! And furthermore, we're not a nation! So how's that going, boy!? Yeah, but they decided this place sucked ass and they'd rather have Haiti, so they traded Quebec away. Doesn't sound like they deserve to be on the flag. Royal what? We used to have royal everywhere but the Liberals removed that from everything they could, from the mail to the mint. They even stopped calling government ministries ministries and called them departments, instead. And you can bet they're itching to remove Charles from our coins and the last bill he's still on, the $20. I mean, Christ, they took John A MacDonald, the founder of this country off the $10 to replace with a hairdresser whose only historical contribution to Canada was she was black and got fined for sitting in the wrong part of a movie theater!

It's the Left eating itself. There's a reason conservatives can make worse comments and then ignore the whining of the activist set. Because no one around them cares what the activists think or say or do about some minor slip of the tongue. It's largely the Left who obsess over such thought crimes and demand punishment and banishment for the offender.

Trudeau's constitution gave us nothing we didn't already have. No one was freed from the dungeon because of it. Torture was not banned because of it. It did, however, help criminals out a lot by ensuring trials would now be according to minute technical points of the interpretation placed on the constitution, as opposed to whether or not they did the deed. Overall, the cost to Canada of the Trudeau constitution is incalculable, but certainly in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Much of which went to lawyers. In 1950 Canada had one lawyer for every 1651 people. We now have one lawyer for every 402 people. I cannot think of any way in which society is better for this.

Like many globalists, you just don't like anything connecting us to our history, culture and roots.

We did not have the British flag, otherwise known as the Union Jack. We had the red ensign, which basically resembles the one Ontario has now, but with a different coat of arms, and a union jack in the upper left corner. And it connected us with our history in a way the new does not. Which, of course, is why the old one was done away with. The Liberals want to destroy English Canada's connection to its historical roots. That's certainly a part of the new crest redesign, as well.

Why not add this to the list. The Liberals have spent over $200 BILLION on climate change initiatives so far. And what good has it all done? Well, they don't really know. What we do know, or think we know, is that emissions continue to rise. EDITORIAL: $200 billion spent on 'climate action’ — for what? | Toronto Sun

Putting this here because I just mentioned how the media is still solidly behind mass immigration, regardless of the demonstrated problems. You couldn't find a better example of the elites dictating their beliefs to the ignorant rabble from their penthouse window. Starting with this bullshit statement all Liberals seem to believe in today. With the exception of Canada’s Indigenous population, we are all settlers. No, you ignorant twat, we're not. Then adding in But the fact remains that Canada needs immigrants, badly. Statistics Canada reported last week that the total fertility rate has declined to 1.33 children per woman, far below 2.1 replacement rate that ensures a stable population. Without robust immigration, Canada would lack the workers needed to fill labour shortages, and to pay the taxes that sustain social services and pensions. Ah, so bringing in masses of poverty-stricken people every year will help pay for social services and pensions, will it? Not sure how that's going to work, buddy. The system should worry less about filling this or that particular labour gap. Bring in the best and let them make their way. We have more than half a century of experience that proves how well this works. So don't worry about targeting what we need, like medical workers and tradesmen. Just bring in anyone with a degree. And nice to know half a century of stagnant wages and diminishing standards of living prove the benefits of mass immigration? Lastly, economic migration should be the focus of any expansion of overall immigration targets. Oh, we need still higher immigration? Because... because... oh, right, it's unparalleled, unquestioned good. Besides, YOU say so. And it's not for the rabble to question the wisdom of the Elites. https://archive.is/KwCIZ

This puts into bald perspective just what a failure Trudeau has been as a financial manager, and the level of debt his government continues to accumulate largely through vote buying and vote buying deals with the NDP to keep itself in power. Start with program spending. Since taking office, the Trudeau government has greatly increased federal spending (excluding interest costs) from $256.3 billion in 2014-15 (the year before it took office) to $448.2 billion in 2022-23—an increase of 74.9 percent. After adjusting for inflation, the Trudeau government has recorded the five highest years of federal spending per person in Canadian history. Put differently, it has spent significantly more than past governments did during the Second World War or the 2008 financial crisis or other emergencies in the country’s history. Post-COVID levels of spending have still not returned to pre-COVID levels. Most of this spending growth has been deficit-financed. The government has recorded eight consecutive deficits and its latest fiscal projections anticipate more deficits for at least the next six years. This deficit spending has come with a big cost. Not only has it led to the accumulation of nearly $1 trillion in new federal debt, but it’s come with rising interest payments that are paid through tax dollars. Federal debt servicing payments currently stand at $46.5 billion in 2023-24 which amounts to more than one in every ten dollars of federal revenue. That deals with the Canadian government's finances but it's handling of the economy has been terrible, as well. The broadest measure of living standards is GDP per person (adjusted for inflation over time), which calculates the total value of all goods and services produced in the economy in a given year on a per-person basis. In the pre-pandemic period between 2016 and 2019, growth in per-person GDP (inflation-adjusted) was an anemic 0.9 percent. One study in fact found that Canada’s per-person GDP growth from 2013 to 2022 (0.8 percent) was the weakest on record since the 1930s. Overall, inflation-adjusted GDP per person has only grown by 1.9 percent since 2015. The United States, by contrast, grew by 14.7 percent during the same timeframe. https://thehub.ca/2024-02-03/jake-fuss-the-trudeau-governments-terrible-economic-record-cant-be-brushed-aside/

Perhaps. But as yet not a single politician aside from Bernier, who is unemployed and likely to remain so - has suggested lowering immigration. Nor have the media. There've been a lot of column inches spent on the housing problem being caused by immigration, but their suggestions for change always focus on the foreign students and to a lessor extent foreign workers. Very few have dared to address actual immigration and call for a large cut.

The kind that are native to another country and foreign to this one. Like burquas, as one example, or even hijabs. Treating women like shit would be another.

In some cases, yes, especially lower level street crimes, but that doesn't mean we don't need more cops. As a recent column by a guy in the Globe who is mostly left center said, quoting Toronto's police chief: He says the time it takes police to respond to high-priority calls has reached 22.6 minutes, up from 12.8 minutes in 2010. “We had 600 more officers back then, with 5,615 total uniform strength and nearly half a million fewer citizens to serve,” he wrote in the Toronto Star. In one recent case, he said, a resident had to wait 50 minutes for police after calling to say that three suspects were trying to steal his truck. In the meantime, the thieves kicked in the door and threatened to shoot him. “The current reality experienced by our residents keeps me up at night,” wrote the chief. Police aren’t crying wolf this time - The Globe and Mail But, according to the data posted above, they're catching them less often. Because more court rooms staffed with all the people you need EXCEPT the judge is up to the province, and I've been hearing a lot lately about trials postponed because courtrooms weren't available. I know how it works. It was a slip of the tongue in writing. My point was they SHOULD be in jail, but if the trial won't be for three years how do we keep "innocent" people locked up that long?

That will do. These are mostly American imports That would involve getting control of the ideological tilt in education. And so far no government, including purportedly conservative ones, has shown much interest in doing so. Nothing to disagree with there. But it won't happen until we get a conservative government that is determined to act conservatively, and to control the bureaucracy and tame the oligopolies pushing for constantly higher immigration.

A long time ago I read a paper that suggested there was a strong inverse correlation between immigration and birthrates. Basically, the more crowded your local area is the less likely you are to have kids, and the few of them you have. Now that might be related to the fact the more crowded your area is the less pleasant and more expensive it is. And certainly, that's the case here. Aside from the details of government rule changes and technology, Canada was certainly a more pleasant place to live in 1967, at the Centenary, than it is now. The population then was half what it is now. Even then, though, the birth rate had been declining for years, most likely due to the pill and feminism pushing women out into the workforce. But note that there were precious few family supports then for women going off to work and still having babies and raising families. And even fewer for staying home with the kids. In any event, people need to have a secure relationship and secure finances to start a family and for many, that doesn't come until nearly middle age, which is why few families have more than one to two children. Richer people - and poorer, due to welfare - tend to have more kids. I suggest that's due largely to not having to worry about paying for them.

Someone needs a hug. Perhaps. Are they born and raised here with Canadian values and cultural beliefs?

He could help the cities hire more cops, even require them to. He could build more courtrooms so it doesn't take three years to get a court date. Maybe then it would enable them to keep more people in jail on bail until their trials.

Interesting. But it hardly supports your belief in some sort of conspiracy about why she wasn't charged. He thought she should be. Others thought otherwise. He discussed it with Comey and was convinced otherwise. You try to make that sound suspicious but the story makes it clear it was not. Baker said that if he had been more convinced there was evidence that Clinton intended to violate the law, “I would have argued that vociferously with him [Comey] and maybe changed his view.” He portrayed his former boss as someone who was open to changing his mind once he heard from his senior staff, even after drafting his announcement statement. “I think he would have been receptive to changing his view even after he wrote that thing,” Baker said. As for not needing to know you were breaking the law, that's the same for ALL laws. However, we need to consider the public interest. If every public official, not to mention public servant was prosecuted for improper handling of classified documents there would literally be tens of thousands of charges every year. I doubt a single cabinet secretary over the past half dozen administrations has properly handled all the classified documents they've sent and received by email. In addition, of course, we know the Chinese hacked the State Department's regular email system anyway. In fact, I'd be surprised if they and the Russians didn't have free reign over almost every computer system in the United States and Canadian governments. It's also kind of rich to accuse Comey of wanting to protect the Democrats given he's a lifelong Republican and given his last-minute announcement of further investigations into her probably cost her the election. The current FBI director is likewise a lifelong Republican. By the way, the rules call for someone making a statement to be able to back it up on request. Presumably they've seen the information and are better equipped to find it anyway.

The McDonald-Laurier Institute has come out with their 'report card' on our criminal justice system and after years of Trudeau and his soft-on-crime policies, it's - not good. But then, would we expect it to be? A system that prioritizes racial virtue signaling over justice could hardly be expected to be fair. A legal system run by judges appointed for their progressive views can hardly expect to deliver stern punishment to offenders. Laws written by virtue-signaling fools can hardly expect to keep Canadians safe. The homicide and sexual assault rates are the highest they've been in thirty years, with the violent crime index the highest it's been in 16 years. Police, hamstrung by new laws, are solving fewer cases, and fewer of those are actually resulting in punishment. Court cases are taking longer, too. https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/report-card-criminal-justice-system/jsrc2023/

I know the English language is foreign to you, you brainless twat, but I haven't lied about anything and you haven't proven anything your God Trump said. You simply prefer to believe one of those America First nutbars over the Inspector General and the testimony of everyone else who was in the White House. And even this doesn't even mention Nancy Pelosi. You Trumptard cult people get as angry as Islamists when your world view is challenged.

Yeah but the courts said you can't do that.

The federal courts overturned Trump's deal to keep them on the Mexican side. The current bill, which Trump has ordered his lackeys in congress to refuse, would have granted the president the legal right to do just that.

What you said was Trump wanted the capital flooded with military on Jan. 6. Pelosi refused. Then you provide a cite that said the Capital Hill police chief wanted National guard troops and the House Sergeant at Arms said no. This proves NEITHER of your statements and yet you're acting like this cite is a slam dunk or something. Are you, like Trump, too lazy to actually read anything before posting it?

The Liberals are, I'm sure, promoting the PPC in order to split the conservative vote so they can get in again.

Cite please.