I am Groot

Pretty goddam sad when the secretary of defense can't trust the president who recently appointed him to not take control of the military and use it to illegally keep himself in power.

Hamilton police arrested McKenzie in early December 2021, charging him with a total of 12 assault- and firearm-related offences, according to the documents. Three of the charges were for alleged assaults against three people — one of whom was a peace officer, court records show. Four other charges were related to the illegal possession of an unlicensed handgun. The documents further show McKenzie was already prohibited from possessing a firearm by way of two previous court orders: one on Jan. 10, 2018, another on March 23, 2016. The Spectator has not yet seen details of those judge-approved orders. So this is our broken justice system. He was illegally using firearms, was prohibited in 2016, ignored the order, was found again with firearms, was given another order in 2018. He went to jail for armed robbery, where he stabbed another prisoner. He was again arrested, while prohibited, with illegal firearms in 2021, and charged with that along with a number of assaults along the way, including on a police officer. And yet he was still released on bail AGAIN, no doubt with another prohibition order. He was arrested AGAIN in June for domestic assault. AAaaaaaaand let out on bail once more. This is the justice system liberals have built. A horrifically costly, time consuming, deeply ineffective and unjust mess that takes years to process the most basic of charges while carefully separating everyone by race for different sentences and treatments. And the best part is, the groups with the worst records of violence get treated with the softest of kid gloves! And Justin Trudeau's answer to this kind of thing is to ban hunting rifles. No wonder people say F*ck Trudeau. https://www.therecord.com/ths/news/crime/2022/12/28/haldimand-opp-murder-charge.html

I guess I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that there are no democracies? That there are no countries which title themselves 'democracies' but that are nonetheless democracies? Because that seems like a kind of banal thing to worry about.

Who have repeatedly found against him, by the way, including the supreme court. Calling people animals because they want to live in a better country and want a better life for their kids is moronic. And as I pointed out the laws in the US do not allow them to stop people coming in if they claim asylum. Aside from that, I'm all for some kind of fence or obstacle which would prevent people from crossing the borders. But it's kind of pointless without changing the law. Which I am also in favour of, but which the Republicans have never attempted to do. If you want to post only to people who agree with you there are plenty of forums on reddit or other places like 8chan where you would find people of a similar Trumpian mindset to yours.

Uhm Ireland? France? Finland?

What Trump did was take advantage of a section of the Public Health Services Act to prevent border crossers from being processed during the covid mess. That likely would have withstood a court challenge when cities were locked down and hospitals were being overrun. It would not survive a challenge now. Even if Trump was still in power (presuming the US still had a free court system that respected its constitution) the courts would have ordered him to to end title 42. Then why are you even bothering to talk to them?

I don't know who you think you're convincing but ludicrous language like this just causes people to think you're a nut job. Anyone who comes to the US border and says the magic word 'asylum' has to be allowed in by law. You don't like it? Change the law. So far no one has tried to. US laws are based on their international treaty agreements including the UN agreement on refugees. Asylum claimants have to be allowed in and given a hearing. And the US legal system is just as horrifically bureaucratic and slow as ours so the process of hearings and appeals can take years. Don't like it? Too bad. That's the law. And Republicans have not tried to change it. Want to detain them till their hearings are done? That will take years and Republicans have shown zero interest in voting for the hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars it would take to build detention facilities and pay for the room and board of all these people for the time necessary to go through all their legal appeals.

They were never 90% likely to die. It was more like 5% If it was 90% they would have stopped coming. Arguably, coldly, if the Europeans had sunk those early boats they'd have saved lives by preventing so many people from drowning over the succeeding years. The problem is the US (and Canada and Europe) need to repudiate the UN asylum agreement we all signed. That agreement is why we can't turn people away at the borders, even if they're obviously not legitimate refugees. As it stands, no matter how high your wall is all they have to do is walk up to the gate and say 'asylum' and you have to let them through, even if they have no ID and you have no real idea who they are. We also need to take our refugee hearing system out of the legal system. Let people who seem like legitimate claimants in but detain them for the couple of weeks necessary to hold a hearing, and possible appeal, then deport them.

Or, here's an idea, America is no longer filled with empty territory? And the jobs available to low skill workers are not nearly as widespread?

You can see, hear and point to racism. The term 'systemic racism is nothing but a statistical difference between blacks and whites. The difference is presumed to be due to racism though in reality it's due to a lack of value placed on education or two-parent families in the black community. Not without logic behind your argument, no.

Have you forgotten the billion dollar contract Trudeau gave his friends at WE?

Is this meant to be serious commentary? Social credit was about the government giving people money. If anything it's the Liberals who are firm believers in income redistribution. Or are you simply equating social creditism and reform (which have no philosophical relationship) as anger movements against the ineffective, corrupt control of government by central Canadian elites? The Conservatives aren't building bridges with parties which reject even the mildest form of centre-right conservatism as white supremacy, misogynistic, anti-gay, and extremist? How shocking!

What the hell has that got to do with the idea of white privilege? Lots of whites will tell you that they experienced racism in America, too. What even is racism in the minds of too many ? Any slight, any preference, any dislike, poor treatment, suspicion, snub, or confrontation between a white person and any member of a visible identity group? White privilege is the belief that white people have a better, easier time of life because of their skin colour. All it really shows is they succeed more than Black people. But so do Asians, who also succeed more than White people.

This was placed in the US politics forum so you might be able to get away with embracing that as a theory. But the theory is just as popular among progressives in Canada despite us having no one here with 'the effects of racism' other than natives. And even in the US the theory is trashed by the success of Asians, who have done just two simple things. They've gotten married before having children, and ensured their children do well in school. That's it. That's all a community has to do to succeed in either the US or Canada. And if Blacks still did that like they did in 1960 they probably wouldn't have the social and economic problems they are experiencing today. What sort of an attitude is that? You embrace a belief rejected by the majority of the country and then act like it's settled science and should not be debated? Seriously?

Yeah well we're not in the 1800s and that doesn't happen any more. Those French Catholic guys don't vote for anyone who isn't a French Catholic if they have a choice.

By the criteria Trudeau has established describing cultural genocide his father is guilty of it. As is Jean Chretien. Utterly irrelevant.

You're welcome.

First, there's very little racism. There is discrimination of various kinds, and prejudice largely based on real or imagined behaviour patterns of distinct groups. But only the Black Americans you want me to listen to, right? Not the Black Americans who are conservative, or even centrist. Only the ones from the race industry. You're not calling for a level playing field. Most of us Canadian types are strongly opposed to injustice and definitely believe in hiring and promotion on merit, for example, because that's fair. But that's not what you want. You want hiring by race - which even you must acknowledge is racist. But fortunately for you your religious beliefs allow for sins as long as they're done in what you imagine is the greater good. That's interesting. In that Thomas Sowell clip you didn't look at even though you want to listen to Blacks Americans he talks about how the schools today are so much worse than when he was growing up in Harlem in the 1950s. New York City spends double the national average on schooling, over $25k per student. And yet it has terrible schools because of immense graft, corruption, incompetence and inefficiencies. Now I blame the Democrats and progressives. You'd no doubt blame racism, even though a great many of those in the NYC school system are Black, including the chancellor, and virtually everyone is so liberal they need to polish their halos every morning before work.

I'm saying the theory that white privilege exists rests entirely on statistical analyses which find whites are more successful than blacks in a variety of ways. But if Asians are more successful than whites, well, what accounts for this? Is there an Asian privilege? If not why didn't white privilege push Asians down the way it has Blacks? And what? Without an answer it seems to me the theory of white privilege is disproven.

No. The separation is patently obvious. If we talk about race it would be another conversation. We're talking about your religious beliefs that say everyone is nothing but an extension of their racial, ethnic, or other identity group, and that any offense given or taken by any such member is blaspheme and must be punished. Example: An elderly woman who is a bit dotty questions some Black British woman who dresses as if she's from Africa and is named as an African and unintentionally insults her by asking repeatedly where in Africa she's from. The progressive world is aghast with horror. The incident becomes international news! The elderly woman is abruptly cancelled. And then trotted out after a couple of weeks to issue a groveling apology. Now in talking about that I'm not talking about race. I'm talking about how progressives wildly overreact, like humourless, unforgiving religious zealots, refusing to take it as just some old lady being confused but insist on elevating it to the religious crime of heresy racism, and punishing the sinner. Then demand she recant her heresy. I doubt you understand, being a devotee, but that's just how I see it.

The statement you made was The logic seems to be "if people do well financially then racism doesn't exist" I see nothing to link the statement you quote with the one you made. Asian economic success does need to be explained before anyone can say that 'White privilege' is why Blacks don't do as well as Whites. That doesn't even begin to suggest racism doesn't exist. Only that non-whites are perfectly capable of thriving in this society, even exceeding the success of Whites.

Really? Because I didn't relate any anecdotes. Perhaps you just don't know what an anecdote is. Just like you don't know what evidence is. Certainly you don't seem to understand the difference between causal and correlational. Giving me google searches of hysterical people blaming 'systemic racism' for every statistical difference between whites and blacks is thoroughly unconvincing. Especially when three of the five are the same paper, which, like the other two assumes that 'white privilege' is a thing and then purports to tell us the impact on black healthcare etc of this white privilege. An actual, valid study would not make the assumption that white privilege exists. Making that assumption right from the start demonstrates the ideological influences on the academics making the claims below it and invalidates anything they might have to say. Mind you, academia is so filled with blustering ideological zealots these days, especially in the humanities, that nothing they say on the subject can be trusted anyway. You know what IS convincing? All the Black people trying desperately to come and live in Canada or the US vs NO Black people deciding these are terrible places and they want to leave.