CdnFox

Wrong with foreign workers. Trump's issue is with illegal migrants. He's not anti-immigration

They were originally but they had moved to and been radicalized in a different country

I'm not sure this is a great idea. It seems to be upsetting one or two people more than I would have thought. Maybe we should just call it a tie and end the thread.

I think they just secretly like having the country run by republicans but don't want to say it out loud

Uh huh. 🍿🍿🍿 [munch munch] 🍿🍿🍿

uhhhh.... no, no he's pointing out that YOU did. i know i know ... some of the words he used were pretty big but do your best to keep up

So even you don't know why you do it? Wow kid, you are some seriously damaged goods 🍿🍿🍿 [munch munch] 🍿🍿🍿

binary representations of floating point numbers aren't A decimal system. They don't even perfectly mirror a decimal system. He Is 100% correct and you are 100% wrong. There Goes your claim of being a computer expert out the window Imagine thinking that floating point stuff is the same as a decimal system

Bush was immediately informed when the towers were attacked and quickly ended the meeting with the children and rushed and took action And waged war on the enemies of his nation. Justin kept dancing, and waited to the next day to do...... Absolutely nothing. At this point he hasn't even come out and condemned it as far as I know There is a noticeable difference

Explain this to me. It's absolutely fascinating, I absolutely cannot think why you would need my permission to stop posting. Why are you letting what I do control what you do? Why does my replying have anything to do with the choices you make? Walk me through this, explain your thinking. I really don't care if you post again or you don't post again and I cannot for the life of me understand why you care if I do

LOL awww muffin, Just can't stop thinking about me can you? Seems like you spend all day thinking about me which is very weird. Guess I broke you a little too much this time huh? And now You've got a bad case of sour grapes. Well, in your case sour grasshoppers I suppose..... Feel better little guy

Oh dear. Someone got called out for his childish tricks and now he wants to take his ball and go home. Boy, didn't see that coming 🙄🙄

for reasons I have never fully understood Eastern Canada including Ontario and Quebec specifically are far far more tolerant of corruption. I don't just mean bad politics or bad policy, I'm talking about actual corruption. When the old PC party became actually corrupt conservative voters wiped it the F out. It is gone. And we've seen in the provinces numerous times parties punished to the point of Extinction or even wiped out when corruption raises its head. This was true of the old Alberta PC party, it was true of the social credit party in British Columbia, it is now true of the liberal party in British Columbia, And it was true of the British Columbia NDP where it was reduced to two seats when corruption was revealed there. But in the east they seem to reward corruption with more victories. I have no idea why that is

oh I know. This is basically a spin on the usual retort of "Why are we even talking about this" Where he tries to pretend that something isn't important when it is important to him and he realizes he can't defend it. It's a common and fairly effective debate trick used by those on the left when they can't actually make an argument. They attempted to deflect by suggesting somehow your stupid person for caring about it or for having brought it up in the first place. Rather than addressing the issue Which is strange considering Mike's a conservative and all

Nope. Perfectly adequate and was originally the intent all along. Your problem is it gives you no wiggle room to try and demand that something that isn't a woman is actually a woman. And you want to do that for propaganda reasons, not for any other reason. That has nothing to do with the definition of woman. This is extremely easy. That's what a woman is. That doesnt' mean that women don't have other traits as well but that's what a woman is. It's like this: a redhead is a person with red hair. That's the definition. That doesn't change the fact that redheads are not cardboard cutouts they are entire spectrums of biological emotional psychological traits. But the definition is still accurate. Same with 'woman'. And once again I see that you are trying to conflate sex with gender and the two are not synonymous. But lefties with bad arguments try to make them synonymous and then not synonymous at the same time as it suits their argument. "woman" is not a gender. Even 'female' is not a gender, tho we tend to use it a little loosly to address 'feminine' issues which is a gender. However, with regards to gender specifically: The opposite is true. There are two genders, and biologically and medically that is accurate. People tend to be a combination of the two genders, and that may vary for each personality trait. For example someone could be more masculine when it comes to Some elements of their life and more feminine with others. There is what is subjectively considered to be a "window" of "normal" and some people exist on that spectrum outside of 'normal' and there's nothing wrong with that. but there's still just two genders. Lets say i have a bottle of tea, and a bottle of honey. And i mix them together to make a drink. If i put in more honey than tea it'll taste one way, and if i add more tea it'll change the taste quite a bit until it's entirely different. You can make dozens if not hundreds of noticeably different drinks or flavours going from "all honey" to "all tea". BUT at the end of teh day it's still just two ingredients. Tea and honey. Just as there are only two genders. I won't berate you for the obvious spelling mistake but I will berate you for the stupidity of your statement. There is only one reality. Your choice to delude yourself and Pretend that your false narratives are in fact reality is simply dishonest

First off, there is no such thing as mass importing. How many immigrants does it take to be a mass? Is five a mass? Or do you just mean that all immigrants have mass? How many kg of immigrants is the right amount? Even critical mass would make some sort of sense sort of but mass immigration is just a term that was invented by mad Max who isn't terribly bright to begin with and it doesn't mean anything. It's just a way of saying to the world that you are more interested in buzzwords than facts and reason, you should stop using it and use something more accurate and descriptive. Excessive immigration might make more sense as an example. Just something to think about. Setting aside the semantics, while it is true we would be setting aside our own population decline it wouldn't actually be doing anything about the population decline in other countries. If anything it would help them address their overpopulation. Declining population brings with it a number of significant problems. Avoiding that would be wise. Immigration helps us do that for now, we may have to come up with other solutions down the road. Obviously in a perfect world we would go back to a time when it was possible to live on the wage of a single earner and raise a family. but those days are not coming back anytime soon. Having said that excessive population growth is even worse than declining growth. The current statcan birth rate is about 1.3 per female. Sorry but that's well below replacement. Your stats don't allow for people leaving the country for example who don't show up in our records, or foreign people who die while here but aren't permanent residents (very temp or visiting) and don't count as part of our population. As you can see we lose about 100 k a year these days just to emmigration. Canada: number of emigrants 2023 | Statista There's Little doubt that 500,000 immigrants is too high. Regardless of anything else, we aren't building homes and hospitals fast enough to accommodate that. 250,000 may very well be a little bit too low But it's probably a lot closer than 500 To the correct number. You have to sit down with the actual books and do the actual math and we don't even have access to all of the data you need, but basically you have to work out how many homes and resources and jobs we're being added to Canada each yearcalculate how many new immigrants for that year that those numbers could comfortably support and cap it at that. And then that becomes the maximum, not the minimum and then we start having other conversations about the point system and who we want to allow in and who we don't Fundamentally I agree with you that it's way too high right now. I think we both on the same page there. Would agree that we should lower it to the point of population loss but I do think that our population gain should be modest and a cap should be set based on our increased capacity to provide for people. We probably agree more than we disagree but it's that last little bit that I think we're disputing.

I have told you a million times I don't control your actions. And the difference between us is that I really don't care what you think or do. Whereas you need my permission apparently. If this becomes boring to me I'll stop and I won't even think about it for 2 seconds. It really won't matter to me what you do or do not do after that. Right now it amuses me that you are showing to the entire forum your level of childish stupidity and you're constant cries begging me to stop because apparently you feel you don't have the ability to stop without my permission. Your meltdowns are always entertaining I have no idea where you got the idea that acting like a complete jackass or a 12 year old girl who didn't get her pony for xmas would somehow punish me You are responsible for your own decisions in life. Despite what you think, i don't control you and you don't need my permission.

There is a very simple definition. A woman is a human female. As to what a female is: fe·male /ˈfēˌmāl/ adjective of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. "a herd of female deer" There you go. Simple definition that is backed up by science, tradition, reason and logic. The only one reason you want to pretend that it's complicated is because the truth does not suit your agenda. It's not even a tiny bit complicated, it doesn't get much more simple.

Imagine the temerity of posting to someone on a discussion forum in the middle of a discussion!!!! Mike you almost exclusively post to other people unsolicited. That is how a discussion forum works. Somebody says something and someone comments on it. And yet when someone calls you on your bullshit you're shocked! Shocked and amazed that someone might reply to a post on a discussion forum. And this is your defense @Nationalist You must apologize immediately for daring to comment on Mike's comment on a discussion board! Clearly that proves that you are wrong

Then he'll change it or he has a different legal opinion. I'm sure your Facebook degree in law is fine and all but chances are you're not illegal expert. In fact I would bet good money you've never actually read the text of the law and don't actually know what it says. ALWAYS READ THE TEXT. Do NOT rely on your echo chamber Here's what the law actually says: That whenever 577 STATUTE II. July 6,1798. [Expired.] In case of there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign war, or actual nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion An Act respecting Alien Enemies So in reality it doesn't need to be declared in a war, any invasion or predatory incursion counts. Now you're the guy that likes to redefine everything to try and win arguments, do you think it's possible that with a supreme court leaning to the right trump might be able to convince the law that illegal criminal migrants being smuggled across the border is a predatory incursion? I think he might. This is why people are starting to look at you like a complete tard. You made a claim that you very clearly had not researched. And once again it's turned out to be false. Learn to look things up yourself It isn't even war time only. It also applies to any predatory incursions. If illegal criminals entering the US and committing crimes isn't a predatory incursion I don't know what is An Act respecting Alien Enemies

The initial feedback from the public is not great. I think the majority of people share your views

Now now, be fair. It's not like he can argue with what you ACTUALLY said

Sure, he laughed at you and is now content to watch and laugh as you continue. Whereas I don't mind amusing myself driving you around like an RC race car because apparently you've decided that I control your life 🍿🍿🍿 [munch munch] 🍿🍿🍿

They just lost an election by focusing on promoting false narratives, phony lawsuits and charges, and fake accusations that had no substance. These tactics were overwhelmingly rejected by Americans. And here they are 5 seconds later diving right back into it. 4 years? I would guess that they would be wise to make peace with the next 12 years at this rate. The republicans will win the next one and traditionally win the one after that for a new president.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by good chance. It is a possibility, but then again it's a possibility for virtually any president. But I don't think there's any reason to believe that he will be cognitively impaired to the where he's unable to do his job by the end of his term. Truth be told I don't think anybody should be allowed to run for president after about the age of 70 but Lots of people manage to maintain their faculties and health long past 82 years of age. Certainly the chances favor him in that regard although as I said anything's possible and there is a definite chance that by the end of it he could be starting to slip. Fortunately now that the Democrats have made that perfectly acceptable it really doesn't matter much