Michael Hardner

And yet, I'm sure you reject the standard trappings of intelligence like a degree, accreditation, and experience in a certain field am I right ? Most Climate Scientists are idiots, economists are probably idiots - am I right ? So then we end up in a peculiar universe where intelligence is an essential virtue, and yet that is judged and defined by you. Seems a lot more like you are talking about your own ego than some subjective thing but I don't know you...

I don't think intelligence or looks define your value to your community, your country or anyone. I like people.

I usually find that disdain for the electorate, and by extension democracy, comes from arrogant socialists. I guess that's changing.

Are you serious? Check out his picture - he wears a Texas turban!

Is this your way of admitting you were wrong ? The whole PPC benefits Trudeau - as do people like you who broadcast the new image of "conservative" to the unsuspected: a paranoid, conspiracy-believing person who wants to withdraw us from the world economy and eliminate government altogether. Good luck with it.

1. Not disagreeing - just to point out that there are lots of other things doing well in the west, like Pharma, Software, and - yes - manufacturing companies who offshore a lot of the work like Apple. The difficulty with China and the changing attitude is captured in Harper's comments. The Harper Government signed the FIPA accord. 2. And sophisticated technology in between those examples: iPhones, computer chips, social media software, telecommunications equipment.

Yes I read about the trade war, that is a good example supporting your point. And anyway I came here to post this before you beat me to the punch. https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/17/justin-trudeau-criticism-aukus-canada-federal-election

1. Well, remains to be seen but the non-sequitur was that I said nothing about Trudeau's stance on China vs. Harper. You seemed to suggest I felt that they were the same, which did not follow from my words. 2. Ok - I don't want to ever pretend I know more than I do but I just find it hard to see how you can equate those things given that all of the world's major powers have China in their top list of imports/exports. You seem to know about this so I ask you honestly for an example I can read on.

So I just realized that sounds ridiculous. Yes, high trade with China means you are supporting China and therefore pro-China but all of the western world and lots of non-Western world trades with China. So it doesn't differentiate a country on their China stance so much. But I didn't know that about NZ either.

1. Ok, well let's see then. I'm no expert on international military coalition forming (?) but I would rather have been surprised if Canada was in there. 2. It's weird with you. You start by saying we're out of this South China Sea coalition because Trudeau isn't anti-China enough. I say "I doubt it". Then you come back and say "Are you seriously saying Harper isn't more pro-US than Trudeau" ? It's like ping-pong. Yes, of course I think Harper is more anti-China. Even more now than when he was in office, but even lukewarm-China-Harper was lukewarm. 3. You can't equate "China is a top trading partner" with being pro-China - everybody trades with them.

1. If you can find a serious opinion that confirms that I would like to read it. ie. Not someone grinding political axes. 2. I feel this is just another "poop on Trudeau" issue. Also - New Zealand isn't in it ? Anyway... I'm glad it exists.

I think if we were permanent security council members we might have had a shot...

1. I appreciate that and try to not tar the adherents with the (deserved) tar that I gloop all over their mad leader. Also these are outsiders, and populists who fall into the PPC so I can understand why they're fooled. 2. I'm not surprised. 3. People see the Conservatives as pragmatic on budget matters, I agree.

1. Well, let's be generous and say he was speaking in broad strokes and not about individual Marxists doing exactly this tactic. I don't think he was saying that Marxists switched tack in this way. 2. Yes, that's his take. 3. They aren't. The Woke will jump with glee with Colin Kapernik appears in one of their commercials. Marxists don't think there should be a Nike, in its current form. 4. This presupposes that racial equity and Marxism are interchangeable, though. That's the point of contention.  It it were really Marxism, in a real way, then brands would not "gravitate toward low-cost, high-noise signals as a substitute for genuine reform to ensure their survival" in a trendy way. I thought you were aware of the fakeness of these ad campaigns The link is to an article in The Atlantic. It goes the other way, too. Wokies have a word for people who focus on poverty, class and so on but it escapes me. Basically they are against programs that help poor white people because they aren't disadvantaged like their Black classmates at Princeton. Does that sound Marxist to you ? Anyway, I don't think we disagree on anything practical here - the mechanics of these movements have problems for me, and you dislike both of them. Tying them together is a theoretical argument but we don't have the time or bandwidth to do the question justice as neither of us are academics, ie we have jobs.

1. Well we talked about this already 2. Agreed