Michael Hardner

It's just this weird anomaly in politics around identity. It makes people think politics is about morality and nothing else. The nothing else part... Well... for both sides... They try to use morality to argue it but the facts are boring, and when they're not they don't exactly bend towards a moral certainty. You should back off on this... It's not an exciting argument.... It's just about certainty of wording etc Old relationship versus relationship Close military support versus support

Why are they spending? They should be overjoyed that the liberal party is run by a conservative now. Isn't that what victory is supposed to look like? Some people just like fighting I Guess... https://macleans.ca/news/canada/the-canadian-hired-to-save-the-world/ Harper again : “On behalf of the Government of Canada I would like to offer my congratulations to Mark Carney on his appointment as Governor of the Bank of England. “In this time of global economic uncertainty, Governor Carney has done an admirable job in fulfilling the Bank of Canada’s mandate and has been a valued partner as the Government has worked to steer Canada away from the worst impacts of the global economic recession. As a result, Canada remains an example to the world with its strong banks, effective regulatory environment and sound economic policy. “I wish Governor Carney every success as he begins his new role on July 1, 2013.”

1. 2. Unless something crazy happens, these things won't change. I almost never make predictions on here.... But you can write down this one. The PM has no secret agenda to change things radically, as he is a conservative at heart.

1. Exactly. 2. We're never going to quit the US. We're going to pay for this new faux independence though. 3. Semantics means "meaning". So, yes, I think that the meaning of words is important. No, we're not "done ' with the US and we're not 'allies" with China. If you have a problem with me disagreeing with your framing of the situation, what's this board for?

1. I am making that distinction. These words in speeches are chosen very carefully. 2. No, he said that old relationship included CLOSE cooperation. He did not say we wouldn't support the US any more. In fact his statements on Iran today support the US, morally at least. 3. He didn't say that China is our closest relationship. 4. You're right that it doesn't sound like much of a relationship. But these little words that they put into statements are important, and you have to look at them closely.

Pretty glad I filled up my tank.

Our OLD relationship means something different than 'our relationship'. Do you agree? Yes or no?

You are honest enough. I'm sure to admit that the few words that are different from your quote and what was said in this video alter the meaning. You may not think it's significant, but it is. After we had kids, my wife and I admitted that our old relationship was over. I guess I could have said our relationship is over. I don't think it would have had the same effect. I'll give you a chance to respond, but if you don't want to admit that the words are at least different, then we'll just move on. It's kind of a tell, as in a tell in the poker sense, that you replied to my post twice before I responded. I can say we are aligning ourselves to China but it's not the same thing as an ally. Words mean things.

Hyperbole. He did not say that

I meant directly.

I don't believe for a second that the US is going to take action against China.

Not much support for Trump on this thread? 🤔 Mostly, a few are pointing out some hypocrisy around fast reactions to Biden. But nobody is saying hooray for this.

I know you don't like posting references. And I usually enjoy your posts regardless. But this whole thread is based on a data stain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_gross_domestic_product There are four provinces/ territories below Quebec in GDP per capita including Manitoba. There are two above Alberta Intelligent people tend to verify their facts, So I know you are capable. Also the number is just under 1.5X GDP

1. Yes lots of examples. 2. Demand side increases, more profits for hiring companies. 3. Targeted immigration brings in people who pay taxes... Added: this means jobs for people who provide goods and services to the newcomers. Nor TFWs, not refugees.

Yes, I've read a few of them. The economist you quote seem to be in the minority as I recall. " Immigration is not helping our economy" is a blanket statement that is a fringe opinion. I have read what you said about declining, aging population and that part makes sense.

Maybe if you post it in here it will be seen: https://repolitics.com/forums/forum/14-support-and-questions/

Agreed. I also would like to see National program to reduce the wealth Gap, and increase incomes for the bottom 2/3 of the population

Thoughtful post, thanks. I'm also in favour of reducing immigration for housing, but it's not just immigration at the root of this. Other countries saw housing increases too, with no significant change in immigration It seems that the ultimate goal of this is to increase wealth for homeland Canadians, but let's include other solutions too like raising the minimum wage. https://tinyurl.com/yc3mf44m

Many years ago someone on here, who was anti immigrant, and posted about some Alberta based medical company that had achieved something. A quick Google look-see showed that it had been started in recent memory. . by an ASIAN WOMAN 😲😲😲 I of course pointed that out. I don't remember what happened after that.

Nobody likes me anyway. CrackheadBarbie called me a reactionary or some such. ...

I guess they're a type of immigrant but I would assume we would still let refugees in, at some level, even if we had no economic immigrants.

Seems like what we're discussing though ? ie. Immigration

I don't know what that is.

We're going back in time... consider every kid not had due to birth control as an infant mortality... Consider every mid-level manager not hired due to AI as killed in the Crusades... Few kids, no middle managers... I figure we're at about 1150 AD right now. Don't worry eyeball, you're good.

1. Yes that's valid... but as I said people are benefiting from this too. The government not taking population growth into account seems mind-numbingly stupid. And saying what drives this is not the same as saying there's no rationale for it. Indeed there is. 2. What % of posts I see on social media puts forward an economic case vs a picture of a guy in a turban with a line through it ? Your idea that immigrants make the economy worse... you didn't provide a cite here either, instead you just assume the audience knows it's true right ? 3. Why ? 4. At least you admit someone is benefitting...