Bernier's Party at 13% in the polls

[Machjo]

I can see one thing that might spook a potential Bernier supporter like myself. I oppose the dairy cartel on principle, not because it affects me directly: I don't buy milk products anyway.

However, should the government dismantle the milk cartel and a later government decides to subsidize milk producers, then I'd find myself subsidizing other people's milk, which is even worse since then it wouldn't just be an abstract principle but something that would affect me personally. Even in terms of abstract principles of justice, the milk cartel has the claim of being user-pay at least in that the price is passed directly onto consumers. With subsidies, all taxpayers, including those like me who don't even buy milk, would now be paying into it.

Though I can support abolishing the milk cartel in principle, I'd first want a reasonable guarantee that subsidies won't replace it.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Machjo

[-1=e^ipi]

An alternative to subsidies are countervailing duties (i.e.duties enough to offset the us subsidies as opposed to a duty of 300% to protect an immoral cartel). I doubt the US would lower their subsidies just for Canada since they would give up negotiating power with the Europeans if they did that.

[turningrite]

7 hours ago, taxme said:

Trudeau could still slide up the middle if there are two conservative party's fighting it out in the next election. This does not look good at all. The thought of another four years of Trudeau scares the chit out of me.  

I'd be willing to take the chance. My bet is that if Scheer's CPC is the only option available on the right, Trudeau will win again and will most likely get another majority. Without Bernier, the only real hope for a minority parliament or a governing party other than the Libs is a strong showing on the left by the NDP. But the NDP slides further into obscurity every day. Many of its long-time MPs likely won't even run next year and its leader has been a flop. Bernier's not yet formed party has firm support almost equal to that of the NDP. So, I think if we want to see real change next year Bernier has to enter the race.

[taxme]

19 hours ago, Machjo said:

I can see one thing that might spook a potential Bernier supporter like myself. I oppose the dairy cartel on principle, not because it affects me directly: I don't buy milk products anyway.

However, should the government dismantle the milk cartel and a later government decides to subsidize milk producers, then I'd find myself subsidizing other people's milk, which is even worse since then it wouldn't just be an abstract principle but something that would affect me personally. Even in terms of abstract principles of justice, the milk cartel has the claim of being user-pay at least in that the price is passed directly onto consumers. With subsidies, all taxpayers, including those like me who don't even buy milk, would now be paying into it.

Though I can support abolishing the milk cartel in principle, I'd first want a reasonable guarantee that subsidies won't replace it.

Canadians need to start thinking about the free enterprise system and not a socialist system and let's get rid of government supporting anything. All levels of government are either supporting or owning a business that can be easily run by the free enterprise system instead. All Canadians pretty much are forced to support these businesses. The Quebec dairy farmer industry is one of them. It's always about Quebec a have not and bankrupt province. And while were at it the government should stop supporting the liberal media industry. Let them all have to work hard to stay in business or fold up. The taxpayer's of this country are getting ripped off big time by being forced to pay taxes to help others stay alive in business. It is time for Canada to go totally capitalist. So we do not have 50 dairy farmers anymore but have only 20 instead and let them fight it out for their business to thrive. At least that is how it use to be in the early days of Canada. The governments and their bureaucracy's are way out of whack in Canada. The governments need to be downsized big time. Taxes-taxes-taxes are everywhere with no end in sight. It is time for more freedom, less government and less taxes and let's get the government off of our almost broken backs. Works for me. 

[taxme]

17 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

An alternative to subsidies are countervailing duties (i.e.duties enough to offset the us subsidies as opposed to a duty of 300% to protect an immoral cartel). I doubt the US would lower their subsidies just for Canada since they would give up negotiating power with the Europeans if they did that.

Who started all this tariff/trade agreements shit anyway? Globalists corporations and politicians and special interest groups maybe? It is for sure that it was not you and me the lowly taxpayer. In the beginning of the early days of Canada the word tariff did not exist as far as I know. Now tariffs are a big business in itself. A make work project for more government bureaucracy. Are there any tariff stocks being sold these days? Just wondering. 

[Machjo]

On 8/29/2018 at 3:16 PM, taxme said:

Canadians need to start thinking about the free enterprise system and not a socialist system and let's get rid of government supporting anything. All levels of government are either supporting or owning a business that can be easily run by the free enterprise system instead. All Canadians pretty much are forced to support these businesses. The Quebec dairy farmer industry is one of them. It's always about Quebec a have not and bankrupt province. And while were at it the government should stop supporting the liberal media industry. Let them all have to work hard to stay in business or fold up. The taxpayer's of this country are getting ripped off big time by being forced to pay taxes to help others stay alive in business. It is time for Canada to go totally capitalist. So we do not have 50 dairy farmers anymore but have only 20 instead and let them fight it out for their business to thrive. At least that is how it use to be in the early days of Canada. The governments and their bureaucracy's are way out of whack in Canada. The governments need to be downsized big time. Taxes-taxes-taxes are everywhere with no end in sight. It is time for more freedom, less government and less taxes and let's get the government off of our almost broken backs. Works for me. 

I never said I supported supply-management, but just that subsidies are even worse than supply-management and milk tariffs. At least with the latter two, I have the option of not giving my money to the milk industry. With the first option, my taxes would go to it whether I buy milk or not. In relative terms, the US subsidy-system is even more socialist than the Canadian supply-management system. Let's not jump from the frying pan of supply-management and milk tariffs into the fire of subsidies.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Machjo

[Machjo]

1 hour ago, taxme said:

Who started all this tariff/trade agreements shit anyway? Globalists corporations and politicians and special interest groups maybe? It is for sure that it was not you and me the lowly taxpayer. In the beginning of the early days of Canada the word tariff did not exist as far as I know. Now tariffs are a big business in itself. A make work project for more government bureaucracy. Are there any tariff stocks being sold these days? Just wondering. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd think globalists would want to eliminate tariffs and other intentional trade barriers and nationalists would want to promote such barriers.

[taxme]

4 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd think globalists would want to eliminate tariffs and other intentional trade barriers and nationalists would want to promote such barriers.

Globalists want to get rid of everything that does not make money for them. If subsidies or tariffs were good for them then they would be all for them. No doubt zionist banksters probably do quite well making plenty of money with tariffs and subsidies around. So, why do we have tariffs and subsidies when the globalists pretty much run and rule the world of commerce already.

It's all a gawd dam game and we the people are just a bunch of pawns on their corporate globalist chess board and we are there to make sure that the globalist king and queen stay alive and well. The globalists always have only one thing in mind anyway. Control every gawd dam thing bought and sold on earth and our bodies too.

But ask the average taxpayer do they care? I think that we already know the answer to that? NOPE.  

[turningrite]

On 8/29/2018 at 4:39 PM, Machjo said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd think globalists would want to eliminate tariffs and other intentional trade barriers and nationalists would want to promote such barriers.

The basic reality is that globalists want to eliminate democracy in their quest for ever higher profits. Democracy is that little institution that grants citizens the ability through their votes to protect the rights and interests of workers and consumers within national jurisdictions. There is no global institution with either the ability or the inclination to do so. Once democracy is out of the way, we're all sitting ducks.

[marcus]

On 8/28/2018 at 1:27 PM, taxme said:

Bernier is going to screw up what could be a majority win for the conservative party. Bernier is going to let kid Trudeau stay in power for another four years. This guy needs to think about what he is doing here. This is no time to try this stunt out. 

Or Bernier and the Conservatives could form a coalition, which is quite common in many other parts of the world, but uncommon in Canada. This can only happen if they play it right and not steal each other's votes in specific ridings.

[Machjo]

On 8/29/2018 at 4:56 PM, taxme said:

Globalists want to get rid of everything that does not make money for them. If subsidies or tariffs were good for them then they would be all for them. No doubt zionist banksters probably do quite well making plenty of money with tariffs and subsidies around. So, why do we have tariffs and subsidies when the globalists pretty much run and rule the world of commerce already.

It's all a gawd dam game and we the people are just a bunch of pawns on their corporate globalist chess board and we are there to make sure that the globalist king and queen stay alive and well. The globalists always have only one thing in mind anyway. Control every gawd dam thing bought and sold on earth and our bodies too.

But ask the average taxpayer do they care? I think that we already know the answer to that? NOPE.  

No wonder English is such a difficult language to learn. Globalist has the word global in it, meaning that it would not support barriers between countries, which tariffs are. It's pretty much in the definition.

[taxme]

1 hour ago, marcus said:

Or Bernier and the Conservatives could form a coalition, which is quite common in many other parts of the world, but uncommon in Canada. This can only happen if they play it right and not steal each other's votes in specific ridings.

Would it not still leave Scheer the leader out of this coalition? Would Bernier go for that? There will probably be some ridings where they may have to compete with one another and that is not going to be good for either party. I still think that Bernier may screw this one up for Scheer to be the next PM of Canada. Just saying. 

[taxme]

1 hour ago, Machjo said:

No wonder English is such a difficult language to learn. Globalist has the word global in it, meaning that it would not support barriers between countries, which tariffs are. It's pretty much in the definition.

I would not want to have to learn Chinese or East indian. I am not an artist and I am not all that great at drawing pictures. 

[Machjo]

55 minutes ago, taxme said:

I would not want to have to learn Chinese or East indian. I am not an artist and I am not all that great at drawing pictures. 

A little off topic here, but I know English, French, Chinese (Mandarin), and Esperanto. English and French are mostly word-based languages whereas Chinese and Esperanto are mostly root-based languages. As a result, the meaning of an English or French word can sometimes stray significantly from its etymological roots whereas the meaning of a word in Chinese or Esperanto will always (or at least almost always in the case of Chinese) be clear from the meaning of the parts of the word itself.

To take but one example, the word 'feminism' actually sounds quite harsh in Chinese and Esperanto since it translates quite literally into Chinese as female-doctrine and in Esperanto as female-ism. As a result, in those languages, we tend to use different words the roots of which actually mean sex-equal-ism unless we actually mean radical feminism or alternatively an ideology that  addresses only female-specific concerns. Depending on either of those meanings, it may not necessarily conflict with the equality of the sexes but the word itself, unlike in English or French, never contains that meaning.

In that respect, a root-based language is much easier to learn than a word-based one since it's easier to infer the meaning of a word from its component roots, compounds, and affixes which is much less often the case in English and French.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Machjo

[-1=e^ipi]

17 hours ago, Machjo said:

No wonder English is such a difficult language to learn. Globalist has the word global in it, meaning that it would not support barriers between countries, which tariffs are. It's pretty much in the definition.

 

Globalist means the same as Mondialist in French. It's just that some right wing individuals in North America have started using the word in recent years to mean everything they dislike, even if it is completely contradictory, such as saying Globalists are in favour of trade barriers. The average person doesn't use the word Globalist this way; actually, the average person doesn't use Globalist at all.

 

Taxme's comments on the word "Globalist" sound insane to me to and I am a native English speaker. One could argue that Taxme is engaging in the Orwellian corruption of language by arguing that Globalists and Globalism are against free trade and are in favour of trade barriers, which is contradictory to the meaning of the word.

[Machjo]

9 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

Globalist means the same as Mondialist in French. It's just that some right wing individuals in North America have started using the word in recent years to mean everything they dislike, even if it is completely contradictory, such as saying Globalists are in favour of trade barriers. The average person doesn't use the word Globalist this way; actually, the average person doesn't use Globalist at all.

 

Taxme's comments on the word "Globalist" sound insane to me to and I am a native English speaker. One could argue that Taxme is engaging in the Orwellian corruption of language by arguing that Globalists and Globalism are against free trade and are in favour of trade barriers, which is contradictory to the meaning of the word.

Mondialist is a good example of how French, though still more word-based than root-based (the word 'feminism' as synonymous with 'equality of the sexes' as an example), is still less wordbased than English is. Of the four languages that I know, English is by far the most word-based one even when we go by standard dictionary definitions straying from the component parts of the words.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Machjo

[taxme]

7 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

Globalist means the same as Mondialist in French. It's just that some right wing individuals in North America have started using the word in recent years to mean everything they dislike, even if it is completely contradictory, such as saying Globalists are in favour of trade barriers. The average person doesn't use the word Globalist this way; actually, the average person doesn't use Globalist at all.

 

Taxme's comments on the word "Globalist" sound insane to me to and I am a native English speaker. One could argue that Taxme is engaging in the Orwellian corruption of language by arguing that Globalists and Globalism are against free trade and are in favour of trade barriers, which is contradictory to the meaning of the word.

Globalists corporations are in favor of wanting to turn the world into one big open borders world where there are no tariffs and total free trade. The average person is too stupid to use the word globalist because either they never heard of the word or use it themselves or they are not being informed enough as to how the globalist corporations work in the world. I am aware of what globalism means but the many people that I know never talk about or use that word because they just don't care about most things anyway. They are all caught up in their own little world. Globalist corporations do pretty much run and rule the world. Everything sounds insane to a liberal who does not know the facts about anything as to what and who is effecting their materialistic lives. I suppose that you must believe that politicians really do care about you, eh?  

[Machjo]

2 hours ago, taxme said:

Globalists corporations are in favor of wanting to turn the world into one big open borders world where there are no tariffs and total free trade. The average person is too stupid to use the word globalist because either they never heard of the word or use it themselves or they are not being informed enough as to how the globalist corporations work in the world. I am aware of what globalism means but the many people that I know never talk about or use that word because they just don't care about most things anyway. They are all caught up in their own little world. Globalist corporations do pretty much run and rule the world. Everything sounds insane to a liberal who does not know the facts about anything as to what and who is effecting their materialistic lives. I suppose that you must believe that politicians really do care about you, eh?  

No, I just favour free markets, globalization advances free markets, and nationalism hinders them (think supply-management, cultural nationalism, and telecommunications cartels like Bell, Rogers, Telus, etc. who don't want foreign competition).

But hey, suit yourself.

[-1=e^ipi]

9 hours ago, Machjo said:

the word 'feminism' as synonymous with 'equality of the sexes' as an example

Feminism is not synonymous with equality of the sexes.

 

In some contexts it is, but in other contexts it has different definitions. One such alternative definition is advocacy of women's rights. If you take a gender studies course in a university you will get a different definition along the lines of feminism is the political movement to overthrow the patriarchy.

[Machjo]

14 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Feminism is not synonymous with equality of the sexes.

 

In some contexts it is, but in other contexts it has different definitions. One such alternative definition is advocacy of women's rights. If you take a gender studies course in a university you will get a different definition along the lines of feminism is the political movement to overthrow the patriarchy.

That's another thing that breaks down communication in the English language: the widening gap between academic and standard English. If scholars want to be able to bridge the language barrier between themselves and the general population, they need to learn to use standard dictionaries. Racism has taken on some convoluted definition in academic English too.

[Argus]

On 8/28/2018 at 7:33 PM, Machjo said:

I can see one thing that might spook a potential Bernier supporter like myself. I oppose the dairy cartel on principle, not because it affects me directly: I don't buy milk products anyway.

Let's get real. What support Bernier has is not because of dairy marketing boards. It's because of his remarks about diversity, and the reaction to it from the political and media elites. A lot of people have been given the idea Bernier is going to come out as opposing the current high level and type of immigration system as well as multiculturalism and diversity. If he does... that could put the cat among the pigeons. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction with immigration and the state of cultural assimilation of immigrants. But there's no political outlet for that dissatisfaction. If Bernier provides one that will resonate in Quebec, for sure, and likely in many other parts of Canada, as well.

[Machjo]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

Let's get real. What support Bernier has is not because of dairy marketing boards. It's because of his remarks about diversity, and the reaction to it from the political and media elites. A lot of people have been given the idea Bernier is going to come out as opposing the current high level and type of immigration system as well as multiculturalism and diversity. If he does... that could put the cat among the pigeons. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction with immigration and the state of cultural assimilation of immigrants. But there's no political outlet for that dissatisfaction. If Bernier provides one that will resonate in Quebec, for sure, and likely in many other parts of Canada, as well.

Bernier already said he's not opposed to immigration per say. He seems to oppose just the money being spent on promoting it. I think he has a more libertarian let-them-in-but-let-them-support-themselves approach, which is more or less where I stand too.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Machjo

[Argus]

21 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Bernier already said he's not opposed to immigration per say. He seems to oppose just the money being spent on promoting it. I think he has a more libertarian let-them-in-but-let-them-support-themselves approach, which is more or less where I stand too.

If Immigration is costing various levels of government $23 billion a year like the Fraser Institute says then they're hardly supporting themselves.
And you can't complain about diversity if you're going to keep importing hundreds of thousands of people every year from cultures which are virtually the opposite of Canada's.

But in any event, the only way I see him and his alleged party succeeding is to go for big immigration reform. There's huge appetite for it. I'm NOT saying he should come out as anti-immigrant or go rogue racist, but there are many valid arguments to be made on both the economic and cultural front for a major shakeup in immigration. 

[Machjo]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

If Immigration is costing various levels of government $23 billion a year like the Fraser Institute says then they're hardly supporting themselves.
And you can't complain about diversity if you're going to keep importing hundreds of thousands of people every year from cultures which are virtually the opposite of Canada's.

But in any event, the only way I see him and his alleged party succeeding is to go for big immigration reform. There's huge appetite for it. I'm NOT saying he should come out as anti-immigrant or go rogue racist, but there are many valid arguments to be made on both the economic and cultural front for a major shakeup in immigration. 

Generous government programs attract the wrong kind of immigrant. Singapore accepts more immigrants per capita than Canada does yet it's doing just fine. Bear in mind though that Singapore expects them to support themselves and so it attracts a very different, entrepreneurial kind of immigrant. The problem isn't with immigration per se, but the social assistance we give immigrants.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, Machjo said:

Generous government programs attract the wrong kind of immigrant. Singapore accepts more immigrants per capita than Canada does yet it's doing just fine. Bear in mind though that Singapore expects them to support themselves and so it attracts a very different, entrepreneurial kind of immigrant. The problem isn't with immigration per se, but the social assistance we give immigrants.

Well, under our Charter we have no say in that. Immigrants get the same rights as Canadians, and there is no legal way to shut them out from social welfare services. Further, we have a more progressive tax system than Singapore which means immigrants who get lower paying jobs and have several children will not be paying any income tax, despite the government paying for their health care, education and other services.

Most of our immigrants come from countries which Canada Immigration's study in 2015 showed tend to produce people with poor economic outcomes in Canada, countries in the middle east, for example, and northern Africa.