Who could effectively oppose Trudeau in the next election?

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, scribblet said:

I wish I could agree but IMO he'll win the next election, possible with only a minority.  Too many people still prefer hair, looks, socks and a vacuous drone to a competent PM. 

A classmate of mine at UVic had a theory claiming every hair on a national party leader's head was worth 10,000 votes.

Edited December 24, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[Michael Hardner]

36 minutes ago, Argus said:

I can also tell you that old school conservatives are not impressed by the importation of people who are poor, unskilled, uneducated and can't speak English, because unlike in generations past they represent an enormous fiscal burden on an already overburdened state.

 

At this point I would welcome a real discussion on immigration or any topic where George Soros doesn't come up.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

At this point I would welcome a real discussion on immigration or any topic where George Soros doesn't come up.

Well, I suppose I could put one in my club, and then delete any references to Soros. :-P

[turningrite]

On 12/24/2018 at 12:13 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Scribblet: "Very Alarming"
Angus T: "Very disturbing" Trudeau and his vision "Greatest threat"
Turningrite:  "[hope to get]a sensible government that rejects this kind of globalist nonsense."
Centerpiece: "We are sleep-walking to a Canada that no one will recognize."
Ironstone: " yes,our Liberal government will be perfectly happy to take it's marching orders from the UN at least as far as opening up the borders for mass migration is concerned."
Goddess: "governments don't tell the people what they're really up to."

That's all I have time for right now.  All of these posters are prioritizing some bullshit that the UN will somehow have power over Canada.  This is Agenda 21 all over again.

The sad thing is that mainstream conservatives such as yourself don't put more of an effort into discounting them.  Apparently even Andrew Sheer has to feed the trolls.  You party is declining.

 

Nice try. But sorry to tell you that you've utterly misrepresented my position. I've noted that the real danger of the UN Compact for Migration is domestic, or regional in the case of the EU. Under international law, which has since the 17th century been governed by the "Westphalian sovereignty" principle, such pacts are voluntary and non-binding. Their efficacy rests on the willingness of signatory states to in good faith observe their provisions. The great powers, the U.S., China and Russia, routinely eschew any notion that their sovereignty be undermined and in this case gave the migration pact a big swerve. But some democracies, notably Australia and Italy, also refused to sign the thing, noting that its provisions were/are inconsistent with their policies and practices. Why be hypocritical, then, and sign something they have no intention of or interest in implementing?

This brings us to Western democracies that did sign it. Merkel indicated in the Bundestag that Germany sees it as a mechanism to bring the broader EU, and particularly smaller and poorer states which have been reluctant to accept Germany's migration agenda, into compliance with Germany's immigration policies and practices. Once approved by a majority of states, she has stated, the pact's provisions will become "valid" throughout the EU. And countries like Sweden and Britain, which already accord migrants significant social benefits, no doubt want to see a reduction in the kind of "benefits shopping" which attracts migrants to their shores. But Canada? We already grant immigrants and refugees most of the benefits compelled by the pact, thus rendering our support for it more ideological than practical. An objective observer must sure be concerned as to whether the intent of the Lib government is to etch in stone its own immigration agenda. Other inherent risks, like that entailed in the pact's endorsement of censorship and propaganda in promoting its objectives, are chilling. But then, our "progressives" seem entirely comfortable with such anti-demographic 'ends justify means' shenanigans. "Deplatforming" and demonizing critics has become part of their repertoire. Should we be giving this kind of nonsense encouragement? Anybody who actually believes in democracy - a messy and inconvenient system, at best - has ample reason to be concerned.

Edited December 25, 2018 by turningrite

[Army Guy]

I think it is a sad state of affairs when our only option  is Andrew Scheer, I mean who is this guy, what is his platform, from what I've heard so far is he is not much better than Justin....his platform is dictated by polls and special interest groups. I don't see many conservative ideas coming out of him at all....yes he is against Justin's carbon tax...., the immigration compact, basically anything Justin has come up with....but we have not heard what he is going to do with immigration, or the climate ….

I also see Mad max taking a huge bite out of Scheers supporters....I think most in the cons party has written max off as a distraction but I think max will hurt the cons party standings....maybe enough to tilt the balance  and giving the liberals the lead the next election….

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

I think it is a sad state of affairs when our only option  is Andrew Scheer, I mean who is this guy, what is his platform, from what I've heard so far is he is not much better than Justin....his platform is dictated by polls and special interest groups. I don't see many conservative ideas coming out of him at all....yes he is against Justin's carbon tax...., the immigration compact, basically anything Justin has come up with....but we have not heard what he is going to do with immigration, or the climate ….

I also see Mad max taking a huge bite out of Scheers supporters....I think most in the cons party has written max off as a distraction but I think max will hurt the cons party standings....maybe enough to tilt the balance  and giving the liberals the lead the next election….

 

I wrote to Scheer during the leadership campaign. Well, actually, I responded to one of the emails he sent out. Anyway, he would not say anything about his position on immigration. He's a politician, not a leader. And I agree, they will govern, should they get elected, by poll, targeting this and that group through specific policy initiatives designed to win that group's support. He is against the migration pact, yes, strongly against! He is very much against all the people walking across the border! Very much against!

What would he do? <crickets>

He's not going to say he's going to cut immigration, because that might offend someone. Besides, it was his party which tripled immigration in the 1980s because they figured the new immigrants would vote for the PC party when they got their quicky citizenship card. Similarly, any ideas about illegal migration or refugees would leave him open to criticism for this and that. So he simply finds it better to be the stern finger wagger who wants all this stuff stopped, but without saying how.

Neither bravery nor vision have been qualities any Canadian party leader has had for decades.

Edited December 25, 2018 by Argus

[eyeball]

On 12/25/2018 at 11:07 AM, Army Guy said:

I think it is a sad state of affairs when our only option  is Andrew Scheer, I mean who is this guy, what is his platform, from what I've heard so far is he is not much better than Justin....

It'll probably come down to a case of nice dimples vs nice hair....maybe a battle of the socks.

[Rue]

On 12/23/2018 at 2:42 PM, eyeball said:

He didn't decriminalize pot in the process leading to legalization and he didn't cancel the LAV deal with Saudi Arabia.

My benefit of doubt was pretty much exhausted by day 3 of his taking office.

There there now Eye. It's gonna be o.k. Listen if it makes you feel any better the think of all politicians as std's. They all leave us with unpleasant reminders of how they screwed us.

Edited December 27, 2018 by Rue

[Rue]

On 12/25/2018 at 2:07 PM, Army Guy said:

I think it is a sad state of affairs when our only option  is Andrew Scheer, I mean who is this guy, what is his platform, from what I've heard so far is he is not much better than Justin....his platform is dictated by polls and special interest groups. I don't see many conservative ideas coming out of him at all....yes he is against Justin's carbon tax...., the immigration compact, basically anything Justin has come up with....but we have not heard what he is going to do with immigration, or the climate ….

I also see Mad max taking a huge bite out of Scheers supporters....I think most in the cons party has written max off as a distraction but I think max will hurt the cons party standings....maybe enough to tilt the balance  and giving the liberals the lead the next election….

 

Mad Max is a certifiable buttocks. He might get some votes from some confused Quebecers thinking he is a separatist.

[Army Guy]

They are all buttocks....but I like his platform better than Scheers right now....he has some playing points I like, getting rid of the dairy cartel, getting rid of corporate welfare, plus everything in the cons platform todate as well 

[Argus]

39 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

They are all buttocks....but I like his platform better than Scheers right now....he has some playing points I like, getting rid of the dairy cartel, getting rid of corporate welfare, plus everything in the cons platform todate as well 

Scheer has a platform?

[Army Guy]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

Scheer has a platform?

well I think today it is everything Justin is for , he is against....the rest we are left scratching our heads about...this has been said many times in the media....not many Canadians know Mr. Scheer, and before we know it the election will be upon us.... and we will be still asking who is this guy....and what is his platform....I think right now I'm going to stick with a known...thats max....unless Andrew comes out with a better platform , I doubt it......there is not much chioce is there. either that or try to bear Justin for another 4 years..

[OftenWrong]

30 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

not many Canadians know Mr. Scheer, and before we know it the election will be upon us.... and we will be still asking who is this guy....and what is his platform....I think right now I'm going to stick with a known...thats max....unless Andrew comes out with a better platform , I doubt it......there is not much chioce is there. either that or try to bear Justin for another 4 years..

Alas, I think we're doomed and that's what's going to happen. Justin is still riding the polls and all he has to do is lay low for a while, and keep scoring cheap points. Even if he screws up,  the alternatives are looking pretty grim. They really aren't alternatives at all. Yet, had Bernier taken the CPC leadership I feel they would have had a fighting chance. Choosing smiling Andy Scheer as their leader only helped little Justin.

Funny how that works, eh?

[Zeitgeist]

If Trudeau is out of touch and naive, O’Leary is another greed is good populist.  We’ve had enough of these messes. I don’t see any potential federal leaders with the breadth of vision necessary to take us where we need to go right now. We need to capitalize on our resources yet prevent the rolling back of commitments to tackle climate change, whatever the fed climate change deniers south of the border think.  

We also have some serious work to do fixing and healing the health, education and housing problems on indigenous reserves with long term sustainable solutions.  

Canada also has to be relentless in its defence of human rights and rule of law against the likes of the Saudis, China, and perhaps even the US under current leadership.  We should NOT ratify USMCA without the US removing the steel and aluminum tariffs.  We need to fight for a level playing field on labour standards and wages GLOBALLY.  Yes I said that dirty word.  Only an equal playing field internationally can prevent the further offshoring of jobs by the likes of GM, which should be boycotted if they don’t maintain production levels in Canada that reflect its high sales in Canada. 

We also need to handle immigration more carefully and moderately without giving into the temptation to blame our problems on immigrants, which I know some on here do. Accepting legitimate refugees was a social good of which Canadians should be proud, but we have to turn more attention to problems at home, of which there are many in what is nevertheless such a great country.  

Edited December 28, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

well I think today it is everything Justin is for , he is against....the rest we are left scratching our heads about...this has been said many times in the media....not many Canadians know Mr. Scheer, and before we know it the election will be upon us.... and we will be still asking who is this guy....and what is his platform....I think right now I'm going to stick with a known...thats max....unless Andrew comes out with a better platform , I doubt it......there is not much chioce is there. either that or try to bear Justin for another 4 years..

I think that is too simple. Scheer is not Trump (nor Trudeau). However, even moreso than Harper, he appears to lack the courage of his convictions. He thunders on about abuses of immigration but will not say what his party will do about any of them. He criticizes the Liberals on the pipeline but once again, won't say what his party would do differently. He criticizes them for the deficit and certainly suggests his party will eliminate it, but with no information whatsoever about how.

He wants to gain the credit for opposing stupid things the Liberals do but does not want to give offense to anyone by outlining his own response. Or to quote that learned public servant Sir Humphrey Appleby: " Formulating policy means making choices. Once you do that, you please the people that you favour, but infuriate everybody else. One vote gained, ten lost. If you give the job to the road services, the rail board and unions will scream. Give it to the railways, the road lobby will massacre you. Cut British Airways investment plans, they'll hold a devastating press conference that same day. "

 

[montgomery]

On 12/20/2018 at 2:58 AM, Icur12c said:

Many Canadians now (I hope) see what the current PM is doing, and many seriously want him gone.  Who could and would run against him?  We know what the UN agreement is about for Trudeau, same as Obama, Trudeau's friend.

And so what is the UN agreement about for Trudeau or for anyone?? 

Maybe the best answer for your comment is to say that Obama may be viewed by Canadians to be the best they ever had in that sick country. We could perhaps stand Obama and Trudeau together for a picture of decency in political leaders, then stand their current psychopath president and Scheer together for a taste of the extreme rightist government the Cons have planned for Canada! Oh, and throw in Harper too and he will take care of selling out our NAFTA negotiators for us!

[Argus]

1 hour ago, montgomery said:

And so what is the UN agreement about for Trudeau or for anyone?? 

Maybe the best answer for your comment is to say that Obama may be viewed by Canadians to be the best they ever had in that sick country. We could perhaps stand Obama and Trudeau together for a picture of decency in political leaders, then stand their current psychopath president and Scheer together for a taste of the extreme rightist government the Cons have planned for Canada! Oh, and throw in Harper too and he will take care of selling out our NAFTA negotiators for us!

I don't think there's any doubt Obama and Trudeau are both decent. Neither, however, is much of a leader. Neither is strong nor has any vision. Neither is much good at standing up to nasty people. Both come across as kind of ivory tower elitists.

Comparing Scheer to Trump is, of course, nuts. There is no similarity between them whatsoever. Neither is an 'extreme rightist'. It's not even clear Trump has any political ideology other than narcissism. Insofar as he cared about politics he supported Democrats much of his life.

If you call everyone who is even mildly conservative an extreme rightist then before long people will simply disregard it as babble, which is good for only one group of people and that's the extreme right.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, montgomery said:

....Maybe the best answer for your comment is to say that Obama may be viewed by Canadians to be the best they ever had in that sick country.

 

Totally irrelevant....do you think the Americans compare their political candidates to Canadian party leaders come election time ?

[montgomery]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

I don't think there's any doubt Obama and Trudeau are both decent. Neither, however, is much of a leader. Neither is strong nor has any vision. Neither is much good at standing up to nasty people. Both come across as kind of ivory tower elitists.

Comparing Scheer to Trump is, of course, nuts. There is no similarity between them whatsoever. Neither is an 'extreme rightist'. It's not even clear Trump has any political ideology other than narcissism. Insofar as he cared about politics he supported Democrats much of his life.

If you call everyone who is even mildly conservative an extreme rightist then before long people will simply disregard it as babble, which is good for only one group of people and that's the extreme right.

Trudeau is being exactly as strong as he should be, especially on the NAFTA fight with the US's fascist Trump regime. It's the Conservatives who are ready to sell the farm for quick profit. And Trudeau knows that Canada must quickly diversify away from the US and expand our trade horizons before the US finds more reasons to blackmail our country. 

All Conservatives are basically the same and Scheer is quite similar to Trump. Neither represent socially responsible government, they both promote fascism and far right extremist. Of which, the socially responsible Scandinavian countries have proven to be very wrong now. Not to mention that the Cons will quickly align with the Fraser Institute if elected and again attempt to destroy our health care system. Rightists don't believe in universal health care for all the people, they prefer to make a profit off of people's lives and wellbeing.

If you're an American stick around. We Canadians can teach you a lot about caring and social responsibilities.

[turningrite]

16 hours ago, montgomery said:

1.) Trudeau is being exactly as strong as he should be, especially on the NAFTA fight with the US's fascist Trump regime. It's the Conservatives who are ready to sell the farm for quick profit. And Trudeau knows that Canada must quickly diversify away from the US and expand our trade horizons before the US finds more reasons to blackmail our country. 

2.) All Conservatives are basically the same and Scheer is quite similar to Trump. Neither represent socially responsible government, they both promote fascism and far right extremist. Of which, the socially responsible Scandinavian countries have proven to be very wrong now. Not to mention that the Cons will quickly align with the Fraser Institute if elected and again attempt to destroy our health care system. Rightists don't believe in universal health care for all the people, they prefer to make a profit off of people's lives and wellbeing.

3.) If you're an American stick around. We Canadians can teach you a lot about caring and social responsibilities.

1.) Trudeau's government now looks weak for being pushed into a trade deal with the Americans that didn't even achieve the elimination of steel and aluminum tariffs. And even the auto workers' union noted after the announcement of the GM plant closure in Oshawa that the USMCA may not even have achieved the minimal degree of progress the union had at first assumed it had. So, if Canada is to diversity its trade, what other partners are on offer that won't be as difficult to deal with as America? The China card has pretty much blown up in Trudeau's face, as if China, with its mercantilist economic strategy, was ever a good fit with a "free trade" agenda in the first place. Economically speaking, Canada is a minnow swimming in a big sea. It has to skillfully manoeuvre just to survive. Are you convinced the Trudeau government, with its predilection for "progressive" ideological posturing and lecturing, has the ability to do this? I'm not.  

2.) Comparing Scheer to Trump is a laugh. Scheer is an inoffensive compromise figure who was installed as party leader by special interests. And the CPC brand is otherwise little different in substance from its Lib counterpart on economic issues. It struggles to separate itself. Over the weekend, Scheer indicated that his party will stake its election run on opposing the carbon tax. Otherwise, though, where are the differences, other perhaps than in style? Bernier has noted this. There is really very little ideological difference between the three traditional mainstream parties.

3.) That's very presumptuous of you. What can Canada teach America about caring and social responsibility? We care little that thousands of Canadians are homeless and many more are underhoused and/or are a paycheque or two away from losing their housing. We care little that our health care systems are straining to provide even marginally decent care, with Ontario an excellent example of deteriorating care. We care little that we're facing an opioid crisis, much of it grounded in economic and social misery, of almost equal scale to that unfolding south of the border. We care little about the fact that wages have been stagnant in Canada for much of the past three decades and that the one industry that helped to buck this trend, the energy sector, is now on its knees. And, as Conrad Black noted in a recent NP column, Canada's relative economic prosperity, which is necessary to sustain healthy social programs, has been deteriorating for quite some time. In some cases, Canadians have marginally more protection from the vicissitudes of markets than do our American neighbours while in others they have the advantage. It's pretty much a wash as far as I can tell, so we shouldn't be too smug about it.

Edited January 2, 2019 by turningrite

[montgomery]

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

1.) Trudeau's government now looks weak for being pushed into a trade deal with the Americans that didn't even achieve the elimination of steel and aluminum tariffs. And even the auto workers' union noted after the announcement of the GM plant closure in Oshawa that the USMCA may not even have achieved the minimal degree of progress the union had at first assumed it had. So, if Canada is to diversity its trade, what other partners are on offer that won't be as difficult to deal with as America? The China card has pretty much blown up in Trudeau's face, as if China, with its mercantilist economic strategy, was ever a good fit with a "free trade" agenda in the first place. Economically speaking, Canada is a minnow swimming in a big sea. It has to skillfully manoeuvre just to survive. Are you convinced the Trudeau government, with its predilection for "progressive" ideological posturing and lecturing, has the ability to do this? I'm not.  

2.) Comparing Scheer to Trump is a laugh. Scheer is an inoffensive compromise figure who was installed as party leader by special interests. And the CPC brand is otherwise little different in substance from its Lib counterpart on economic issues. It struggles to separate itself. Over the weekend, Scheer indicated that his party will stake its election run on opposing the carbon tax. Otherwise, though, where are the differences, other perhaps than in style? Bernier has noted this. There is really very little ideological difference between the three traditional mainstream parties.

3.) That's very presumptuous of you. What can Canada teach America about caring and social responsibility? We care little that thousands of Canadians are homeless and many more are underhoused and/or are a paycheque or two away from losing their housing. We care little that our health care systems are straining to provide even marginally decent care, with Ontario an excellent example of deteriorating care. We care little that we're facing an opioid crisis, much of it grounded in economic and social misery, of almost equal scale to that unfolding south of the border. We care little about the fact that wages have been stagnant in Canada for much of the past three decades and that the one industry that helped to buck this trend, the energy sector, is now on its knees. And, as Conrad Black noted in a recent NP column, Canada's relative economic prosperity, which is necessary to sustain healthy social programs, has been deteriorating for quite some time. In some cases, Canadians have marginally more protection from the vicissitudes of markets than do our American neighbours while in others they have the advantage. It's pretty much a wash as far as I can tell, so we shouldn't be too smug about it.

1.) baloney, 2.) baloney. 3.) Ask the ordinary American and they will tell you that Canada is a socialist or a communist country, so that's a direct indication straight from the horse's mouth right there. Then there's our and the world's health care system that half of Americans say is communism. Then there are Canada's social programs that look after the people, which is much more similar to the Scandinavian example than anything Americans. Then there is  the example of the psychopath they elected for their president, Then there is the racism that is proudly owned by the teabaggers and most of the Trump Republicans. Then  there are the US's 40 wars of aggression since WW2. Then there is what they did to Iraq that was based on lies and false pretenses, which was refused for Canada by Chretien.

And I could go on and on comparing even the best of them as being right of Canadians politically, which represents warmongering and lack of social responsibility. But why should I go on with more when it's very obvious to decent Canadians who watch the hate spectacle that Americans, right and left have for each other. And let's not forget their guns and the slaughter of their school children in the name of their 2nd. amendment.

And you try to suggest that Canadians have nothing to teach those savages south of our southern border?? Shame on you if you're a Canadian. And if you're an American then you likely won't understand.

Canada is much more like the happiest countries in the world, which are mostly the Scandinavian countries, and they're all socially responsible capitalist countries. The Conservative party wants very badly to change that! There's lots of money to be made off the backs of ordinary Canadians. Tell us about the real ideals of the Conservative party! 

Edited January 2, 2019 by montgomery

[turningrite]

7 minutes ago, montgomery said:

1.) baloney, 2.) baloney. 3.) Ask the ordinary American and they will tell you that Canada is a socialist or a communist country, so that's a direct indication straight from the horse's mouth right there. Then there's our and the world's health care system that half of Americans say is communism. Then there are Canada's social programs that look after the people, which is much more similar to the Scandinavian example than anything Americans. Then there is  the example of the psychopath they elected for their president, Then there is the racism that is proudly owned by the teabaggers and most of the Trump Republicans. Then  there are the US's 40 wars of aggression since WW2. Then there is what they did to Iraq that was based on lies and false pretenses, which was refused for Canada by Chretien.

And I could go on and on comparing even the best of them as being right of Canadians politically, which represents warmongering and lack of social responsibility. But why should I go on with more when it's very obvious to decent Canadians who watch the hate spectacle that Americans, right and left have for each other. And let's not forget their guns and the slaughter of their school children in the name of their 2nd. amendment.

And you try to suggest that Canadians have nothing to teach those savages south of our southern border?? Shame on you if you're a Canadian. And if you're an American then you likely won't understand.

Canada is much more like the happiest countries in the world, which are mostly the Scandinavian countries, and they're all socially responsible capitalist countries. The Conservative party wants very badly to change that! There's lots of money to be made off the backs of ordinary Canadians. Tell us about the real ideals of the Conservative party! 

I suspect you don't really know what you're talking about. Canada remains near the bottom of OECD rankings in terms of social program expenditures as a percentage of GDP, spending much less per capita than many European counterparts, in particular.

[montgomery]

4 minutes ago, turningrite said:

I suspect you don't really know what you're talking about. Canada remains near the bottom of OECD rankings in terms of social program expenditures as a percentage of GDP, spending much less per capita than many European counterparts, in particular.

I suspect that you'r much more concerned with profiting off the backs of ordinary Canadians than your interested in socially responsible capitalism. 

Here's a list of the world's ten happiest countries. There's a similarity in all ten's governments and a markable difference from US style, extreme right greedy capitalism. The sort of capitalism you are having wet dreams about bringing to Canada.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-are-the-top-10-happiest-countries-in-the-world.html

Let's explore the similarities in the Trudeau agenda to those other nine examples of good government. And then let's look at the many ways that sort of government turns the stomachs of the Conservative. Don't be afraid to publicly criticize that which you hate and what those countries represent. 

[turningrite]

25 minutes ago, montgomery said:

1.) I suspect that you'r much more concerned with profiting off the backs of ordinary Canadians than your interested in socially responsible capitalism. 

2.) Here's a list of the world's ten happiest countries. There's a similarity in all ten's governments and a markable difference from US style, extreme right greedy capitalism. The sort of capitalism you are having wet dreams about bringing to Canada.

3.) Let's explore the similarities in the Trudeau agenda to those other nine examples of good government. And then let's look at the many ways that sort of government turns the stomachs of the Conservative. Don't be afraid to publicly criticize that which you hate and what those countries represent. 

1.) You know nothing about me so you're engaging in rather mindless personal attacks.

2.) "Happiness" rankings are highly subjective. Further, they tend to benefit smaller, developed countries that in general, with the exception of Canada and Australia, that have generally featured homogeneous populations. Perhaps you should consider that according to a 2017 Gallup study the U.S. overwhelmingly remains the preferred destination for those who, mainly in the developing world, would like to emigrate from their own countries.

3.) Nine examples of good government? Well, Australia, a post-colonial country with a relatively small but diverse population that's highly dependent, as are we, on resource industries, does offer a good point of comparison. Its governance has been more conservative than ours and in terms of GDP and living standards it has zoomed ahead of Canada. Its public debt level is much lower than Canada's and It has examined its large-scale immigration program, largely modeled on Canada's, and found it flawed. Its current approach to immigration is tougher and more selective than is ours. And Australia still seems a pretty happy and stable place, which the logic you express in your posts suggests shouldn't be the case. So, yes, let's compare ourselves to Australia. A warning, though: You might like the conclusions.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/these-are-the-countries-migrants-want-to-move-to/

[montgomery]

9 minutes ago, turningrite said:

1.) You know nothing about me so you're engaging in rather mindless personal attacks.

2.) "Happiness" rankings are highly subjective. Further, they tend to benefit smaller, developed countries that in general, with the exception of Canada and Australia, that have generally featured homogeneous populations. Perhaps you should consider that according to a 2017 Gallup study the U.S. overwhelmingly remains the preferred destination for those who, mainly in the developing world, would like to emigrate from their own countries.

3.) Nine examples of good government? Well, Australia, a post-colonial country with a relatively small but diverse population that's highly dependent, as are we, on resource industries, does offer a good point of comparison. Its governance has been more conservative than ours and in terms of GDP and living standards it has zoomed ahead of Canada. Its public debt level is much lower than Canada's and It has examined its large-scale immigration program, largely modeled on Canada's, and found it flawed. Its current approach to immigration is tougher and more selective than is ours. And Australia still seems a pretty happy and stable place, which the logic you express in your posts suggests shouldn't be the case. So, yes, let's compare ourselves to Australia. A warning, though: You might like the conclusions.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/these-are-the-countries-migrants-want-to-move-to/

I know a lot about you already and you tell me more each time you post something. Now you're telling me that you want Canada to be more like Australia in some ways. But Austrailia takes a position more like Trump on emigrants while Canada and Canadians take a very different position. We see our social responsibility of taking in people from other countries who are in desperate need, while you don't accept that sort of ideology because you are a Conservative, or a conservative.

I can't put your concerns of GDP over those more human concerns which I've tried to impress on you. What can I say? We're different. If you want to make a point on how you care about people in need then do so. Maybe you just find it difficult to express yourself in that respect and find it much easier to think of profit or for profit government. 

Granted, your profit and loss statement is important and profit is important to Canada too, but people are also important, regardless of whether they are pure white like you.

maybe we should just stick to how you hate Trudeau? After all, I've been pretty straight forward on how I hate conservative greed and their way of disrespecting people in need who want to emigrate to our huge country of opportunity which has so few people.