Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Argus said:

I don't see opposition to having a reasonable, well-equipped military, especially in these times of growing danger - except from the idiots of the anti-militarist left.

 Have you talked to people about it? It’s a low profile issue for a reason. I would agree that we should spend more on it but I don’t see a big wad of voters demanding such changes. 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Posted
7 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

 Have you talked to people about it? It’s a low profile issue for a reason. I would agree that we should spend more on it but I don’t see a big wad of voters demanding such changes. 

No, you're correct. It's not high profile. It's not something most people base their vote on. That's why the politicians feel safe in ignoring it. But it's like immigration. Two thirds of Canadians might not like the number of immigrants coming in, and might worry about them assimilating, but it's not a high priority enough item to impact their votes, in most cases. So the politicians largely ignore the people's wishes.

BUT. Even though it's not a high priority, people do feel like we need fewer immigrants, and a capable military. They might not vote against parties because they're not doing anything about it, but they're also not going to vote against parties who DO. Except for a smallish cadre of progressives.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted (edited)
Quote

6) On natives. We would work to eliminate the Indian Act, and start working on relocating natives (voluntarily) who live on uneconomical reserves towards urban centres where they can find work. This might involve buying up land closer in towards urban centres, and possibly creating more 'urban reserves'. We would redirect money now paid to band offices to individual band members, who could then be taxed by their bands. Their homes would become their property, along with the land under them.
 

I could see ferocious nimbyist resistance to new ‘urban reserves’ that would sink any MPs involved in it. One proposal might be to gradually consolidate native communities into larger centres where resources could be more efficiently deployed. 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Posted
40 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I could see ferocious nimbyist resistance to new ‘urban reserves’ that would sink any MPs involved in it. One proposal might be to gradually consolidate native communities into larger centres where resources could be more efficiently deployed. 

My understanding is that there are already some downtown reserves.  They’re small but Indigenous owned and permanent.  

Posted
On 10/13/2019 at 7:01 AM, Argus said:

The MSM already call Scheer the anti-Christ, so what would be the difference except the Conservative party would actually be promoting some popular positions?

They try but they literally have no ammo. 

If Scheer had put out Bernier’s accurate but now-infamous tweet about the “diversity is our greatest source of strength” comment the CBC would still be shrieking “RACISM!!!”

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

"If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Argus said:

No, you're correct. It's not high profile. It's not something most people base their vote on. That's why the politicians feel safe in ignoring it. But it's like immigration. Two thirds of Canadians might not like the number of immigrants coming in, and might worry about them assimilating, but it's not a high priority enough item to impact their votes, in most cases. So the politicians largely ignore the people's wishes.

BUT. Even though it's not a high priority, people do feel like we need fewer immigrants, and a capable military. They might not vote against parties because they're not doing anything about it, but they're also not going to vote against parties who DO. Except for a smallish cadre of progressives.

Well when the only party offering notably lower immigration levels only wins a seat, if that, it will be obvious that it's more than just progressives who didn't vote PPC. It won't just be a smallish cadre of progressives, it will be the vast majority of Canadians. Same applies to support of a capable military, Canadians don't care, and that's why it's never going to happen.

They might say they want it in polls, but when the details become clear, they won't pay for it or support it. What they consider to be a capable military, is a joke, and what they consider to be lower immigration levels, will likewise be a joke with no real difference from current policy. If you think most Canadians will agree with your immigration or military policies, that's some mighty wishful thinking not actually based on reality and won't ever be reflected in the way that Canadians actually vote, you campaign for a lost cause.

Edited by Yzermandius19
  • Like 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Well when the only party offering notably lower immigration levels only wins a seat, if that, it will be obvious that it's more than just progressives who didn't vote PPC. It won't just be a smallish cadre of progressives, it will be the vast majority of Canadians. Same applies to support of a capable military, Canadians don't care, and that's why it's never going to happen.

They might say they want it in polls, but when the details become clear, they won't pay for it or support it. What they consider to be a capable military, is a joke, and what they consider to be lower immigration levels, will likewise be a joke with no real difference from current policy. If you think most Canadians will agree with your immigration or military policies, that's some mighty wishful thinking not actually based on reality and won't ever be reflected in the way that Canadians actually vote, you campaign for a lost cause.

Well the elastic will be stretched even farther with an NDP/Liberal coalition.  The reaction might be a big, long-term conservative shift.  Think of Mike Harris in Ontario after Bob Rae’s NDP government.  The Conservatives had a long kick at the can.  You never know.  

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well the elastic will be stretched even farther with an NDP/Liberal coalition.  The reaction might be a big, long-term conservative shift.  Think of Mike Harris in Ontario after Bob Rae’s NDP government.  The Conservatives had a long kick at the can.  You never know.  

The Conservatives ain't going to lower immigration levels, even in such a backlash. A lot of immigrants vote Conservative, so why would they reduce immigration? They won't, just ask Harper.

Wishful thinking is a helluva drug. The Conservatives are just Liberals in blue, quit lying to yourself.

Edited by Yzermandius19
Posted
45 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The Conservatives ain't going to lower immigration levels, even in such a backlash. A lot of immigrants vote Conservative, so why would they reduce immigration? They won't, just ask Harper.

Wishful thinking is a helluva drug. The Conservatives are just Liberals in blue, quit lying to yourself.

I don’t have an issue with immigration numbers as much as I do settlement patterns.  We don’t control immigration to the extent required to meet the country’s long-term goals.  Simply cutting immigration numbers is a blunt instrument, but it will be necessary if tighter controls can’t be implemented on who comes in and where people initially settle (before becoming full-fledged citizens).   If the population feels that immigration is getting out of control, eventually this will present itself as an election issue.  That’s where Bernier’s party could pick up real support.  Many Canadians thought the Reform Party were too radical at first.  They eventually became mainstream and merged with the PC’s to form the Conservative Party, which probably has become a watered down form of conservatism over time.  The political shifts in Canada will depend on many factors.  Canadians don’t seem to be done with the Liberals yet, but their support has dropped substantially.  Minority government likely.  

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I don’t have an issue with immigration numbers as much as I do settlement patterns.  We don’t control immigration to the extent required to meet the country’s long-term goals.  Simply cutting immigration numbers is a blunt instrument, but it will be necessary if tighter controls can’t be implemented on who comes in and where people initially settle (before becoming full-fledged citizens).   If the population feels that immigration is getting out of control, eventually this will present itself as an election issue.  That’s where Bernier’s party could pick up real support.  Many Canadians thought the Reform Party were too radical at first.  They eventually became mainstream and merged with the PC’s to form the Conservative Party, which probably has become a watered down form of conservatism over time.  The political shifts in Canada will depend on many factors.  Canadians don’t seem to be done with the Liberals yet, but their support has dropped substantially.  Minority government likely.  

Well there is even less support for unconstitutionally forcing people to settle somewhere and not allowing them to move, than there is for lower immigration levels, so good luck with that, you're going to need it.

Your immigration position is simply a political non-starter, and the sooner you admit that to yourself and stop with the pie in the sky wishful thinking that Canadian attitudes will magically change one day, the better. You're in the political wilderness Zeitgeist, no matter how hard you dream of your immigration position eventually becoming mainstream, it just isn't going to happen as long as Canada exists. Even after the shotgun marriage of Confederation is ended, you still probably aren't going to get what you want on that tip, so get used to it.

Edited by Yzermandius19
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Well there is even less support for unconstitutionally forcing people to settle somewhere and not allowing them to move, than there is for lower immigration levels, so good luck with that, you're going to need it.

Your immigration position is simply a political non-starter, and the sooner you admit that to yourself and stop with the pie in the sky wishful thinking that Canadian attitudes will magically change one day, the better. You're in the political wilderness Zeitgeist, no matter how hard you dream of your immigration position eventually becoming mainstream, it just isn't going to happen as long as Canada exists. Even after the shotgun marriage of Confederation is ended, you still probably aren't going to get what you want on that tip, so get used to it.

Well such policies have existed in the past.  I think the issue that will force voters’ hands is the same one that resulted in the Brexit vote: the growing sense that Canadians are no longer in control of their own destiny and that the citizenry are made to feel that they have to swallow a way of life and a society that they don’t want.  Those seeds are sown.  I’m actually somewhat anti-Brexit and support trade blocks and international institutions, but without major reforms these bodies can become oppressive and unrepresentative of local interests.  The federal government always risks that.  Perhaps immigration should become more provincially controlled.  Again though, the issue at hand is the massive influx of new arrivals to certain city regions, so maybe even provincial control changes nothing.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well such policies have existed in the past.  I think the issue that will force voters’ hands is the same one that resulted in the Brexit vote: the growing sense that Canadians are no longer in control of their own destiny and that the citizenry are made to feel that they have to swallow a way of life and a society that they don’t want.  Those seeds are sown.  I’m actually somewhat anti-Brexit and support trade blocks and international institutions, but without major reforms these bodies can become oppressive and unrepresentative of local interests.  The federal government always risks that.  Perhaps immigration should become more provincially controlled.  Again though, the issue at hand is the massive influx of new arrivals to certain city regions, so maybe even provincial control changes nothing.  

Yeah, not sure how provincial control would stop immigrants from wanting to move to certain city regions. Not seeing any kind of government intervention that would effectively prevent that and many of the ineffective methods you propose are blatantly unconstitutional anyway. You can't stop it, the only way things change is if someone invents some technology that makes it more economically beneficial for immigrants to move to small towns instead, and that seems extremely unlikely to happen any time soon, if it even happens in our lifetime at all.

Edited by Yzermandius19
Posted

Conservative party would be more appealing if they got rid of the social conservative aspect and the anti-intellectualism and anti-science stances that it brings. With Peter Mackay I don’t see that happening.

Posted
2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The Conservatives ain't going to lower immigration levels, even in such a backlash. A lot of immigrants vote Conservative, so why would they reduce immigration? They won't, just ask Harper.

Wishful thinking is a helluva drug. The Conservatives are just Liberals in blue, quit lying to yourself.

True BUT they would close the ridiculous  illegal border crossings and tighten the economic class criteria. I have said all along immigration is not the issue the allowing people to enter illegally from a third safe country is, plus economic classes need upgrading of their qualifications point system. As well I myself personally arguye the entire refugee process should be ended and we instead donate funds directly to projects inside refugee camps supervised directly by Canadian charities. I think the UN definition of refugee treatment we incorporated in 1976 is not bringing in refugees but non qualifying migrants using the cover of refugee definition to avoid disqualification from economic class criteria.

I also disagree with how we are taking in for protection certain criminals who have committed serious non political crimes but argue the sentence they get in their country of origin would be more lengthy and so is cruel and unusual. I believe offering refuge to criminals is a very slippery slope and if we do we have to be prepared to put them in jail not define then as free refugees entitled to all the qualifications of genuine refugees.

I argue we scrap the refugee process and concentrate on projects within the refugee camps and allow private sponsorship of refugees through charities not through the government.

That will not happen. No one wants to be unpopular and alienate voters they think might not vote for them. In elections people stick to feel good promises and thus with a recession just around the corner we have NDP, Green and Liberal announcing non stop spending promises. The Tory program also has used spending promises . The only out and out political whores who make their agenda transparent are the Block Quebecois Prostitutes. They make it clear Quebec is a whore and if you want to keep her pay her. I think right now the Bloc is spreading STD's and offers nothing but herpes to Canada. 

I come to you to hell.

Posted
13 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Well when the only party offering notably lower immigration levels only wins a seat, if that, it will be obvious that it's more than just progressives who didn't vote PPC. It won't just be a smallish cadre of progressives, it will be the vast majority of Canadians. Same applies to support of a capable military, Canadians don't care, and that's why it's never going to happen.

You have ignored what I said. That the PPC isn't making much headway is not a reflection of the fact most Canadians are opposed to Bernier's immigration cuts but that they don't know much about him or his party, and that it takes quite a few elections to start moving people out of their normal voting patterns. On conservative forums I hear no enthusiasm for the Tory party, but warnings that 'we can't afford to split the vote' because of how despised Trudeau is. Nothing Bernier is selling offends conservatives. Nothing the Tories are selling excites Conservatives. But people's habits are slow to change, and Bernier probably isn't the guy to do it given his imperfect English. If it was O'Leary running the PPCs they'd probably be at 20%.

And nobody in this election is paying the slightest interest to the military. Why? Because they don't have to, because the others aren't. Scheer ought to, but he's already trying so hard to buy votes that he doesn't have any money left, especially when he's desperate to avoid the accusations he might actually (shudder) cut spending.

  • Like 1

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted
5 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The Conservatives ain't going to lower immigration levels, even in such a backlash. A lot of immigrants vote Conservative, so why would they reduce immigration? They won't, just ask Harper.

That seems to be the near universal belief. But a lot of immigrants worked hard to get here, and don't want to see this country changing any more than 'old stock' Canadians. The ones who are doing their best to integrate and make this their home, who don't cling to old world ways and values, and who pay taxes, are not so thrilled with a continuing flood of immigrants. That's particularly so when many of the immigrants come from places they highly disapprove of. I mean, as a Chinese immigrant what he thinks of all the immigration from the middle east, for example.

There was a poll a few months back which showed something like 40% of Canadians who responded felt too many non-white immigrants were coming into Canada. The notable thing about the poll was that visible minority Canadians were more, not less likely to say this (42% to 39%).

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Argus said:

You have ignored what I said. That the PPC isn't making much headway is not a reflection of the fact most Canadians are opposed to Bernier's immigration cuts but that they don't know much about him or his party, and that it takes quite a few elections to start moving people out of their normal voting patterns. On conservative forums I hear no enthusiasm for the Tory party, but warnings that 'we can't afford to split the vote' because of how despised Trudeau is. Nothing Bernier is selling offends conservatives. Nothing the Tories are selling excites Conservatives. But people's habits are slow to change, and Bernier probably isn't the guy to do it given his imperfect English. If it was O'Leary running the PPCs they'd probably be at 20%.

And nobody in this election is paying the slightest interest to the military. Why? Because they don't have to, because the others aren't. Scheer ought to, but he's already trying so hard to buy votes that he doesn't have any money left, especially when he's desperate to avoid the accusations he might actually (shudder) cut spending.

Why is no one offering lower immigration, because it's not popular and they lose votes with immigrants. People might agree with the vague notion, but when they get the details, they sour on it, hence why the politicians aren't backing it.

Edited by Yzermandius19
Posted
2 hours ago, Abies said:

Conservative party would be more appealing if they got rid of the social conservative aspect and the anti-intellectualism and anti-science stances that it brings. With Peter Mackay I don’t see that happening.

Ah yes, we want more intellectualism - like we see from Justin Trudeau... :rolleyes:

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted
Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Why is no one offering lower immigration, because it's not popular. People might agree with the vague notion, but when they get the details, they sour on it.

You're again ignoring everything I've said so I don't see the point of continuing this.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Argus said:

You're again ignoring everything I've said so I don't see the point of continuing this.

Your points fail to address my point, so I'm ignoring it. The parts that do address my point are what I am rebutting. You are engaging in wishful thinking that the voters will one day agree with you, but that's a pipe dream, you just don't want to hear it. There is no incentive for Conservatives to support lower immigration when many of their voters are immigrants that they need to bring in more of to increase their chances of winning elections, same goes for the Liberals, so it ain't changing. Your faith in the CPC, especially on immigration but also when it comes to the military, misguided.

You need to get used to being in the political wilderness and abandon dreams of your ideas becoming mainstream in Canada anytime soon. Enough with the unfounded optimism, be real.

Edited by Yzermandius19
Posted
39 minutes ago, Argus said:

Ah yes, we want more intellectualism - like we see from Justin Trudeau... :rolleyes:

Rather a leader who listens to experts than a leader who ignores them and crafts policies contrary to their suggestions.

Posted
33 minutes ago, Abies said:

Rather a leader who listens to experts than a leader who ignores them and crafts policies contrary to their suggestions.

Trudeau doesn't listen to experts. The 'experts' say his environmental plans won't work. The 'experts' tell him that pipelines make more sense than trainloads of oil. The 'experts' told him that SNC Lavalin should be prosecuted. The 'experts' told him that he needed to buy a temporary supply ship for the navy. The 'experts' said that the F-35' was the only real alternative for a new Canadian fighter. The 'experts' said that you shouldn't rush bringing over refugees just to meet a ridiculous self-made deadline. Trudeau pays zero attention to 'experts' except where their views coincide with his political desires.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted
On 10/13/2019 at 4:45 PM, taxme said:

Canada is not so much an American territory as much as Canada today has really become a globalist socialist territory country. Even America has pretty much become a globalist country, although at least nationalist Trump is trying to change all of that. Our pro globalist dear Canadian leaders, like Blackface, are pushing Canadians into a global new world order where global corporations and the United Nations are now making the plans for how Canada will operate. Canada 200 years ago may have been a great nation in the making, but today Canada is now turning into a non-western chit hole of a country. The destiny for Canada today is for more global slavery to the globalist corporations of the world. In another five years you may wish that Canada would become a territory of America. Your freedom may depend on it. ;) 

Dream on Quennie girl. If you think that Canada is in great shape than you must enjoy lying to yourself all the time. Blackface has proven himself to be a fool and a liar, and also is a racist. Blackface is flooding Canada with hundreds of millions of 3rd world legal and illegal immigrants/refugees which will one day turn Canada into a 3rd world hell hole. But who cares, eh? :rolleyes:

Posted
1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Your faith in the CPC, especially on immigration but also when it comes to the military, misguided.

The Fake Country Boutique Military is a shell game whomever is elected to run it, whatever is given, something else will be taken away to support overall disarmament by stealth.

Spend more on the navy boondoggle is actually a rubric to gut the army and air force, the effective collapse of the forces has already been achieved,  it's beyond the point of no return.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,857
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Tony Eveland
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...