Some Liberal MPs are mounting a new effort to oust Justin Trudeau

[Goddess]

On 10/19/2024 at 3:52 PM, eyeball said:

It's one step forward amidst dozens that have gone sideways or backwards.

Cheer up a little for crying out loud.

This reminds me of that story about Stalin.  He grabbed a chicken, beat the crap out of it, plucked out most of its feathers.  Then as it staggered around, he threw some seed on the floor and it ate.

His point was that you could totally abuse your citizenry and they'd still be grateful for any crumbs you throw them.

It's you.  You're that chicken.

[ExFlyer]

17 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The Harper gov was in power for longer I believe and wasn't nearly as bad as the Liberals.  No saints but this is really bad.

Any Liberal MP who can sit in caucus with this government doesn't have any respect from me.  JWR and Jane Philpott are heroes.  They chose ethics over their own political power and stood up to this goon and unethical PM and PMO.  The Liberal MP's who want Trudeau to step down now are sneaking around and afraid to reveal themselves and only want him out because he's bad for their re-election chances.  I have no respect for them.

Country > career

Look, I responded with anon partisan take on this discussion. Harper had his issues as well.

Your respect is not wanted nor needs,,,with any government,. Every government in power has had flakes and failures as ministers. Nothing new at all.

Ethics rules have been broken or twisted by many elected officials...be they the ruling party or oppositioon. Nothing new or unheard of there, Mulroney had his issues, as did Chretien as t=dit even=ry leader of political party.

As I said, your respect is neither wanted or needed but, do not have a blind eye to the non partisan statement " “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

You're that chicken.

Nearly 2 and a half million Canadians are registered in the program and nearly 1/2 million people have had their teeth fixed since last May.

That's huge. I can't think of any other government program that's made as big of a positive difference in so many Canadians lives in as short a time can you?

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Nearly 2 and a half million Canadians are registered in the program and nearly 1/2 million people have had their teeth fixed since last May.

 

It comes out of the pockets of other Canadians who can't afford it for themselves.

You're welcome, BTW.

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

It comes out of the pockets of other Canadians who can't afford it for themselves.

You're welcome, BTW.

Just like pipelines, what's your point?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Nearly 2 and a half million Canadians are registered in the program and nearly 1/2 million people have had their teeth fixed since last May.

 

Almost all of whom were already covered under various provincial plans. And the government knew that

You're still the chicken kiddo

[PIK]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Just like pipelines, what's your point?

Pipelines make money.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, PIK said:

Pipelines make money.

So do healthy people.

[CdnFox]

46 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So do healthy people.

They were healthy already.

What kind of lunatic lefty do you have to be to take people who already had coverage, give them coverage, and go on about how great it is

[CITIZEN_2015]

Trudeau firmly indicated he is staying on as the leader. He must be confident that he can turn around the polls. He must be a believer in parting of Nile too.

[herbie]

6 hours ago, Goddess said:

It comes out of the pockets of other Canadians who can't afford it for themselves.

Spoken like a True Yank.

Why should "I" pay a nickel so some poor person can get health care?

36 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

What kind of lunatic lefty do you have to be to take people who already had coverage,

A Tory shill that thinking they can trick dimwits into thinking you're eligible when you already have coverage.

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Trudeau firmly indicated he is staying on as the leader. He must be confident that he can turn around the polls. He must be a believer in parting of Nile too.

Maybe he's banking on something in the interference report he believes could really damage the Conservatives. This might explain why Poilievre is in a such a hurry to put an election behind him. Poilievre doesn't want to officially know what's in that report - even if he already has a pretty good clue.

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, Goddess said:

It comes out of the pockets of other Canadians who can't afford it for themselves.

Not likely. It's only available provincially if you're on income or disability assistance. They basically don't pay taxes so they're not out much if anything and the federal dentalcare is a substantially better program.

The federal program is a lot more universal. Kids under 18 people over 65 and people with incomes less than $45000 or so a year qualify.

Like I said, it's huge and it's having an immediate impact on making a lot of people's lives better.

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, herbie said:

Spoken like a True Yank.

Why should "I" pay a nickel so some poor person can get health care?

 

And what's the answer?

I bet a million bucks you haven't got one. You just decided that everybody else's money should be yours to spend and they shouldn't have a say. I bet you can't even answer your own question. We'll see

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Trudeau firmly indicated he is staying on as the leader. He must be confident that he can turn around the polls. He must be a believer in parting of Nile too.

He's a believer that right now he gets to fly for free to all kinds of different countries making connections and eating $10,000 a plate dinners while he flies and staying in $5,000 a night rooms.

That's what he believes. How we pay for all of that. He knows he's not going to win again, but why give any of that up before he has to? On top of it all between the Committees and the extra bonus money and such he's currently living rent-free and making about $400,000 a year while he's still padding the hell out of his charity and his friends so that he can sit on their boards and do nothing after he steps down and make hundreds of thousands of dollars for essentially doing absolutely nothing at all

The step down now? If you've got an tube feeding intravenous money straight into your veins would you turn it off willingly?

This is how every leftist government ends up. Every single one.

[blackbird]

.

3 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

He must be confident that he can turn around the polls. He must be a believer in parting of Nile too.

Guess you don't think God, who created everything out of nothing, could part the sea.

"21  And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. 22  And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. 23  And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. 24  And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, 25  And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the LORD fighteth for them against the Egyptians. 26  And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen. 27  And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.  28  And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them. 29  But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. 30  Thus the LORD saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore. 31  And Israel saw that great work which the LORD did upon the Egyptians: and the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD, and his servant Moses. "  Exodus 14:21-31 KJV

[Moonlight Graham]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  I will just respond to this part: it's paranoid and incorrect.  You can't blame all social change in an open society on an ideology where people have free choice.  

2.  Respond on the other forum, that's where I put the response to the other long post.

1.  Paranoid about what?  Are you saying the family unit hasn't eroded since the 1960's?  Are you saying reproduction rates haven't plummeted far below replacement levels for decades and keep going down?  Believing in an ideology is "free choice".  Most of my friends haven't had kids and don't want them.  This has very little to do with economics.   The reproduction rate in Canada throughout the Great Depression was almost twice the rate of what its been the last 20 years.   We've been below replacement levels since 1972.  This is a choice.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91f0015m/91f0015m2024001-eng.htm

2.  I'll read it on the other forum but I won't respond there.  I have permanently left that forum by my own choice and won't log in again due to multiple issues I won't get in to.

Edited October 27, 2024 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

@Michael Hardner said:

Quote

1. Me having to look up what I remembered isn't the same as me not knowing it.  Did you know that the Harper government did effectively the same thing ?  But, no... Trudeau is a mo ron and Harper is smart ?  Not sure here...

2. You are unable to defend policy without insulting me and calling me a dupe.  

3. Why did the Harper government have no visa requirement ?  You start with the premise that Trudeau is an insane fool then you work backwards to find evidence to support your belief.

4. I didn't say we can't. 

5.  Not any policy, just Trudeau himself. I don't think we've talked about immigration that much because I don't agree with the high levels of immigration the Liberals have established and haven't for years.  No, this stuff bugs me because you are capable of rational discussion in most areas, but when it comes to Trudeau you put the cart before the horse because you have a visceral dislike of the man.   I get it.  I have TDS and I had to recalibrate myself to think about that when I criticized his presidency... eventually I understood that the problem was that I misunderstood how the public sphere worked.  Don't take it personally, it's because I mostly respect how you evaluate things.

6. I understand why we have visa requirements.

7. It's not whataboutism.  The economy is in scary shape right now.  And our public sphere is unable to host a discussion of what is going on.  It's like we're children.  Is Trudeau THE worst PM in history ?  I don't know.  I wouldn't presume to know that unless I had thorough knowledge of Canadian history.  Do you ?  Do you know why MacKenzie Bowell's cabinet resigned or RB Bennet rejected the idea of a Union Government during the war because it would hurt the Conservatives ?  The Canadian people probably don't know either.

8. Right.  And you start with Trudeau being bad then find reasons to support your opinion.  Somebody found something else on Trudeau and so you picked up on it, and reposted.  Fine, but the same policy was in place under Harper.

9. No, you're part of the problem because you're capable of looking beyond the simplistic issues that are tossed around and examining what is really going on.  

10.  Wokeness is not a problem, it's a simplistic red herring that can never be solved but by focusing on it as the #1 problem, it is "solved" as soon as Trudeau leaves office by default. 

1.  What do you mean by Harper had done the same thing?  Can you provide a cite?  Harper put the visa requirement in place in 2009 because of all the bogus asylum claims from Mexican travelers here.  The Mexico government were PO'd.  Boo-hoo, go cry in the corner Mexico.  If you don't want a visa requirement then make your citizens stop trying to take advantage of our border and migration system.  They also overstay their visits and just "disappear".  I've met some myself.  I didn't report them to the authorities because they seemed like nice people.  Maybe I should have, I dunno.  They're criminals committing fraud and breaking the law after all.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-won-t-drop-visa-rule-for-mexicans-source-says-1.2538820

2.  Progressives are softies.  You're a softy.  The Liberal government are softies.  People who are too "nice" and afraid they might "hurt someone's feelings" or "offend someone".  The Liberals (and NDP) aren't tough enough to defend the security of this country from threats.  It's harming the country.  Ask Jimmy Carter.  Jimmy Carter is a kind man who should be serving food at homeless shelters instead of making decisions on military and foreign policy.  I consider you like a Jimmy Carter.  "Every virtue, when taken to an extreme, becomes a vice".  Remember this always.  It takes courage to risk offending people in order to do the right thing.

3.  No I look at a gazillion terrible policies Trudeau has made, look at all his unethical actions as Prime Minister, and conclude the man is a bad PM and an unethical public servant who's mainly only in it for himself, his power, the public attention etc.  He's the progressive version of Donald Trump (minus the Jan 6).

Harper gov did have a visa requirement.  They're the ones who put it in place in 2009.  The Liberals took it off as soon as they became elected.  Why?  I don't know, but they weren't doing it to protect our national interests.  Then they just reversed it for the very same reason the Harper gov originally put it in place. 😂  So yeah they're du mb incompetent foolz.

4.  Ok.  Well you said "We do have to accept NAFTA provisions".  What does having visa requirements or not for general travelers here have to do with NATFA?  Are you saying the Harper gov's visa requirements were against NAFTA?  And even if they were, then great, renegotiate NAFTA or pull out of it.  A trade agreement should allow travelers to easily travel here and defraud our country with bogus claims and then disappear and stay as illegal migrants or be used as an easier shortcut to get into the US to do the same.  It also means the Trudeau gov is now in violation of NAFTA since they put the visa requirement back on.  I don't understand your point, but you seem to be defending the Liberals.  Why?  Removing the visa was bad policy.  They're reversing many of their immigration policies closer to what they were under Harper.  Why?  Because its harmed the country and voters are fed up.

5.  See the 1st paragraph of #3 above.  He's mishandled immigration badly on several fronts.  He's a bad PM.  He stinks at his job.  His party stinks.  He's harmed this country in so many ways and letting our enemies interfere in our democracy because it gets his party votes and who knows what else.  He lets people walk all over this country because's a wimpy milquetoast "globalist" or whatever you want to call him trying to virtue signal rather doing what's in our best interest.  Nuts to him and his party.  If you think the Liberals policy on visas wasn't terrible policy tell me why.  They just admitted such by putting it back in.

6.  Ok then you understand why they should be in place for Mexican travelers and why taking the visa requirement away was bad policy and harmful to Canada.

7.  Ok fair point.  But he's the worst PM in my lifetime IMO.

8.  Harper put the policy in place in the first place.  He inherited the no visa policy from Martin/Chretien Liberals I assume.

9.  I reject this premise.

10.  I never said "wokeness is our #1 problem".  Wokeness can be solved by no longer being woke.  Wokeness is a problem.  The GG was chosen because she's an indigenous woman. She can't even speak French!  The previous GG was chosen because she's a woman but she was a nut.  The speaker of the House of Commons was chosen because he's black.  He seems like a nice guy but he's not very good at his job.  Our Foreign Affairs Minister Joly is in cabinet because she's a woman.   She seems like a nice person but she's just not very knowledgeable about much it seems  It's embarrassing.  When you choose people for jobs based on "woke" group identity and not by merit alone this is what happens.  I assume this sort of thing won't happen under PP and it didn't under Harper.  If you don't see the problem here and are trying to get people to stop pointing it out then you're part of the problem.  JT doesn't understand there's far more important things than "appearances". He's all about appearances, and doesn't seem to care much about substance.  It's all a performance.  He comes from an acting background after all.  And teaching.  Up in front of everyone putting on a show.   The government isn't a stage-show, things need to get done.  It reminds of this video from years ago:

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1.  Paranoid about what?  Are you saying the family unit hasn't eroded since the 1960's?  Are you saying reproduction rates haven't plummeted far below replacement levels for decades and keep going down?  Believing in an ideology is "free choice". 

2. Most of my friends haven't had kids and don't want them.  This has very little to do with economics.  

3. The reproduction rate in Canada throughout the Great Depression was almost twice the rate of what its been the last 20 years.   We've been below replacement levels since 1972.  This is a choice.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91f0015m/91f0015m2024001-eng.htm

4.  I'll read it on the other forum but I won't respond there.  I have permanently left that forum by my own choice and won't log in again due to multiple issues I won't get in to.

1. Yes the family unit has eroded.  Birth control has plummeted the birthrate.  There's no singular ideology behind women choosing to work, birth control, belief in free markets, consumerism... they are all part of social change.
2. Why do you think it has little to do with economics ?
3. It went up after WW2 I think and then dropped off after the birth control pill.  It's also a worldwide phenomenon.



4. I didn't know that.  Never mind then.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 

1.  Progressives are softies.  You're a softy.  The Liberal government are softies.  People who are too "nice" and afraid they might "hurt someone's feelings" or "offend someone". 

2.  No I look at a gazillion terrible policies Trudeau has made, look at all his unethical actions as Prime Minister, and conclude the man is a bad PM and an unethical public servant who's mainly only in it for himself, his power, the public attention etc.  He's the progressive version of Donald Trump (minus the Jan 6).

3.  Ok.  Well you said "We do have to accept NAFTA provisions".  What does having visa requirements or not for general travelers here have to do with NATFA? 

4.  I don't understand your point, but you seem to be defending the Liberals.  Why? 

5. Removing the visa was bad policy.  They're reversing many of their immigration policies closer to what they were under Harper.  Why?  Because its harmed the country and voters are fed up.

56   He's a bad PM.  He stinks at his job.  His party stinks.  He's harmed this country in so many ways and letting our enemies interfere in our democracy because it gets his party votes and who knows what else.  He lets people walk all over this country because's a wimpy milquetoast "globalist" or whatever you want to call him trying to virtue signal rather doing what's in our best interest.  Nuts to him and his party.  If you think the Liberals policy on visas wasn't terrible policy tell me why.  They just admitted such by putting it back in.

6.  Ok then you understand why they should be in place for Mexican travelers and why taking the visa requirement away was bad policy and harmful to Canada.

7.  I reject this premise.

8.  I never said "wokeness is our #1 problem".  Wokeness can be solved by no longer being woke.  Wokeness is a problem.  The GG was chosen because she's an indigenous woman. She can't even speak French!  The previous GG was chosen because she's a woman but she was a nut.  The speaker of the House of Commons was chosen because he's black.  He seems like a nice guy but he's not very good at his job.  Our Foreign Affairs Minister Joly is in cabinet because she's a woman.   She seems like a nice person but she's just not very knowledgeable about much it seems  It's embarrassing.  When you choose people for jobs based on "woke" group identity and not by merit alone this is what happens. 

9. I assume this sort of thing won't happen under PP and it didn't under Harper. 

10. If you don't see the problem here and are trying to get people to stop pointing it out then you're part of the problem.  JT doesn't understand there's far more important things than "appearances". He's all about appearances, and doesn't seem to care much about substance.  It's all a performance.  He comes from an acting background after all.  And teaching.  Up in front of everyone putting on a show.   The government isn't a stage-show, things need to get done.  It reminds of this video from years ago:

1. Again, you have to insult people in order to put across an argument that your ideas are better.  I'm just going to ignore all the 'tough guy' insults and try to find an argument.
2. Agree with all of this.  His personal conduct, his dealing with his team, his flip flopping, are all bad policies and validate any decision to not vote for him.
3. As part of NAFTA (really USMCA) we accept the collective decisions about labour migration etc.
4. I don't defend Trudeau, I criticize arguments that I find deficient regardless of who they're about.
5. Maybe it was ?  Harper seemed to think Visas weren't necessary either for a good many years.  Why was that ? 

We could and should examine the rationale behind all these things, behind TFWs and so on.  That would be a good use of the forum, to understand what's behind such things.  What was the reason behind removing the Visa requirement ?  How was it communicated ?

Of course "the" public has opinions on immigration but they are often not well-founded.  They might be based on ideas like: it's good for the economy (on the macro, could be true but there are always aspects of these ideas that are debatable and some that are wrong), that we should allow immigration because Canada is "nice" (big-hearted but empty-headed) or that immigration is bad because immigrants are dirty criminals who steal jobs 
6. See 2. above

7. I reject the rejection.
8. I agree that overemphasizing identity is a bad path.  I agree that the Liberals probably did that when selecting Candidates.  I don't see it as being a problem worthy of the attention it is given on this board.
9.  Oh ?  You don't think PP showing up at mosques and temples and grinning ear to ear to garner ethnic votes will continue ?  You don't think he picked a Sikhn (Uppal) and a married lesbian (Lantsman) to show what a non-prejudiced guy he is ?  Or maybe he's going to dump them when he gets elected ?
10. The criticisms of Trudeau are apt.  But if you think that his play-acting to love minorities is superficial then THAT is the problem ... not progressivism itself, as it is at its core.  That would mean ignoring attributes as long as people are qualified.  Presumably this is what you think Poilievre is doing when he hires HIS minorities and not what Trudeau is doing when he hires HIS minorities.

[CITIZEN_2015]

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

.

Guess you don't think God, who created everything out of nothing, could part the sea.

"21  And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. 22  And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. 23  And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. 24  And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, 25  And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the LORD fighteth for them against the Egyptians. 26  And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen. 27  And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.  28  And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them. 29  But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. 30  Thus the LORD saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore. 31  And Israel saw that great work which the LORD did upon the Egyptians: and the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD, and his servant Moses. "  Exodus 14:21-31 KJV

Nobody can prove there is or there isn't God. It is something happens in a person's life that makes him a believer or non-believer. I was a non-believer out of my hate for Islamic Republic but a series of events made me a near believer as how in life I was punished and how I was helped and rewarded but not the kind of God described in most religious book like pushing his children for sins burning them in fire. No parent would do that. God is kind, powerful and forgiving not Adoft Hitler.

 

[Moonlight Graham]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes the family unit has eroded.  Birth control has plummeted the birthrate.  There's no singular ideology behind women choosing to work, birth control, belief in free markets, consumerism... they are all part of social change.
2. Why do you think it has little to do with economics ?
3. It went up after WW2 I think and then dropped off after the birth control pill.  It's also a worldwide phenomenon.



4. I didn't know that.  Never mind then.

1.  It's called feminism.  I grew up thinking the Christian religious folks saying birth control and divorce were bad were a bunch of nutters.  I spent decades fighting against their nonsense for women's rights and the like.  Well 60 years later we can look at the state of society and it looks like they had some really good points.  That's not to say all feminism is bad, or birth control and divorce is always wrong.  But we've just took it to an extreme because of "our rights".  We threw our responsibilities in the trash because we're selfish and lazy.

2.  People in our society who don't have kids argue it's because the economy is so tough and they can't afford it.  This is total nonsense because the poorest countries in the world have the highest birth rates and the richest countries in the world have the lowest and its been this way for decades.  It's a choice.  Taking the pill is a choice.  They don't want children.  Women want fulfilling careers etc.  That's understandable but no society can survive with longterm birth rates below replacement levels.  We're now important people from countries that do have high birth rates in order to sustain our economies.  If every country in the world made the choices western countries do the human population would go extinct unless birth rate trends reversed.  But why would they?  The trends have been the same for 50 years with no sign of reversing.  This part of feminism is a cancer on our society.  It feels good to support women to feel empowered with careers and shove our kids in daycare to be raised by strangers but if its at the expense of the death of our civilization then its a suicidal death cult.

[Moonlight Graham]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Again, you have to insult people in order to put across an argument that your ideas are better.  I'm just going to ignore all the 'tough guy' insults and try to find an argument.
2. Agree with all of this.  His personal conduct, his dealing with his team, his flip flopping, are all bad policies and validate any decision to not vote for him.
3. As part of NAFTA (really USMCA) we accept the collective decisions about labour migration etc.
4. I don't defend Trudeau, I criticize arguments that I find deficient regardless of who they're about.
5. Maybe it was ?  Harper seemed to think Visas weren't necessary either for a good many years.  Why was that ? 

We could and should examine the rationale behind all these things, behind TFWs and so on.  That would be a good use of the forum, to understand what's behind such things.  What was the reason behind removing the Visa requirement ?  How was it communicated ?

Of course "the" public has opinions on immigration but they are often not well-founded.  They might be based on ideas like: it's good for the economy (on the macro, could be true but there are always aspects of these ideas that are debatable and some that are wrong), that we should allow immigration because Canada is "nice" (big-hearted but empty-headed) or that immigration is bad because immigrants are dirty criminals who steal jobs 
6. See 2. above

7. I reject the rejection.
8. I agree that overemphasizing identity is a bad path.  I agree that the Liberals probably did that when selecting Candidates.  I don't see it as being a problem worthy of the attention it is given on this board.
9.  Oh ?  You don't think PP showing up at mosques and temples and grinning ear to ear to garner ethnic votes will continue ?  You don't think he picked a Sikhn (Uppal) and a married lesbian (Lantsman) to show what a non-prejudiced guy he is ?  Or maybe he's going to dump them when he gets elected ?
10. The criticisms of Trudeau are apt.  But if you think that his play-acting to love minorities is superficial then THAT is the problem ... not progressivism itself, as it is at its core.  That would mean ignoring attributes as long as people are qualified.  Presumably this is what you think Poilievre is doing when he hires HIS minorities and not what Trudeau is doing when he hires HIS minorities.

1.  I'm calling a spade a spade.  I'm the George Carlin of MLW haha

2.  Ok.

3.  Ok.  How does this make removing the visas not terrible policy?  Harper put the visas on, Trudeau took them off.  I don't see how NAFTA comes in to the equation here and all you've said are vague references to NAFTA that I still don't see the relevance of to visas being added or removed as a general policy.  All I see is me criticizing a Liberal immigration policy and you not being able to handle it (yet again) for some strange reason and then blaming it on "me just hating Trudeau".  This is a weak argument.

4.  Show me how my argument about the visas is deficient.  I'm still waiting.  It's me "just hating on Trudeau" or "people blaming immigrants for all our problems".  Do you hear yourself?

5.  Harper inherited the no-visa policy from the Martin/Chretien gov.  I just explained this to you and provided the link.  Then a few years into office the CPC saw that a whole bunch of Mexicans were using it to come here and overstay their visits or make bogus asylum claims so in 2009 he out the visa requirement in.  Nuff said.  Saying "Why did Harper have it during his gov" means you're not even reading my replies and the links I send or you're engaging in a bad faith argument and are being manipulative.  So which is it?   If you won't even acknowledge the facts or read my replies how am I supposed to have a discussion with you?  It's like you only read what you want to believe and ignore the rest.  That's on you.  I think you're afraid of reality and live in your own little safe cocoon world.  This isn't the way to solve problems.  Do you find this insulting?  It's what I think is the truth.  Truth is more important than people's feelings.

6.  Someone makes an argument criticizing immigration and your first reaction is that they're just being racist or they just hate Trudeau.  No actually sometimes the policies are just bad.

7.  I don't care.

8.  No not probably.  Our government is run like crap.  Maybe some of that has to do with the fact that they best people aren't being put in cabinet positions to run the departments of our country?  Have a va.gina?  Here's an important cabinet portfolio for you!  Not a good way to run an organization 40 million people depend on.

9.  No idea, haven't really noticed.  I don't watch his campaign stops.

10. Are you seriously trying to argue that PP hiring decisions and whatnot are as "woke" as Trudeau's?  I find this doubtful and a false equivalency.  If he does end up doing the same thing as Trudeau i'll be raking him over the coals for it when he's PM, you can bet on that.

[Michael Hardner]

44 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1.  It's called feminism. 

2. I grew up thinking the Christian religious folks saying birth control and divorce were bad were a bunch of nutters.  I spent decades fighting against their nonsense for women's rights and the like.  Well 60 years later we can look at the state of society and it looks like they had some really good points.  That's not to say all feminism is bad, or birth control and divorce is always wrong.  But we've just took it to an extreme because of "our rights".  We threw our responsibilities in the trash because we're selfish and lazy.

3.  People in our society who don't have kids argue it's because the economy is so tough and they can't afford it.  This is total nonsense because the poorest countries in the world have the highest birth rates and the richest countries in the world have the lowest and its been this way for decades. 

4. It's a choice.  Taking the pill is a choice.  They don't want children.  Women want fulfilling careers etc.  That's understandable but no society can survive with longterm birth rates below replacement levels.  We're now important people from countries that do have high birth rates in order to sustain our economies.  If every country in the world made the choices western countries do the human population would go extinct unless birth rate trends reversed. 

5. But why would they?  The trends have been the same for 50 years with no sign of reversing.  This part of feminism is a cancer on our society.  It feels good to support women to feel empowered with careers and shove our kids in daycare to be raised by strangers but if its at the expense of the death of our civilization then its a suicidal death cult.

1.  Well, nobody is going to deny that was part of it.  Lots of feminist ideas were picked up by the mainstream, including presumably you, and lots weren't.

2.  What good points ?  You seem to be attributing some other ills to feminism.

3.  I don't know if I agree with your point.   Agrarian societies like to have kids because they can help  But lots of poor countries like aforementioned Bangladesh have plunging birth rates.  And having kids is expensive and stressful too because with an uncertain economy, you don't want to be responsible for more than you can handle.  My theory anyway.

4. You are actually describing a global problem - declining birthrates are everywhere not just in the west.

5.  A death cult because we have come to believe that the 'growth economy' is mandatory.   So maybe that has to go if we don't want immigration and we don't want to force births on people ?  Listen, declining population growth is a global proble as I said.  I have followed stories in The Economist on S. Korea and China trying to fix it via policy.  Good luck with that.

[Michael Hardner]

33 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1.  How does this make removing the visas not terrible policy? 

2.  Show me how my argument about the visas is deficient.  I'm still waiting.  It's me "just hating on Trudeau" or "people blaming immigrants for all our problems".  Do you hear yourself?

3.  Are you seriously trying to argue that PP hiring decisions and whatnot are as "woke" as Trudeau's?  

1. 2. Maybe it was bad policy ?  I brought up NAFTA policy to show that we indeed open the door to Mexicans sometimes, and sometimes not.  As we did with Harper.  Harper saw some conditions and changed policy, ok got it.  But it doesn't mean that it's not worth changing back if there's a reason.  If I missed some details on the Trudeau rationale for changing it I apologize.  If Trudeau didn't provide rationale then he should have.

3. Moving the bar.  So a little woke is ok sometimes ?  Confusing...