Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/21/2018 in all areas

  1. 6 points
    "Politics of fear" is one of those shallow come-backs from the Left - and especially our rudderless Liberal Party led by Captain Clarabell. Canadians are not "afraid". There is no "fear". There are only very real - and very immediate concerns about this government's uncaring and mismanaged refugee policies. Sorry to be so negative but Trudeau and his government have been such an utter disappointment to those who care about Canada that we're running out of descriptors.
  2. 5 points
    If you look at things in the UK, backbench MPs have considerable more freedom to speak their minds, including publicly opposing government policy and speaking against ministers and the prime minister. Both the Conservatives and Labour party have ongoing issues with backbenchers publicly criticizing the party leaders, and I think that openness is good for democracy.
  3. 5 points
    It's never been about 'racism', that's the narrative the Liberals put forward to deflect from their own incompetence and ineptitude.
  4. 5 points
    Trudeau and his ilk live in a closed bubble where their enthusiastic progressive beliefs gets echoed back and forth to each other. He has no idea what ordinary people think because he never hears it. He presumes that if you don't share his earnest open armed feeling towards migrants and immigrants you must be an evil person. And imagine thinking about cost! What kind of a person puts any thought into what anything costs anyway!?
  5. 4 points
    quantity far too high, quality far too low.
  6. 4 points
    He was very derogatory only giving liberal talking points as answers. I sure agree with Michelle Rempel's call for civility, which, sorry to say, doesn't fit withTrudeau's plan. As she said, "I don't expect to be labelled with some sort of disparaging remark when I stand up in the House of Commons and ask ... how much something is going to cost." Calling someone a racist or bigot is nothing but an attempt to end the debate. It is necessary to have a debate on a Immigration whichis a matter of public policy so a cost/benefit analysis is more than appropriate and should not be deemed racist.
  7. 4 points
    1.) You say she can freely express herself and yet you denigrate her. That's not particularly consistent on your part. Further, the issue here is not what Harper would or wouldn't have done. Harper tended to avoid substantive contact with the media and public whereas as part of his brand Trudeau is more willing in general to put himself in situations where he might be exposed to open questioning and/or criticism. As such, though, he also has to accommodate and accept the downside, which is that he might have to respond to questions he finds inconvenient or even distasteful. If he can't do so in a respectful fashion, he should drop the "open" schtick for which he seeks credit. I suspect he reacted in the fashion he did because he's aware that public opinion is not on his side where the refugee debate is concerned. In politics, petulance isn't generally perceived as being virtuous. 2.) If you watch the entire news clip, it's clear that Trudeau's response was quite derogatory, angry and he became more intolerant and vitriolic as the woman persisted in her questioning. The tone of the exchange and the nature of the PM's response were notable enough to render the incident a lead story on some news broadcasts. So, not just another rally. 3.) I've already answered this. There are more effective and efficient ways to address these problems than to in a tokenistic fashion bring several thousand people to a cold, economically declining and completely foreign country.
  8. 4 points
    If you're saying that the secrecy of this government is far superior then you're correct. We haven't had a government as secretive and closed down as this one before. That fact has been made public based on metrics that monitor access to information, not to mention some "secret" activities that became public. As an acolyte I'm sure you'll just ignore that though. Your next point is hilarious in that it's Trudeau who is creating the wedge issue. It actually appears that this will be the go to tactic the Liberals will employ during the next election. The fact is that no other PM or government has ever caused the division that this train wreck is causing now.
  9. 4 points
    There it is. Trudeau and the Liberals have launched a culture war as a means to denigrating political opponents as its main strategy for reelection. This has probably in the works almost as soon as they were elected.
  10. 3 points
    US removes all its funding and support from UNRWA.
  11. 3 points
    If one billion people come to Canada to find work, even if they are the highest quality people, intelligent, driven, law-abiding, etc, Canada's environment would be utterly destroyed. There is simply no need for so many people in Canada. Part of what makes Canada a great and unique place is its vast untouched wilderness areas where nature can take its course as it has for millions of years. Add a billion people and Canada would have 100 more major cities and their surrounding farmland and suburbs, and essentially no natural environments left. No thank you!
  12. 3 points
    Trudeau is a faux humanitarian (protects islam tooth and nail but doesn’t care when hate rallies against Jews call for genocide) who doesn’t care about “Canada”, he cares about “getting elected”. Somehow fake virtue signalling seems to have replaced policy as the number one election issue, and opening our border & our vast welfare vault to anyone and everyone seems like a great idea to his mindless followers. So does calling Canadians racist and pandering to Hollywood elites who fly in on personal jets to lecture us about how bad oil is for the environment Trudeau’s first term will be remembered for unsustainable amounts of debt and the killing off of our energy sector. He couldn’t have done more damage to this country if he tried. Trump is a faux law and order president (loves cops, hates rules) who, like Bill Clinton, couldn’t keep it in his pants. He puts America first though, and he is far more pragmatic than politically correct. He also realizes that America has lots of willing, legal immigrants to choose from and that it’s better to give many, many people aid where they are then bring in far fewer people and provide them with food, medicine, shelter, health care, and dental care indefinitely. People who talk about how bad Trump’s wall is are some of the dumbest people on earth: they say they don’t need a wall because it is too expensive and they think that it’s cheaper to just hire more people to patrol the border. That saves money over the course if a year or two, but over the course of ten, twenty or fifty years the savings of a wall are massive. The wall is also more effective. Those same people who talk about hiring more ICE agents also want to abolish ICE lol.
  13. 3 points
    Hopefully most of these people can escape before South Africa's plans for genocide come to fruition. There's a certain point where the hatred in a country cannot be stopped or reasoned with and the only options are to flee or to die. For White South Africans, that point is now. We can only hope that some countries leave their doors open to fleeing South Africans, unlike what happened during the horrors of the early 20th century when people fleeing extermination were sent back to die.
  14. 3 points
    And once again , you missed the entire point of what I said and decided to refute something that wasn't my argument. This is a very bad habit of your's, both with myself and others. My argument was not that "No Muslims have ever condemned terrorism." My argument was that they will have trouble refuting terrorist ideology using the Koran because the Koran contains the very commands that terrorists are following. Slow clap at the excellent attempt to detract and paint me falsely, though
  15. 3 points
    Bernier's position on supply management/trade, immigration is compatible with mine. I'm interested.
  16. 3 points
    I hope she does go after them as there was no reason for manhandling her like that. She also denies that she is a member of some 'far right' group, I also think there's a lot more in the French media we don't see. What about the $164 million that's been spent on illegal immigrants so far? - is not a racist question and how Trudeau plans to finance this ongoing situation is something provinces would like to know too. Saw this on twitter: Woman Trudeau insulted/harassed is a 74 year old retired nurse Says she went to the event after seeing an ad in the paper & that she has never been a spokesperson for the group Storm Alliance as alleged. English translation of the event is not accurate IMO but Would MSM spin?
  17. 3 points
    As long as they don't expect answers to their questions. https://torontosun.com/2017/09/27/transparent-trudeau-liberal-government-worse-than-harper-according-to-access-to-information-audit/wcm/ab36af22-9d4e-4aab-bcc9-d3be66bd7bf2 Not quite. She only brings up the 'white Quebecers' which is mistranslated, btw, after he starts calling her intolerant and saying she and her views have no place in Canada. The term she used is apparently one commonly used by separatists . It is basically the 'puere lain Quebecer' thing. Canada is not a big country. About 90% of Canadians live in a strip of land within 100 miles of the US border. And 99% of immigrants wind up in this same strip. It costs 10-20 times more to shelter a refugee in Canada than it does in one of those poor nations. The cost of bringing over all those refugees from Turkish refugee camps would have paid to take care of a lot more people over there if we'd used it in that way. Then those people would be there and ready to go home when the war ends next year.
  18. 3 points
    If they really wanted to condemn those who do, they would turn in their violent extremist Saudi imams and get rid of all the extremist writings in their schools and mosques. They would make it clear to all their followers that jihad is not violent struggle against non-believers. If they really wanted peaceful co-existence, they would not establish enclaves in all countries of the world where non-Muslims are not welcome and women are harrassed and followed and beaten for not "dressing modestly." Polls would not show that the majority of Muslims world-wide want death for those who convert from Islam, death for apostates and anyone who doesn't show proper respect for their prophet. Do you know how many people showed up for the missing Edmonton woman Nadia Atwi's second search party? I do. Because one of my friends was one of four (4) white women who showed up to search for her. Where was her family and community? No, I think there is a lot more extremism in Islam than the 100,000 you estimate. But that's because you only associate violence with extremism. For myself and many others, the prevalence of violent views in Islam is troubling. But not apparently for Muslims or their supporters.
  19. 3 points
    A Journal de Montreal opinion piece describes Trudeau as becoming "fou", meaning crazy as he responded loudly to the woman. It was a spectacle, not something you would expect from a Canadian Prime Minister.
  20. 3 points
    Some experts disagree with me, yes. Others do not. I'm inclined to go with the reasons that terrorists themselves give for doing things - to expand Islam, through violence and terror throughout the world and establish a Caliphate according to the directives of Islam, as laid out in the Koran. I'm well aware of Canada's/Trudeau's stance that terrorists just need hugs and poetry and millions of dollars and maybe a little sing-along. I don't subscribe to the same warm fuzzies towards terrorists as you do.
  21. 3 points
    How quickly the Trudeau apologists forget about his totalitarian ban on anti-abortion groups summer jobs funding:
  22. 3 points
    There ARE: Trudeau, his top advisors and cabinet
  23. 3 points
    We don't know if she belonged to any group, but even if she did, her question of financing was perfectly legitimate and definitely not racist but this is how Trudeau rolls. Anyone who questions his policies will be 'intolerant, racist, bigoted and of course hate speech' etc. etc. We also need to know if the guy who strong armed her was actually RCMP or just hired security goons. This from Andrew Scheer who is right on this. This is how you can tell when Liberals are losing. Concerned about illegal border crossers? You’re a racist. Worried about the cost? You’re un-Canadian. Don’t like the carbon tax? You’re a denier. Canadians are sick and tired of this. 3/5
  24. 3 points
    Don't worry. It will only mean an extra few billion a year in health costs. Well worthwhile if it helps the Liberals get ethnic votes!
  25. 2 points
    Sponsorship doesn't matter because the sponsors are not responsible for health care costs. But yes, we're talking about elderly people being sponsored by their immigrant children here in Canada.