Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

turningrite

Suspended
  • Content Count

    1,513
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by turningrite

  1. I'm surprised the topic hasn't yet come up on this board, but yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Trump's travel ban. Of course, the decision was split along partisan lines and was duly criticized along those lines. The most important aspect of the ruling appears to be that it affirms presidential authority to impose immigration policy on national security grounds. When listening to news about yesterday's SCOTUS ruling, though, I thought of Trump's comments before and during the election as well as of the National Post story a few days ago (link below) about a Yazidi refugee who recen
  2. We often seem to disagree on various matters but where this post is concerned I mainly concur with your position(s). I think language has been weaponized and that some of the tone in the debate over Indigenous rights and interests has bizarrely taken on elements common to the settlements dispute in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I also find the logic of the "unceded" argument to be quite specious as it is contradictory to the Canadian constitution, which asserts Crown sovereignty over all previously Indigenous-held lands in Canada. This is a consequence of the inclusion in the constitution
  3. The funny thing here, though, is that the U.S. Commerce Secretary admitted a few days ago that Canada is not actually a security concern where steel (and presumably aluminum) tariffs are concerned. The implication in his position is that the tariffs serve as a negotiating tool in the NAFTA discussions. (See link below.) I realize the U.S. was, in part, trying to circumvent back door access to U.S. markets for U.S. steel, but Trump's heavy-handed tariff approach can best be described as ham-handed. A short while ago, national security was also raised as a rationale to employ presidential fiat t
  4. Your post reflects a Malthusian philosophy, which is essentially pessimistic. i tend to see the human race as more adaptable, particularly given technological progress. There is emerging evidence that the world's population growth will slow considerably, and the global population may even start to decline, within this century. Even if one buys into your pessimistic climate change-driven and dystopian migrational logic, does it make sense to promote the movement of people from hot latitudes to cold northern ones when by so doing per capita GHG emissions for these migrants increase significantly
  5. 1.) Your response is suggestive of what many in the rest of the world perceive as an American conceit. Actually, it's likely quite possible that an American president can fail by assuming the subservience of the rest of the world to American interests and policies. China will soon eclipse America's economic power and the EU's GDP isn't far behind. (Actually in terms of purchasing power parity, the EU's GDP, when including the UK, surpasses that of the U.S.). Canada is a mere minnow in this shark tank but you shouldn't underestimate broader economic trends that demonstrate the relative decline
  6. "I'm not too concern about this actually. He's exposing the game and that is a huge political risk for a typical politician. But trump isn't a typical politician. In fact he isn't a politician at all." paxrom: But, if he fails, as reportedly some of his business projects have, many both inside the U.S. and outside of it will be able to say 'we told you so'.
  7. The problem with your argument, at least where Canada is concerned, is that polling suggests a majority of Americans don't concur with Trump's trade attacks on Canada (see link below). The implications of Trump's behavior could be quite negative for many American workers. His absurd aluminum and steel tariffs only hurt American businesses, particularly where aluminum is concerned. American-made products are cheaper for domestic consumers and to compete in export markets because Canada has a distinct competitive advantage in aluminum production due to access to inexpensive hydroelectric power i
  8. Whether Trump's behavior will ultimately be determined to be irresponsible or beneficial will take time to assess. He may want to destroy the status quo, but does he have any idea what he wants to replace it with or what the new world order that might emerge could look like? I don't disagree entirely with his perspective. I think many underestimate the extent to which ordinary citizens in the U.S .and elsewhere in the West are fed up with the current globalist and identity-focused agendas. People built prosperous and largely peaceful societies to which many feel very attached. Now, they're tol
  9. I suspect that's why the internal study wasn't released. Immigration is a political rather than an economic policy. Were it to be examined in rational economic terms the current program couldn't be sustained. As long as enough Canadians are kept in the dark about problems with the current program the government can probably maintain high levels of support. As reported in a recent CBC piece (link to article below), support for immigration drops when people are made aware of actual immigration numbers. Thus the government downplays this information. It would be interesting to see how any party w
  10. If you want your argument to be taken seriously, maybe you should consider using more temperate language. Views on the trade debate, as well as on Trump's temperament and approach, vary widely.
  11. I'm not sure I completely agree with this. I think we have to keep legal immigration in place but need to be much more careful about immigration intake levels and the kind of immigrants we are permitting to enter the country. A internal federal government study, which wasn't publicly released but was disclosed via an access to information request, concluded that at current levels Canada is not effectively socially and economically absorbing immigrants. (Link to article posted below) Also, independent analysis, including by the Fraser Institute, suggests that immigration has become a very costl
  12. I'd be fascinated to hear Trudeau's view on this. My guess is that he concurs with "settler" sentiment and ideology.
  13. Trump's engaging in a phony tariff war with the EU and Canada, although it's not clear to me that he fully understands the situation. Jobs will be lost in the U.S. as firms move to serve EU markets, in particular, with EU-produced products. Canada may not have this kind of market leverage but it appears most Americans don't see Canada as part of the bigger trade problem in any case. Sure, Canada shelters some sectors, including through supply management, but the U.S. also provides enormous subsidies to some sectors in its economy, including agriculture and aerospace. There are no virgins in th
  14. I think we need to look at the future implications of mass migration. The more a society struggles to cope with uncontrolled migration, the more benefits will have to be curtailed for the broader population. As the Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman noted: "It's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state." And others, including the British economist Sir Paul Collier, have noted that one of the significant impacts of open large-scale migration is to undermine social cohesion, whereby established taxpaying citizens tend to lose interest in paying for expensive pr
  15. Okay, except some the practitioners of this ideology are in fact quite respected, mainstream (dare I say) and even in some cases considered brainy. I've heard Bob Rae reference the "settler" ideology, which he appears to wholeheartedly accept, and in the 2015 Globe and Mail article he even described Canada in its current form as a "settler country.". It is increasingly entering the language of the elites. I started this topic this morning after reading a Toronto Star article where an individual was described as being of mixed "settler" and Indigenous background. Even where the subject in the a
  16. Actually, I think the trap rests in accepting the terminology. It generally accompanies other historical assumptions and ideological baggage, including loaded language like "cultural genocide" as if the ideology is accepted fact. I don't consider myself a settler. I was born here. My ancestors, French, Irish and Portuguese, had little or nothing to do with the establishment of British colonial governance on the territory that is now Canada. If visible minority immigrants and their descendants seek exemption from the concept, including on grounds that they are/were victims of British colonialis
  17. In one sense, I agree with you. My mother, after all, was an immigrant who moved here from the U.S. (if that counts). My point is that we're told to avoid using overly broad labels. Canadian-born descendants of visible minority immigrants bristle at being asked where they're from. These days, the designation "immigrant" is often portrayed as negatively distinguishing members of mainly visible minority groups from white Canadians and we're told instead to use more neutral and presumably virtuous terms like "New Canadian." The term "settler," which appears to emerge from Indigenous identity poli
  18. Toronto's mayor, John Tory, has reportedly written a letter to the federal government advising that there's no more room at the inn. So far, the Trudeau-Trump inspired refugee influx has cost city ratepayers more than $60 million and yet the federal government has apparently offered the whole province of Ontario a one-time sum of $11 million to help deal with a problem largely created by Ottawa. What will happen during the coming winter when growing non-refugee homeless population seeks indoor space? Will there be dozens, or even hundreds, freezing to death on city streets? Tory has said he wo
  19. I've noticed an increasing tendency in mainstream media to adopt the term "settler" in reference both to multi-generational (i.e. Caucasian or white) Canadians as well as to mainstream Canadian society (i.e. "settler society" or "settler culture"). Politicians and ex-politicians, too, have fallen into this odious negative identity trap. I consider the overly broad use of this term to be offensive and in some circumstances derogatory. If it's objectionable to refer to members of visible minorities as "immigrants," particularly when they're second generation or multi-generational, why on earth i
  20. I'm not sure what you mean by referencing this comment to a decontextualized sentence fragment ("why would you join a site like this?)? The full sentence from which it's extracted reads as follows: " If you don't want to listen to the Western perspective, why would you join a site like this?" The member had expressed in a series of comments his/her objection to the Western view of free speech without, in my opinion, providing a philosophically consistent context within which another system might be superior and then resorted to outright insult ("You are an idiot.") rather than engage in furthe
  21. Did the media or the politicians who played up this incident apologize for so willingly throwing mainstream Canadians under the proverbial bus?
  22. A lot of people don't appear to understand the distinction between civil and criminal law. Even some media outlets have reported the issue as involving "hate speech," a concept that strictly speaking is a criminal law matter. Technically, the court rejected a novel free speech defense in this suit and in so doing broke no new ground. As I indicated in a previous post, the status quo prevailed.
  23. I believe many have reached an incorrect conclusion about this matter. Some are holding the ruling as a victory in the ongoing effort to expand restrictions on hate speech, although it doesn't seem to do anything of the sort. Rather, the defendants in this suit reportedly argued a free speech defense based on Ontario's fairly recent anti-SLAPP legisation. The court rejected this defense as being inapplicable to the circumstances. Had the defense strategy succeeded, a precedent would indeed have been set. It appears, then, that as the court rejected a novel free speech defense relating to a civ
  24. Too funny! The Enlightenment, one of the foundational bases of Western culture, promoted science and rationalism in response to their opposites, superstition, custom, hierarchy and religion. The movement was premised on the notion that we can and should abandon all preconceptions and question everything, however uncomfortable that process might be for some. You should read Voltaire, and particularly his views on religion. Then you'd begin to understand the Western mindset. I worked with a woman a couple decades ago who fled revolutionary Iran for Canada. She said he had never known what actual
  25. Too funny! Your previous posts indicate that you're not interested in logic. Religion, for instance is the opposite of logic. In my opinion, negative speech is telling others what they can't say so you can maintain power and control. The kind of system you seem to prefer would amount to a dystopia in the minds of many in the West. Were you to watch the award winning TV series, The Handmaid's Tale, maybe you'd understand the distinctions being made here.
×
×
  • Create New...