Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Federal Conservatives lead in new Ipsos poll


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, taxme said:

All thanks too massive third world immigration. Very bad for any Western country. But we can thank all those lefty liberal/socialists Canadians out there who seem to feel that what we need is lots and lots and lots more third world immigration. It will be good for the economy and the country they say although I do not see the country getting any better. Only worse. But hey, all those lefty loony liberal/socialists refuse to get it. To try and get them to see and understand this is truly an exercise in futility. Canada is so full of these liberal lefty loonie toons.

Aw well.  Carry on Canada. :D 

 

 

Canada has 100 cities with a population of 25,000 or more - 5 with over one million and 25 more with more than 100,000. If we actually had a real plan for re-settling refugees, we could direct them to various locations in a manner that would put very little stress on municipal resources - but only if we had a longer range plan to support and integrate these refugees into their new home over an extended period. Right now, the federal government pays lip service for a year and then dumps them on the provinces. It's really not rocket science if we'd just grab hold of the issue.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_100_largest_population_centres_in_Canada

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

....and those debts are mounting......   Every time he opens his mouth is to announce more spending..........that is, when he's not responding to the groping allegation.

I like how it says “Public support (often aided by a diversity of prominent stakeholders) in indispensable,”  A 'diversity of stakeholders'. Now who would that be? Uhm, immigration lawyers, who p

Either way, we pay for it. To me, the process of weeding out illegals and fake refugees needs to be greatly speeded up - due to the large numbers we are receiving right now.  We pay for them for

14 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

Right now, the federal government pays lip service for a year and then dumps them on the provinces. It's really not rocket science if we'd just grab hold of the issue.

 

There are a couple problems with this. First, the "irregular" migrants now crossing our borders are in many cases probably not actual refugees. They can file refugee claims, which isn't the same thing as being refugees, a determination that can take years to complete in Canada's inefficient and cumbersome system. The other problem is that the provinces and municipalities pick up most of the social costs for supporting these migrants from the outset. The federal government provides only limited support in the form of health coverage. In fact, generally speaking, the feds only provide one year settlement support for refugees who are processed overseas and arrive here as "Convention" refugees, as was the case with the thousands of government-sponsored Syrians brought into the country under Trudeau's much ballyhooed program.

Trudeau could address some of the current backlash by agreeing to pick up all the social, medical, legal and other support costs for the so-called "inland" refugee claimants until their claims are assessed. My guess is that his government would be reluctant to do so at least in part because the true cost of the program would become apparent. Accountability isn't this government's strong suit. Trudeau treatment of Ford, whom he said simply doesn't understand our international obligations, was typically condescending. Trudeau himself should know better as I believe sovereign nations are parties to most international treaties and agreements, including I believe those covering refugee matters. Thus, it's properly the federal government that should pay the freight on this.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, turningrite said:

There are a couple problems with this. First, the "irregular" migrants now crossing our borders are in many cases probably not actual refugees. They can file refugee claims, which isn't the same thing as being refugees, a determination that can take years to complete in Canada's inefficient and cumbersome system. The other problem is that the provinces and municipalities pick up most of the social costs for supporting these migrants from the outset. The federal government provides only limited support in the form of health coverage. In fact, generally speaking, the feds only provide one year settlement support for refugees who are processed overseas and arrive here as "Convention" refugees, as was the case with the thousands of government-sponsored Syrians brought into the country under Trudeau's much ballyhooed program.

Trudeau could address some of the current backlash by agreeing to pick up all the social, medical, legal and other support costs for the so-called "inland" refugee claimants until their claims are assessed. My guess is that his government would be reluctant to do so at least in part because the true cost of the program would become apparent. Accountability isn't this government's strong suit. Trudeau treatment of Ford, whom he said simply doesn't understand our international obligations, was typically condescending. Trudeau himself should know better as I believe sovereign nations are parties to most international treaties and agreements, including I believe those covering refugee matters. Thus, it's properly the federal government that should pay the freight on this.  

Either way, we pay for it.

To me, the process of weeding out illegals and fake refugees needs to be greatly speeded up - due to the large numbers we are receiving right now.  We pay for them for years before they are finally given the boot or they create a life including children born here and then we're stuck with them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since 1975 or so, immigration has not been to Canada's benefit. The people that have come here have not been able to contribute more to Canadian society than they have taken from it. For every productive immigrant, there have been two looters living off of the welfare state, enjoying all of its benefits, and still saying bad things about the society which welcomed them.

Canada has a lot of building to do just to satisfactorily house the people who are here. Its economy has to catch up to all the new people. Wages have to rise so we can lower taxes. We must have a complete moratorium on immigration, except for the most extreme cases of refugees. We must also root out those who have ideologies which are not compatible with Canada's rule of law. Religious freedom does not overrule the rule of law. Most religious denominations can live within the rule of law, and there should be no argument with them. Some wish to impose their own Sharia Law, and they must be banned from this country. They are a threat to our civilization, peace, and people, and should be deported as they are doing now in Austria.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In case anybody has forgotten the title of this thread, according to Eric Grenier's analysis, while the CPC holds a tiny lead over the Grits, if an election were to be held today, there is a 50% probability that it would result in a Liberal minority. He must be right or Hillary Clinton would not be POTUS and Trudeau would not have a minority government.

I should have given up predicting the future after assuring my daughter there would be no Gulf War I. I did win a bet (10-1 odds) when I bet on Clay to beat Sonny Liston. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

In case anybody has forgotten the title of this thread, according to Eric Grenier's analysis, while the CPC holds a tiny lead over the Grits, if an election were to be held today, there is a 50% probability that it would result in a Liberal minority. He must be right or Hillary Clinton would not be POTUS and Trudeau would not have a minority government.

I should have given up predicting the future after assuring my daughter there would be no Gulf War I. I did win a bet (10-1 odds) when I bet on Clay to beat Sonny Liston. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

Trudeau has benefited from a Trump bounce. Every time Trump criticizes poor Justin there's an almost automatic sympathetic response among many Canadians. I agree with the Mexican leaders, including their former president, Fox, who've criticized the often obsequious Canadian approach to Trump. Trudeau does love victims, self-styled or otherwise, but is it really in Canada's interest to play the abused victim role with the Americans? What is 'Plan B' in the event Trump digs in on his protectionist agenda? Oh well, by next year's federal election the U.S. midterms will be long over and we'll know whether the Trudeau/elitist strategy had any beneficial impact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Goddess said:

Either way, we pay for it.

True, but the Trudeau government, which I believe to be primarily responsible for this particular mess, should have to shoulder political responsibility for its costs. Downloading many of these costs to provinces and municipalities obscures the real burden to taxpayers. Personally, I believe the social costs associated with all forms of immigration should be borne by the federal government for a set number of years (perhaps 5 years for those who enter under the points system and 10 for everybody else) following entry to Canada. We need to know how much this system is costing us. This would be a rational policy approach that enhances accountability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Off the top of my head, I wonder if the US will gradually seal itsself off and abdicate any serious role in international affairs. President Trump is going out of his way to make enemies out of allies and is oblivious to the probability that Kim and Putin are laughing at him. I hate to show any lack of respect but it is hard to ignore the facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Off the top of my head, I wonder if the US will gradually seal itsself off and abdicate any serious role in international affairs. President Trump is going out of his way to make enemies out of allies and is oblivious to the probability that Kim and Putin are laughing at him. I hate to show any lack of respect but it is hard to ignore the facts.

 

Compared to which other nations...which have done the same thing for decades.   Why is it incumbent on the United States to meet Chrystia Freeland's expectations that Americans continue to bear most of the "post WW2 burden" ?

The U.S. can "retreat" to the same level as Canada, Germany, France, UK, Japan, etc. and still be involved in international affairs.   Trump is pressing allies on the present day disparity, and who gets to continue picking up the biggest portion of the cheque.  President Obama also disengaged , but Canada still loves him.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wondered if the disparity may be due to France, Canada, Germany and the UK doing more with less and the US doing less with more. But then I have too much respect for the US Marines. If the entire US military was as good as them, they could reduce their commitment. 

The United States is under no obligation to carry more than its share of the burden. They do so at their choice for as long as they choose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Off the top of my head, I wonder if the US will gradually seal itsself off and abdicate any serious role in international affairs. President Trump is going out of his way to make enemies out of allies and is oblivious to the probability that Kim and Putin are laughing at him. I hate to show any lack of respect but it is hard to ignore the facts.

“Dear America, appreciate your allies, after all you don’t have that many,” 

Said this week by Donald Tusk, President of the EU Council, on the eve of Trump's visit to Europe. It kind of says it all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

Canada has 100 cities with a population of 25,000 or more - 5 with over one million and 25 more with more than 100,000. If we actually had a real plan for re-settling refugees, we could direct them to various locations in a manner that would put very little stress on municipal resources - but only if we had a longer range plan to support and integrate these refugees into their new home over an extended period. Right now, the federal government pays lip service for a year and then dumps them on the provinces. It's really not rocket science if we'd just grab hold of the issue.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_100_largest_population_centres_in_Canada

 

First of all legal or illegal refugees should not be brought here at all, period and then be allowed to suck off the Canadian taxpayer for a year or a life time. I don't get any free lunched in this country so why should people who never donated a cent to this country get any freebies? If some Canadians are so concerned about refugees than they should take some into their own homes and look after them until they can go it alone. Or for those real refugee lovers out there maybe they can suggest that those refugees be dumped in the northern wilderness somewhere and say here go for it. Here are some tools. They can maybe even get the native Indians to show them how to get started just like the British and Europeans had to do centuries ago.                                                     

 

What is really needed is to grab our stunned bunch of political leaders by the ears on their heads and give them a good shake, rattle and roll. LOL! 

Edited by taxme
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, taxme said:

What is really needed is to grab our stunned bunch of political leaders by the ears on their heads and give them a good shake, rattle and roll. LOL! 

Or you could get out and nominate and then elect people who agree with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I wondered if the disparity may be due to France, Canada, Germany and the UK doing more with less and the US doing less with more. But then I have too much respect for the US Marines. If the entire US military was as good as them, they could reduce their commitment. 

The United States is under no obligation to carry more than its share of the burden. They do so at their choice for as long as they choose.

 

Agreed...and President Trump is not "attacking" NATO allies for saying so.  

Trump was elected to blow up the status quo, and he is trying to do just that.

If it is not important to fund a competent military deterrent, then why are other NATO allies complaining about Trump's policy so vigorously ?

We're off topic a bit here, but defence spending will come up again in the Canadian 2019 federal election.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed...and President Trump is not "attacking" NATO allies for saying so.  

Trump was elected to blow up the status quo, and he is trying to do just that.

If it is not important to fund a competent military deterrent, then why are other NATO allies complaining about Trump's policy so vigorously ?

We're off topic a bit here, but defence spending will come up again in the Canadian 2019 federal election.

Actually we should spin it like this, because of Canada and other Nato-deadbeats lack of financial commitment, NATO is in danger of failing. Not because trump is raising the alarm bell of what's happening. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The U.S. can "retreat" to the same level as Canada, Germany, France, UK, Japan, etc. and still be involved in international affairs. 

Agreed. That is probably the best solution. As Marshal Saxe said, "Big armies don't win battles, good ones do."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic at hand, what polls say now or even a month before the election may not reflect the outcome. The last polls before the 2015 Canadian election showed a Liberal Minority, in 2016 US election, Secretary Clinton by a comfortable margin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, paxrom said:

Actually we should spin it like this, because of Canada and other Nato-deadbeats lack of financial commitment, NATO is in danger of failing. Not because trump is raising the alarm bell of what's happening. 

The shameful part is that Canada and others HAVE made the commitment - most are just not honouring it. We made a commitment to get to 2% of GDP by 2024. We are spending about 1% now and are on track to get to 1.4% at best. Trudeau has said he will not honour the commitment and has no intention of getting to 2%. Liberals are as usual, spinning like a top.

Link: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-will-not-double-its-defence-budget-despite-calls-from-trump-trudeau-1.4007323

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

The shameful part is that Canada and others HAVE made the commitment - most are just not honouring it. We made a commitment to get to 2% of GDP by 2024. We are spending about 1% now and are on track to get to 1.4% at best. Trudeau has said he will not honour the commitment and has no intention of getting to 2%. Liberals are as usual, spinning like a top.

Link: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-will-not-double-its-defence-budget-despite-calls-from-trump-trudeau-1.4007323

Breaking News Trudeau undermining the NATO alliance is what the title should be. Yeah liberals are great spinners indeed. Attacking trump simply because he's raising the alarm. 

Edited by paxrom
Link to post
Share on other sites

Story of our lives, built into our DNA code....were born to hate everything American, except for the American dollar, Hollywood, American fast food, American music, American autos, American goods cross border shopping, we eat that shit up.....get in the car we heading to the states....well we love almost everything American, we just won't tell you that.....fact is we are deadbeats....not just deadbeats but some of the best deadbeats in the world....not sure why ….we have not been this way before, infact now we take great pride in taken advantage of our brothers down south....and are crying about being call out on it...instead of being embarrassed we celebrate it like some national holiday.... There are times I am embarrassed to be Canadian, these are not the morals or values we were all taught by our own families, our fathers.... what happened to working hard for an honest wage, treat people like you want to be treated, gone like the 50 cents a liter of gas........now we hold up the middle finger ….i'm in this for me...don't tell me your tired of paying for all of us....you shut your month and keep on paying...cause i'm not paying any more.....did I get that right ? is that the Canadian response....

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Story of our lives, built into our DNA code....were born to hate everything American, except for the American dollar, Hollywood, American fast food, American music, American autos, American goods cross border shopping, we eat that shit up.....get in the car we heading to the states....well we love almost everything American, we just won't tell you that.....fact is we are deadbeats....not just deadbeats but some of the best deadbeats in the world....not sure why ….we have not been this way before, infact now we take great pride in taken advantage of our brothers down south....and are crying about being call out on it...instead of being embarrassed we celebrate it like some national holiday.... There are times I am embarrassed to be Canadian, these are not the morals or values we were all taught by our own families, our fathers.... what happened to working hard for an honest wage, treat people like you want to be treated, gone like the 50 cents a liter of gas........now we hold up the middle finger ….i'm in this for me...don't tell me your tired of paying for all of us....you shut your month and keep on paying...cause i'm not paying any more.....did I get that right ? is that the Canadian response....

You seem to have worked yourself into a lather over, well, I'm not exactly sure what. What are we not paying for? Are we not paying for not being protected against missile attacks even though we're supposedly involved in a continental defense partnership with the U.S.? I think a lot of people were surprised when the U.S. recently admitted that its missile defense policy is to not protect Canada. Maybe we're overpaying if we contribute anything at all. And are we not paying enough for the defense of Europe when many analysts believe we have no specific strategic interests there in any case. We've mainly stayed involved in NATO in order to maintain contact with and tangential relevance to the Europeans. We really should ask if we should be there at all. I think you need to give your head a shake.if you think we're taking advantage of anybody on any of this. 

Edited by turningrite
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

... what happened to working hard for an honest wage,

Well, I gave working for an armchair fisherman (you know what I mean) after the collapse and restructuring... I got paid .15 a lb and he got the other $3.85.  I had to pay for expenses, crews wages, bait, fuel etc.  It was the last time I ever fished.

Of course the poor quota owner probably had to pay some lobbyist to pressure the government for more quota but I notice he's got a crew from Fiji working for him now so he can probably afford it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, eyeball said:

Well, I gave working for an armchair fisherman (you know what I mean) after the collapse and restructuring... I got paid .15 a lb and he got the other $3.85.  I had to pay for expenses, crews wages, bait, fuel etc.  It was the last time I ever fished.

Of course the poor quota owner probably had to pay some lobbyist to pressure the government for more quota but I notice he's got a crew from Fiji working for him now so he can probably afford it.

Gives a new meaning to the "Scales" of Justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, eyeball said:

Of course the poor quota owner probably had to pay some lobbyist to pressure the government for more quota but I notice he's got a crew from Fiji working for him now so he can probably afford it.

You were effectively replaced by low-income migrant workers, since you could not afford to live at such a low wage. This is what's happening around the country. It has crept in to the high-tech sector as well, we see some jobs requiring a college level diploma offering a minimum wage. They are looking for recent immigrants who have technical training from their homeland and come to Canada to start a new life, and they're willing to take the job at that rate.

That is why conservatives oppose a large influx of migrants, if not done in a controlled way that protects our industry and workers from foreign exploitation.

Quote

It was the last time I ever fished.

Be ye a fisher of men.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2018 at 10:30 AM, turningrite said:

There are a couple problems with this. First, the "irregular" migrants now crossing our borders are in many cases probably not actual refugees. They can file refugee claims, which isn't the same thing as being refugees, a determination that can take years to complete in Canada's inefficient and cumbersome system. The other problem is that the provinces and municipalities pick up most of the social costs for supporting these migrants from the outset. The federal government provides only limited support in the form of health coverage. In fact, generally speaking, the feds only provide one year settlement support for refugees who are processed overseas and arrive here as "Convention" refugees, as was the case with the thousands of government-sponsored Syrians brought into the country under Trudeau's much ballyhooed program.

Trudeau could address some of the current backlash by agreeing to pick up all the social, medical, legal and other support costs for the so-called "inland" refugee claimants until their claims are assessed. My guess is that his government would be reluctant to do so at least in part because the true cost of the program would become apparent. Accountability isn't this government's strong suit. Trudeau treatment of Ford, whom he said simply doesn't understand our international obligations, was typically condescending. Trudeau himself should know better as I believe sovereign nations are parties to most international treaties and agreements, including I believe those covering refugee matters. Thus, it's properly the federal government that should pay the freight on this.  

The govt. Is us the taxpayers. Let turdeau and the liberal politicians pay for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
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 Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...