aceofspades19

No I never said that. You just said I think liberals are similiar to Trump supporters. Okay but why? You haven't provided any reason why you think this. I have provided lots of reasoning of why I have these opinions, you just haven't cared to read or respond.

There's no reason to be mad, I'm just simply asking you to provide some sort of thought more than "haha liberals are dumb".

Yet you have not provided any minimal amount of reasoning or evidence to support this claim. You're just being purposefully inflammatory and not responding to anything that is being said.

>it's not a conservative talking point. i know many people who voted liberal to "stick it to trump" (their words). all they do is talk about trump. they have no idea what is happening in their own country, it's just trump vs canada and carney is the hero. it's ridiculous. and the media fuels it constantly.

The liberal voters I talk to are very rational, normal people. I also disagree the media fuels it constantly. Trump does a lot of exceptional things that make it into the news and so its difficult not to speak about his actions. It's not difficult for Carney to appear hero-like when compared with Trump. All Carney has to do is appear to be the rational foil to Trump's insanity.

> as a liberal voter how do you feel about this bill?

To be honest, I have not done a ton of research into it, but on the face of it, it looks like its a terrible and unnecessary bill. While I voted liberal and in general support Carney, I don't worship him, or feel that he can do no wrong. I disagree with him and the liberal party on several things, this being one of them.

> in fact, for liberal voters the only thing they care about is opposing and antagonizing trump, or at least the appearance of doing so. keeping housing unaffordable is a distant second priority.

This is a conservative talking point. I'm a liberal voter, and I know lots of people who voted for the liberal party. None of them want to oppose and antagonize Trump for just for the sake of it. Most Canadians and liberal voters just want Trump to follow his own agreement in regards to trade, to stop with the 51st state rhetoric and his unnecessary antagonism of Canada.

Most Canadians I know have friends and family in America and don't want a rift between our countries. It's that Trump has seemingly gone after Canada for made up reasons just to cause problems that has made Canadians angry.

> That said, I live in Alberta now and normal serious parents tend to send their kids to French immersion.

Not really true, there is usually a very limited number of seats in french immersion. In the school district where I live, its a lottery system of who gets to go into french immersion as there are limited seats. Also you're implying that parents are not doing a good job if they don't send their kids to french immersion which is patently false.

> It's a leg up if you are going to get a government job, and it is pretty cool

In certain positions in the federal government, possibly. I know lots of people who work in provincial governments that don't know any french, and have never been required to know any.

Well I mean I've never heard anyone argue in favour of absolutely unlimited immigration but okay.

How do you measure culture empirically and how can you empirically say that culture is being balkanized specifically by immigrants and not other factors? You can't just take anecdotal evidence to say okay no more immigration because you have big feelings about it. There are places in the world still where having a non-zero amount of people of a different race moving into the neighbourhood would trigger some people to make the claim that the culture is becoming balkanized and sectarian.

There are studies that show that immigration leads to higher job and wage growth: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/explainer/immigrants-us-econ... (look at the bottom for sources). It's not an assumption.

You're focusing on one side of the supply-demand graph. Immigrants increase both the demand & supply side, they require more jobs but also the increase in population increases demand for more products and services. There is no fixed amount of jobs in a country.

I do agree if a country were to let in 100 million immigrants over night or some insane number that it would mess up the economy, there is an upper bound to this.

I live in a region that has a lot of Christians and they constantly try to bend the local laws to follow their religious views, even where it could violate provincial and federal law. They have caused human rights issues in our local government. Is it fair that they do this just because they immigrated here a long time ago instead of fairly recently?

I'm not going to go guessing what the OP meant, if you want to have a good faith discussion about something then you need to be specific. Anyone can make vague claims about people causing trouble, its meaningless.

What's the empirical evidence that proves this? If the economy gets worse as a result of lack of immigration, its going to reduce opportunities for low income and working class people.

Okay so which specific cultural religious and ethnic backgrounds are causing trouble and what empirical evidence do you have of this happening on a large scale? It can take many generations for immigrant family to assimilate into the host country's culture, how do you know they are there to conquer and not just taking time to assimilate? Why do you think only Japanese people can take care of Japan, do you hold this belief for other countries?

There is lots of infrastructure related to water that doesn't have someone physically there 24/7 as it would not be feasible to do so as 99.9% of the time there is nothing to do. So you need some sort of remote alarm system that can be monitored.

> With all due respect, many people like him do exist in the world, and perhaps you're not acquainted with people like him.

Fair enough.

> Basically, he believes in the truthfulness of large institutions, which really is why you and I believe the earth is round; that is, we haven't actually performed a bona fide experiment

I guess to a certain extent, but also knowing that I could perform such an experiment and come up with reproducible results. As well as the lack of any credible alternative theory that holds up to any sort of scientific rigor.

> One fact that stands out to me is that we all use some amount of faith to accept that the earth is round, though perhaps not quite a leap's worth.

I would say that it's not really faith when its reproducible. For example, there is a small amount of faith that my brakes will slow down my car when approaching a corner, but I can test the brakes to know they should work, I can perform experiments with similar mechanisms to prove the basic physics, that all would have reproducible outcomes. So while there is a small amount of faith that some catastrophic failure won't happen, I would say its categorically different to believing things with almost no evidence. There is no reproducible experiment (at least that I know of) that you can even read about that proves the earth is flat.

But how could you be alive and not have observed that the earth is curved? Why does a mountain, building or ship disappear over the horizon if the earth is not curved? That alone should be sufficient evidence to believe that the scientific consensus on this is likely to be true.

I have not observed directly that a human will die after 3 days without water but having experienced thirst & dehydration in limited amounts, I have no reason to doubt that is likely the case.

That's what I don't understand supposed "rational" flat earthers. It's fine and somewhat rational to be skeptical of authority but when the contrary idea takes enormous leaps of faith to consider, it seems weird to me to believe something for the sake of it.

I never said that they can't bomb a country or deny immigrants. They certainly can and are. I also never said that it needs to be fair. I'm saying its ridiculous to be mad when people are trying to immigrate to your country for a better life and you're tell them to go back to their country & fix it when you're the one(or your close friends are) actively making it worse on purpose. I'm sure you can see the hypocrisy in this.

I'm not sure what is controversial about if you want to reduce people trying to come to your country then you should promote global economic & political stability so they don't have any reason to come. Especially when you are the most powerful country in the world that is already meddling in everyone's affairs.

> Speaking as an Indian: "brown" people's countries are "brown" people's own responsibilities. If their countries are messed up, they should also own the task of fixing them.

>Other countries can feel free to pitch in if it suits their interests, as you say. But the primary responsibility for our motherlands is with ourselves.

Yes this would make sense if the US & other countries had a policy of non-intervention. When the US & its allies are actively destabilizing these countries, you can't turn around and be like oh now its your fault your country is messed up and you are solely responsible to fix it after we bombed, invaded, or otherwise economically destabilized the region. The long term solution to stop people from immigrating to the US for a better life is to promote political and economic stability in those countries, ie. not bombing them, invading them, removing their leaders, promoting trade with them etc.

I live in Canada and the US is actively trying to destabilize my country through threats of annexation, disregarding trade deals and implementing tariffs, promoting separatism. What can I do to stop the US from doing this exactly? If the US ends up destroying my country, is it my fault? am I solely responsible to fix it?

> Perhaps the "brown" people can work on fixing their home countries so that they wouldn't have to emigrate in order to enjoy a better quality of life.

That's an ignorant thing to say. Even in democratic western countries, it can be very difficult for the average person to institute change even at a local level. If you have to battle corruption or war on top of that, it could be impossible. For example, would it be fair to say that a Sundanese villager should just fix their country as PMCs being hired by the UAE(and others) are committing genocide? Or would you consider that reasonable to flee the country in search of a better life?

We have to admit there are lots of cases where people can't just "fix" their own country as there are complex geopolitical issues that a normal person, or a group of normal people are not able to fix. If Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, the idea should be to promote global economic and political stability so that people can reasonably make their countries a better place, not to just tell them to go away and fix their own problems.

The claim was there was multiple "organ harvesting scandals". Upon reading, it seems like the system worked, the doctors refused to retrieve the organs because the patient showed signs of life. It also looks like they have worked to put in place stricter protocols for organ retrieval since then.

I would say accidentally mistaking the patient is dead in any case is hardly the same as purposefully harvesting the organs from people they know are alive to get paid. The article does not state any evidence to suggest they are doing this.

There is obviously going to be some pressure to make a decision to retrieve the organs in the interest of not wasting something that could save another's life as there is a limited time frame where these organs can be viable. There is a huge distinction between that and going to patients that have no doubt they are alive and harvesting their organs.

You're making the assumption people with accents are necessarily foreign-based workers. You can be a US or Canadian citizen and have an accent. I worked in a call center in Canada servicing Americans, I was born in Canada and lived here my entire life and I can assure you I definitely sound canadian but customer still accused me of being located in India, a place I have never even visited. So I don't think customer opinions on the matter are 100% justified and fair.

I agree with your points but they had literally stated that passenger aircraft were getting slower and provided the example of the 747 vs 787. So it was clear to me what he meant.

This isn't true though, the 747's cruise speed is the same as the 787's at 0.85 mach. The 747 has a slightly faster max speed but that's not relevant for actual travel. The 777 has a slower max speed and cruise speed than the 787 despite being older. I don't think you can realistically draw a correlation between older/newer being faster or slower on wide body aircraft.

The Official Languages Act doesn't specify which spelling or dialect you need to use for either French or English. There might be internal federal directives on which to use but its not a legal issue.

This study doesn't prove what you said though. It just says that non-EU immigrants contribute less than EU immigrants on average. It also says that both EU and non-EU immigrants make a net contribution to the UK public finances on average. Non-EU immigrants It also clearly says that Non-EEA migrants are from any country outside of the EU which could include US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.

How are you going to blockade an almost 9000 km long border(with a huge variety of terrain) and a 243,000 km long coastline? The US can't even stop drugs and people coming through the 3,145 km border with Mexico. This argument also presumes that no Americans would smuggle supplies to Canada which seems unlikely to me because lots of Americans & Canadians are either related or friends.

Saying it will go away in a future administration is no different than saying this bill won't pass or will be removed by a future Canadian government. Sure it might, it might not, there is no way to tell at this juncture. To say that it is localized to specific areas and groups in the US is wrong, ICE has been deporting people all over the country without due process. While I am sure there are some areas of the US that are unaffected, I would hardly call that localized. Not to mention the attacks on the constitution by the Trump administration which affects everyone or any number of things that this administration has been doing that is illegal.

It's not false, the Emergencies Act was only invoked from February 14th 2022 to February 23rd 2022. That's 9 days. Between 180 and 219 accounts were frozen based on the sources I found. Please tell me which part is false.

SirSavary's comment covered the military deployments so I will just say that there are numerous cases of the Trump administration deporting people without due process outside the country to places like CECOT where they are tortured. I don't think even the Trump administration denies these things.

Here's one source you can read about it: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/men-deported... Here's a source on torture in CECOT: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgq7nxkpkp4o

But feel free to look up the cases listed in the articles and research them yourself.

>The source of the seizures was the gofundme leak by a hacker. Who has since >been arrested, convicted, and is in prison for a separate hacking incident. >Canada gave him immunity to his crimes during freedom protest. They took the >donor list and seized from there.

That's not true, the fundraising platforms raising funds for the convoy had to register with FINTRAC and failing that, the banks can track who is sending money to those platforms for those accounts. It even says so in the article you linked. What's the source that the government used the leak to find the accounts?

No one got "debanked", it was a temporary freeze for a few days and for a small number of accounts. I also disagree that it was to ruin the lives of those who oppose them, the money was released back to them, that seems like an odd way to ruin someone's life. Surely the tyrannical Liberal government would have been able to do more than keep them from accessing their money for a few days if they truly wanted to ruin lives.

I'm not sure how that follows. It's impossible to know anyone's state of mind once they are dead, that doesn't mean they should be required to suffer until a terminal illness causes their death.