i'd agree that anything unfortunate Trump has done can be undone. and its maybe a good thing that US democracy, that is on many levels based on traditional norms instead of actual law, has been tested and thus can be enforced. the whole divisive thing will start to weigh on policy going forward for years now.
Aren't you just guilty of doing the same as you accuse others of (i.e. "spewing K-tel classics")? Just a couple of quick examples.
I presume you going to form a new party federaly in next election and run so you can make Canada better for you and rest of it’s?
The constant use of 'trudope', 'drama teacher', 'sock model', 'trust fund kid' ... to through shade on the Prime Minister is unoriginal and actually very Trumpian (ie Sleepy Joe).
https://globalnews.ca/news/2157321/reality-check-do-harpers-syrian-refugee-numbers-add-up/
No, I believe you do not. Someone who actually "digests policy" would never claim a policy doesn't exist when it does. And everything else you said in reply, was simply shifting. As an example, first you claim/implied the Conservatives refused to permit any Syrian refugees, and now you have shifted the narrative to "look at their actual record" on refugees. Regardless of what the record is, to bring it back to your original claim - the record is MORE than ZERO!
It is like saying they don't drink, about a person who has a glass or two a year. In practice they aren't drinkers. It's a nuance.
There is no nuance in claiming the Conservatives refused to accept refugees, when in fact they did. They took refugees, and when the Syrian refugee crisis was ongoing in 2015, they pledged to take 10,000 during the election. So to answer your questions about what was the Conservative response, as it relates to the Syrian refugee crisis and the 2015 election, their response was basically, "we'll accept 10,000." You may believe it wasn't enough, that's a fair argument, but your initial claim was that the Conservatives refused to accept any - that is undeniably incorrect.
The refugee crisis started in 2011, the Conservatives accepted 2302 refugees from the beginning of 2013 to August 2015, the Liberals accepted 25,000 in three months (November 2015 to the end of February 2016) and a total of 63,938 by April 30, 2019. The Conservatives were promising 10,000 in four years, and had missed their previous target.
I'm not arguing what the difference in policy is - your are now arguing difference in policy as a response to me demonstrating that you were undeniably wrong when it came to your claim that the Conservatives refused to accept refugees. So again, you are trying to shift the narrative when it is clear that your initial assertion that the Conservatives refused to accept refugees was shown to be incorrect!
Good on the Libs for upping the number of refugees.I’m all for it. Perhaps the screening process that the Cons established for Syrian refugees finally got up to speed. Of course some people are stupid enough to believe that any refugee claiming refugee status should be automatically believed. Kind of like our Great Woke Leader: “the woman must always be believed”. Unless of course it’s him and then: “sometimes people just experience things differently”
Haha! Trying to pass on credit to the CPC for the Liberals' policy and efficiency, nice. The initial screening had already been done by the UNHCR, but the 'new' Tories were dragging their feet, remember they were pandering to the white nationalists under their 'tent'.
I tend to be of the opinion that governments don't act in a vacuum, and that the Libs and Cons really aren't all that much different, and to a large degree they just slightly modify the work they inherit from the previous government. (Obviously I pretty much have to restrict that to Canada, since it seems that each president of our neighbor to the south starts by trying to undo and replace much of the work of his predecessor.) I'm probably somewhat Pollyanna-ish, but I think both parties were trying to do the right thing with immigration. I like the fact that the Libs have expedited it and gotten things moving more, but I also cling to the idea that the Cons were trying. Yeah, perhaps I give them too much benefit-of-the-doubt, but... there's a reason I chose Happy as a pseudonym.
I like this. I like how well Canada is doing, relatively speaking, and I like your idea of donating our oversupply.
I disagree. The responsibility for Covid deaths in Canada rests with our utter inability to keep seniors' homes Covid free and our government's irresponsible decision to not examine existing off-patent medicine for use in treating or preventing Covid infections (specifically Ivermectin. which probably could have prevented over 90% of our Covid deaths).
I wasn't sure what emoji to use on this post.
I tend to be of the opinion that governments don't act in a vacuum, and that the Libs and Cons really aren't all that much different, and to a large degree they just slightly modify the work they inherit from the previous government. (Obviously I pretty much have to restrict that to Canada, since it seems that each president of our neighbor to the south starts by trying to undo and replace much of the work of his predecessor.) I'm probably somewhat Pollyanna-ish, but I think both parties were trying to do the right thing with immigration. I like the fact that the Libs have expedited it and gotten things moving more, but I also cling to the idea that the Cons were trying. Yeah, perhaps I give them too much benefit-of-the-doubt, but... there's a reason I chose Happy as a pseudonym.
I like this. I like how well Canada is doing, relatively speaking, and I like your idea of donating our oversupply.
Oh don't even get me started on polarization. I think it will end up being one of the most damaging forces in our modern world. (For example, given the situation in the US, I find myself wondering these days what a civil war without well-defined geographical boundaries would look like?!?) But that's where my sanguine nature comes in. I see the polarization as being extreme in the US, and feel it isn't nearly as bad in Canada YET. I REALLY hope we don't follow the trend. Also, whereas the polls and statistics are very interesting (and cause for some concern), I think they tend to include more of the fringe elements than the parties themselves do. For example, whereas there is definitely too much of a fringe right-wing population who would obviously vote Conservative because that's the most right-wing national party we have in Canada, I don't think the party is that far right yet. In fact, as I recall, a member quite recently got booted out of caucus for accepting donations from a white supremacist's group. You could argue that's just the Cons trying to keep a pretty, respectable public image, but I'm still not quite that cynical. (I warned you I was Pollyanna-ish, right?
)What vaccine conspiracies am I spewing?
