Life

I have this whole big answer typed on my computer and the capcha system is blocking me from posting it. This is frustrating, give me a moment. It's actually blocking me on both my phone and computer when I try to copy/paste. And it answers your question perfectly. Want it in email form, @Dark Holy Elf? Second paragraph first. I like to disregard federal results when the provincial were much more recent and were very drastically different. My parents riding (St. Paul's) has been a heavy Liberal riding in both Federal and Provincial elections and is the same size for both. Last provincial election, it went NDP. The swing? 26%, gained entirely from the Liberals. It's actually worrying since it is a pretty affluent area with a lot of rich Jews (Spadina Village). Here's the ethnic/religious breakdown as of 2006. The NDP MPP (Jill Andrew) is a social justice acolyte. For St. Paul's to vote for her rather than even the Conservatives was a complete shock to just about everyone so the shift wasn't based on immigration, it was entirely ideological. That's the same across all of metropolitan Toronto. It will go NDP despite the last federal results. Now, immigration. Wasn't ignoring you; it's that Bernier has fleshed out his position on each issue so thoroughly that I wanted to know if immigration was the only topic you wanted to delve into. First off, the People's Party of Canada is against mass immigration, not all immigration. And what is mass immigration defined as, you ask? ~350,000 immigrants per year with a rising quota, regardless of whether the immigrant is going to contribute to the economy or not. What Bernier points out is this: Only 26% of immigrants to Canada are economic migrants who have skilled wanted by the Canadian economy and are ready to jump right in to work. That is about 90,000 of the 350,000. What about the rest? Well, another 25~30% is immediate family (spouse and children), another ~30% are extended family that make the jump via family re-unification (a process which allows many people to simply jump the queue) and the remainder are refugees and asylum seekers. It is important to note that while the number of immigrants who actively find and go onto hold full time jobs jumps from 26% up to 55%, we are still looking at nearly ~165,000 immigrants per year who cannot/do not contribute to the labour force at all while we have a labour shortage. Or as my dad puts it, he could legally bring his 93 year old mother into Canada by way of family re-unification and she would require immediate state care without ever contributing a net positive to Canadian society due to the fact that she weighs about 35 kilograms and cannot walk without assistance. So what changes does Bernier want to do? In short, he'd cut family re-unification so that having a cousin in Canada no longer fast-tracks your way into the country. Another way of describing family re-unification in its effect is "immigration nepotism". This would not affect bringing spouses and children in (immediate family) but it would limit immigrants to that. He would also cut immigration to somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 per year, with the number subject to change depending on economic circumstances. He is open that his goal is to turn immigration into a net economic boon for Canada and his goal is +50% economic migrants. Where does that leave refugees and asylum seekers? Glad you asked. Bernier plans to focus on actual persecuted minorities around the world even though it wouldn't be the ~50,000 refugees we currently take in. Examples would be the Yazidis (Christians) and the Uighars (Muslims) who face actual persecution from religious majorities across the world. Lastly, the social justice arguments of "Bernier just wants to bring in more white people because he's a racist" are bullshit arguments from racial collectivists. I don't why we need to take racial collectivists seriously in 2019 but sure, here we go. The PPC does not give a shit about race. Based on the numbers alone, the PPC would be happy to only bring in Nigerian economic migrants because they have the most chance of succeeding in both the Canadian economy and society... period. It's an incredibly hard working culture that fundamentally agrees with Canadian values that based off of British Common Law due to heavy British influence from the past century. But only racial collectivists are going to see "less mass immigration" and jump to "you must hate black and brown people coming to the country!" because they don't realize that black and brown people can be successful on their own without sympathy and help from the white man. I cannot believe that I actually had to say this in 2019. Racism is fucking stupid and racial collectivists are bad people. Anyway, hope that answers your questions on the PPC's immigration policies. Any other policy concerns with the PPC that you'd like to discuss?

I love it. I hope Mayfield crashes and burns as punishment for his cockiness.

Kollmann has great videos. But yeah. The AFC North, West and East have young incoming gods (Lamar, Allen, Mahomes) who have the potential to run the conference for years to come. A post-season rivalry with the Ravens for the next decade might be terrifying.

At least. Also 3 GMs ago.

Same decade is very recent. Not that recent would be 20+ seasons.

Toronto, ironically, is a relatively conservative city overall. In the last provincial election (where the Liberals got wiped), the central city went NDP but once you start moving to the suburbs and heavy immigrant areas (the Philippeano community is a great example), they actually vote Conservative. The NDP don't seem to actually realize that immigrants from non-Anglo Saxon countries don't actually support their cause, which I find hilarious. As for Bernier, where do you want to start? Thunberg and climate change? Immigration reform? Supply management? Defunding the CBC? Or the fact that the other parties are so scared of him that Jagmeet Singh is trying to have him muzzled by publicly asking the debate commission to rescind Bernier's invitation to the debates on the ground that he offends Singh's moral compass?

Ugly win in Buffalo but NOTICE FUCKING SERVED to the rest of the league.

Because I can't make a rational argument for why Cleveland loses by less than a TD based on what I've seen in two weeks. Baker looked mediocre against the Jets. You expect me to think that against LA, he'll keep it tight? Get out of here. If it's +3.5, there's something that we don't know about LA that's not getting mentioned.

I was having a bad day, but yeah, you're right. I'm sorry, Ana. You were right and I was wrong, both in material and for just jumping down your throat.

I was thinking Arvis as the major antagonist rather than Manfloy and comparing him to Edelgard. But yes, I see your point.

To be entirely fair, the Kaga approach was pretty solid in terms of "look, here is an evil sect trying to resurrect an evil god, go and kill them while they do so". Better than the later games that did this (I'm specifically thinking of FE7/8/10 on this). There is a reason why Three Houses aped Geneology in both terms of a massively political holy war and a flawed villain with actual character traits.

Well, since Quebec sovereignty is off of the table (and it is until another referendum is announced), put on your Canadian hat and realize that you and I are actually both equal citizens of this country and the coming election is fascinating.

So, regarding equalization, it's mostly Ontario (sad to say but I blame the OLibs for that) and BC who screwed everyone else. Alberta has the same case for separatism as you, even moreso since they have a neighbouring province who goes out of their way to cripple their economy (read up on how BC has treated Alberta in the past 5 years, it's rather shocking). But the major difference is that you've failed two referendums on the issue and they haven't even had one (but that would also fail if you ask me). As for social programs, I don't think Quebec would scale back their social programs since those are already conducted at the provincial level. Education is provincial, health care is provincial, most taxes and tariffs regarding inter-country trade are provincial... What would you legitimately scale back? I'm actually curious about this. Would you go the Ontario Conservative route of cutting major social benefits and STILL end up with a deficit (Doug Ford's government reported a $7.4 billion deficit in its first year, half of the projected number)? Or do you rack up the costs early and hope to pay back heavy debts with revenues from your mineral depositories (which may take over a generation to realize a profit for the province)? I get that you only have exploration rights to 5% of the land but the cost to set up mines and communities will be incredibly high at the start and won't pay for themselves overnight. Don't get me wrong; I think Quebec has been screwed and it has come from the hands of my province. I just don't think burning down the house is the right option and we should rather change things like the equalization formula and inter-province trade. I know a lot more about Ontario politics than Quebec so I don't think I'm ever going to convince you of anything. But the same people who put the screws to you did the same to us and we just kicked them out of Queen's Park last year (I didn't, I spoiled my ballot because I did not believe in the Conservatives actually being even relatively honest about their priorities). A Conservative Ontario and the PPC at the federal level (hopefully in 5 years) can surely help change and heal some of the relationship that Kathleen Wynne spat on for years.

That wasn't an "infamous no catch". That was Dez Bryant. Not EVERYTHING has to include the Steelers. I dare you to go three posts without mentioning them or the Panthers.

You can't support yourself financially. You require the equalization formula for money. If you guys separate, you'll be asking to rejoin within 10 years due to being dead broke with no actual resources to call your own. That's from your side. From our side, we lose lose easier access to the Maritimes. Nobody gains anything from Quebec separatism. I'm all for keeping Quebec Quebec. But I'm also a realist.

Just in time for Week 4 when the Patriots come to the Ralph. That works for me.

As I stated above, Divine Pulse is the least egregious sin of Byleth. The lack of personality which actually given a story explanation (the Ashen Demon) is much more damning.

Liberals are red. Conservatives are blue. Both parties care about themselves, and don't give a shit about you.

You should be shot for that one. Let's see, interesting lines for the weekend... Eagles are -6 (-105) at home vs. the Lions. I'm thinking that the Eagles cover that one but injuries are starting to pile up for Philly. That's a 2nd half bet IMO. Bills are -6 (-102) vs. the Bengals and it's our home opener. Lion's share of the money is actually on Buffalo, interestingly. Is this confidence in Buffalo or are the Bengals just toast? Dallas are -22.5 (-102) at home vs. Miami. Can Miami even cover that? And... Oooh. Rams are -3.5 (+102) in Cleveland. That feels like a sucker bet.

Maybe but I made the serious argument for why Byleth is a bad character as is and should not fundamentally exist.

Tom, I hate to break this to you, buddy. But YOU are the reason why the league has changed the rules multiple times and increased the penalties. 1. The tuck rule. 2. Late hits on QBs. 3. Offensive PI on rub routes (OK, that's more on Belichick but it is your offense). It would be nice if he actually realized this.

I back this 100%. I just also understand that this is reality and I try to understand Quebec's position. Don't get me wrong. I think Quebec separatism is a terrible idea. But Quebec nationalism? Let Quebec be Quebec instead of forcing our beliefs on them? You guys don't force anything on Ontario. Why shouldn't we do the same?

In all honesty, I don't Singh would respect the decision of the court. Singh has caused the downfall of the Alberta NDP by attempting to gut their economy for environmental purposes. Oil is the only thing that keeps Alberta afloat and accounts for 10% of the country's GDP. Is it worth a 10% drop in the national economy when we are already spiraling into debt? No. But Singh has already admitted that he would do this by mandate if the NDP were in power. Do you really think the NDP would let Bill 21 go if they got into power? Not a chance. You're all just racists to them. Their words, not mine. I'd love nuclear power to also be the main base of Canadian energy but that is not feasible as it stands due to the stigma it has. For the record, I'm hardcore right-wing Libertarian and I'll push the PPC hard. Nationalism only has a bad connotation by way of narrative. It literally means "love for one's nation". The trick is to not substitute any flawed religious diety with the nation-state and since Bernier is a Libertarian at heart, I would be shocked if he did that.

I know exactly why you consider Trudeau a traitor. PET fucked you guys hard. Like father, like son. As for the climate change stuff and Bernier, there are a few things to understand: Canada's carbon footprint is 1.6% of the entire world's output. We could multiply our oil production in Alberta tenfold and this number would still remain under 2% of the world's emissions. Climate policy in Canada is like shooting yourself in the foot in order to sympathize with people in wheelchairs. If you want to do something meaningful in the climate debate, then convince China to stop polluting (who contribute 26% of the world's carbon emissions as of 2014 so this number could be sitting at 30% today). What you are trying to do is to put a band-aid on a near fully decapitated leg and pretend that the leg is now healed while it hangs on by a tendon. It's laughable due to how incredibly futile the effort is. And regarding Bill 21 (which is important to you), here's Bernier's statement vs. Singh's. Singh has a vested interest in removing Bill 21 because it would affect him personally. Bernier will let you keep it on the basis that it's a Quebec law. One of the two is working on principle and it's not Singh.

You missed the People's Party of Canada (PPC) who are a cross between the old Reform Party and the Libertarian Party. The modern day Conservatives are nothing more than what the Liberal Party used to be like when Chretien was running it. I grew up in Toronto in a Liberal stronghold (provincial riding just flipped to NDP which is shocking) but my family always empathized more with the Conservatives. However, both my father and one of my sisters are probably going to vote PPC this time round because Maxime Bernier is the only leader who seems relatively sane. Considering that my father is an immigrant, even he has no issue with turning around and saying "look, mass immigration is a bad idea, let's pump the brakes on that train and reform the country's immigration policy to revolve around Canada's needs instead of blindly accepting everyone just because". I also find it strange that you would side with the NDP after the Bloc. The NDP as they stand today would be firmly against things such as Quebec sovereignty on sheer principle because they fundamentally oppose nationalism, a key component of Quebec sovereignty. You'd be better served by voting PPC after Bloc in my opinion since you'd also be voting for a Francophone leader. He'd also allow Quebec to retain provincial control over things like education; a promise that not even the Liberals would dare make in fear of alienating their base. Other things you missed: 1. Until recently, the debate commission went out of its way to block the PPC from engaging in the federal debates under restrictions that should have also stopped the Bloc and the Greens from participating... if the standards were consistent for everyone. But, the PPC has now been given permission to join and Jagmeet Singh (leader of the NDP) has formally asked the debate commission to bar the PPC on the grounds that they offend his morality. If he gets his wish, then Canada is in a much worse position regarding individual rights and freedoms than I had thought. 2. It is important to realize that no matter which of the three major parties that gains control (NDP/Conservative/Liberal), the budget will not be balanced. This means that the country will accrue heavy debt that will lead to higher taxes across the board. I can say this because the Liberals lied about their intention to balance the budget, the Conservatives have promised a balanced budget in five years minimum as opposed to their original promise of two and the NDP are economically illiterate (this applies both at the provincial level and federal). 3. Trudeau's finally worn out his welcome and even the Globe & Mail has started to nail his political corpse to the post. From the SNC-Lavalin scandal to the new "brownface" picture to Trudeau's general inability to understand the purpose and function of government, this party is going into freefall quickly. What do you expect from a leader who was elected solely on his flowing mane of hair and name?