2019 Canadian Elections

[Dark Holy Elf]

@Life Weird. Try copying it into a plain-text document to remove all formatting then copying that to SF? If that doesn't work try clearing your cache/cookies for SF and logging in again.

[Life]

This is starting to get really frustrating. How dare I post pro-Bernier and PPC content on this site!!!

 

Kidding, of course, just incredibly weird that it forces me through the Captcha system every time.

 

EDIT: SUCCESS!  It's on the previous page but let me put it here too.

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.
 

Quote

Ethnic groups: 76.08% White, 5.31% Black, 4.04% Filipino, 3.73% Chinese, 2.85% Latin American, 2.46% South Asian

Languages: 67.47% English, 1.87% French, 30.47% Others
Religions (2001): 29.28% Catholic, 25.01% Protestant, 19.60% Non religious, 14.03% Jewish, 4.18% Christian Orthodox, 2.62% Other Christian, 2.52% Muslim, 1.35% Buddhist
Average income: $34,617

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?

Edited September 29, 2019 by Life

[eclipse]

It's probably the links.  Not that you linked anything bad, but just that they exist.  Not just you, either.

[Life]

These are the people trying to stop us. Most of them are gender/racial studies students at a variety of universities (example: in my sister's history degree at UofT).

They are willing to call a gay Jew (Dave Rubin) a Neo-Nazi because ideology trumps reality for them. They constantly threaten people with violence over and over due to not being ideologically aligned (for the record, that means being right of Chairman Mao).

But this isn't new. This has been happening across the country for years. The only difference is that this time, they tried to block a politician who actively fights for individual freedom and liberty. We caught it on camera and the CBC finally has to admit that this is happening. And how exactly do they label it?

Well, they're apparently "protestors" with the same moral standing as us. Bullshit. We don't wear balaclavas and threaten people in the street. We are the average Canadian who understand that when everyone who disagrees with you is a racist and a Nazi, these kind of things can be morally justified. What are they protesting; freedom and liberty? They are nothing more than thugs who are encouraged by Canadian state media, humanities professors and the left wing political parties.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Life

[Vince777]

Feels like you're just regurgitating alt-right news rhetoric and mantra. Gender-racial studies students? Really?

And then you have that quote in your signature...

[Vaieti]

So what did everyone think of the English debate? IMO Bernier acted like his usual dufus self in the beginning, then became a background object for most of the second part. May seemed like the only truly civil person on stage and performed rather well. Trudeau didn’t suffer any k.O. Punches which made him a winner as current prime minister. Singh just appeared as a genuine nice guy that could be your next door neighbor. Sheer got beat pretty hard, especially when Trudeau said: Mr. Bernier’s role tonight is to show us what Sheer thinks in secret. And Blanchet’s poor English really hampered his performance, although what he did say was pretty good. All in all the worst in this debate were the biased moderators. When they presented the part about law 21, they downright said that Singh was a coward or « lacked courage » since he said it wasn’t the federal’s role to oppose the court’s decision. They also said the divisive and discriminatory bill 21, when It’s only divisive outside Quebec, since Quebec considers it a necessary form of discrimination, although it even being discriminatory is debatable.

[Life]

On 10/7/2019 at 10:00 PM, Vince777 said:

Feels like you're just regurgitating alt-right news rhetoric and mantra. Gender-racial studies students? Really?

And then you have that quote in your signature...

It's nice of you to suggest that I'm "regurgitating alt-right talking points" so let me give you a real example that happened to my sister.

 

My sister studies History at the University of Toronto. She's taken a few gender studies courses which have outlines that read as activist teachings rather than educational knowledge but whatever.

One day, she calls me up in tears because she just got home from a course (I can't remember which course it was but it deals with 1800's and onwards East Asian History) where her professor accused anyone of having a Phillippeno nanny of being a slave-owner.

Me and my sisters grew up with a Phillippeno nanny because my mother went away to law school at age 40 in another city while my dad (who is also an immigrant to Canada, by the way) worked 70 hour weeks to support my mother's degree and the rest of us.

Our nanny helped my family through a lot of difficult situations when my parents weren't available. In return, my parents helped her gain full Canadian citizenship, assisted in moving her family over from the Phillippeans to Canada and have fully accepted her as a member of our family. Oh and the nanny votes Tory, by the way. She loves Doug Ford much more than us.

For a professor to accuse us of being slaveowners is beyond absurd. It is actually offensive. What started as a mutual job (and still technically is a job 15 years) morphed into embracing another person into our family.

So spare me the "you just spew alt-right talking points" speech. These people actually offend my senses because they judge me as being a Jew rather than an individual. If you want to defend them, go ahead. But don't accuse me of being pro-white nationalist just because they have some of the same legitimate concerns that they do. The NDP are closer to the alt-right in ideology than I am because the NDP talk the same way as the alt-right. The only difference is which racial group they support (alt-right are pro-white while NDP are anti-white).

 

As for my quote, it's because it's hilarious. It's a joke. And if you want to get technical about it, Alex Jones actually undershot the mark. The frogs are being turned trans, not gay.

[Dark Holy Elf]

For some reason I never got a notification about your post here and forgot to check this forum (99% of the time I just go straight to the FE3H board these days). My apologies.

On 9/29/2019 at 7:45 AM, Life said:

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.

Federal and provincial parties and politics often don't line up; they certainly don't remotely line up in BC for instance where our Liberal party is actually closer to the federal Conservatives. My understanding as a non-Ontario resident is that voters turned on Wynne's government in a big way last provincial election for reasons specific to that government.

Be interesting to see if you're right about St. Paul's. I just checked http://338canada.com/districts/toronto.htm and they have it as Safe Liberal.

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.

 

 

Quote

 

I'm rather skeptical about this being an actual problem. Where is it manifesting? I have family who work in health care and have never heard a peep about immigrants putting a strain on the system, so your father's example seems hypothetical. Actually, the example has truth in it: it's the elderly who take the most from the system, regardless of nationality. I remember statistics that suggest the vast majority of immigrants are young, and that lines up with my own experiences of talking with immigrant students and their families (obviously, given who I work with, I have a biased sample though). And obviously they don't put a strain on the communities they live in, hence my earlier comments of immigrant-phobic parties having consistently more success in places where immigration is not actually occurring.

You say later that Bernier wants to make immigration a net economic boon. Most economists I've read and talked to already consider immigration to be a net economic boon. I admittedly haven't read anything about Canada specifically on the subject recently, but I've certainly read well-sourced articles making the case for it in the United States and United Kingdom, so I'm skeptical that we're different. Can you cite evidence that immigrants are a net economic drain on the country?

EDIT: Quotes in this forum drive me insane, I can't remove my reply below from the quote box for some reason.

Edited October 20, 2019 by Dark Holy Elf

[Vaieti]

17 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Federal and provincial parties and politics often don't line up; they certainly don't remotely line up in BC for instance where our Liberal party is actually closer to the federal Conservatives. My understanding as a non-Ontario resident is that voters turned on Wynne's government in a big way last provincial election for reasons specific to that government.

huh. Thatès interseting. Here in Quebec the provincial liberal party is an actual right wing liberalist party, but the votes do line up with the federal libs. Although it might more be related to the fact that the PLQ is the only somewhat Pro-Anglo party.

[Dark Holy Elf]

So, we get a Liberal minority, though one strong enough to pass legislation with the support of any other one official party.

To be honest, this is probably an optimum outcome as far as I'm concerned. I certainly preferred the Liberals to the Conservatives and line up with them fairly well overall, so I'm happy with them winning... but with some of the stuff that's happened, I'm also quite happy to see them not have a majority this time. Buuut I also really like that them + NDP is enough to hit 170. I'm old enough to easily remember the previous Liberal minority in 2004-2006: it was inherently unstable because it either had to court the Conservatives (who of course were rivals for outright forming government as the Official Opposition) or unite both the NDP and the Bloc, and relying on the Bloc is kinda toxic.

Honestly kinda happy the PPC failed, too (with apologies to Life); I expressed my concerns with them earlier in the thread. And in general I really hope that now that the Conservatives have learned they have nothing to fear from right-wing populists, they'll be free to tack a little closer to the centre on some issues, especially on climate. I've seen a few people (both from the left and right) who feel the Conservatives could have won this election with a credible climate plan, and I agree. And this issue ain't getting any better for them; the hundreds of thousands at climate rallies across Canadian cities leading up to the election tells you pretty well what today's youth care about.

Alberta and Saskatchewan all but turfed the non-Conservative parties (literally only one riding, Edmonton-Strathcona, went for another party). There's obviously a major regional divide on some issues, mostly related to energy and climate. I'm not sure what the solution is. A credible leader could probably try to find some balance on the issue... but as far as I'm concerned, Trudeau already compromised on it more than I'd like, and he won zero seats there anyway, so what reason does he have to bother? Maybe a more centrist Conservative could do it.

[Vaieti]

The big winners of this election still are the greens who nearly doubled their seats (they were leading on a fourth circonscription but fell behind) and the bloc who actually won 22 seats. Conservatives faired surprisingly well for a party lead by someone lacking any charisma, this says a lot aabout Trudeau's current image IMO. Obviously I am happy it's a minority and libs>tories, but I believe the Liberal party needs to get rid of Trudeau if they want my respect. Until that's done, I'll keep exclusively being a Bloc and NDP supporter. Speaking of NDP I am sadened that they lost so many seats this election. The more I listened to debates and read about the current state of the NDP the more I became a fan of Singh. He's just a geniunely nice dude who wants concrete change and apeard to want to create a larger contrast between his party and the others in how they do politics. I am also curious if Blanchet will be able to push his environemental plan with the help of the NDP and Greens, as it is in my books the most realistic and lines up with the other party's environemental plans, especially considering that a recent discovery in CO2 removal could lower the cost of extraction to under 30$ which is the carbon tax proposed by Blanchet, among other things.

 

[Life]

The PPC did exactly as I expected them to do, even though it was less than I hoped.

They were set up less than a year before the elections, were shut out of any media attention by both the gov't and Canadian national media working together and still put candidates in every riding.

It'll take them 10 years before they become a credible party as long as they keep pushing and campaigning.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Life