Life
-
Posts
3,829 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Life
-
-
1 hour ago, Anacybele said:
lmao Baker Mayfield and Antonio Brown threw a hissy fit at each other on social media.
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.
-
5 hours ago, Lord Raven said:
yeah that was what 10 quarterbacks and 3 HCs ago for the Bills?
At least. Also 3 GMs ago.
-
3 hours ago, Anacybele said:
Yeah, and that's not all that recent.
Same decade is very recent.
Not that recent would be 20+ seasons.
-
7 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:
I moved to a non-competitive riding in the past few years (actaully to one of the few safe NDP seats left in the country) so I'm pretty free to just vote my conscience this election. I'll probably read up on the candidates before making a final decision. I've never voted for the NDP before (I'm relatively centrist economically) but if I like the incumbent's record I may consider it, otherwise it'll probably be Liberals or Greens. I'm not a super-huge fan of our system in which my vote doesn't actually matter much, I wish we would allot at least some seats based on popular vote. But I'm very aware that all democratic systems have flaws, and I'll grant that ours has generally produced pretty good governments compared to some countries. It's really hard not to look across the border, or to the United Kingdom, and be grateful for what we have here these days.
It seems like the overall election is very competitive between the Liberals and Conservatives. I'd certainly prefer the Liberals out of those two: they haven't been perfect, but Scheer hasn't done enough to assure me he wouldn't just be a continuation of the Harper regime, and as 2011-2015 was the worst period of Canadian government in my lifetime, I'm not eager to see that. I would actually be quite pleased if we got a minority government, since I don't think the Canadian system puts enough checks on majority governments and we've learned that the hard way over the past 8 years. Unfortunately the weaker NDP (and Bloc, for all that I have no love for them) makes that less likely even in a neck-and-neck situation like we have.
Are you kidding me? I have no trust for candidates who seek to demonize immigration as one of our main problems, and nor should you. I live in one of the parts of the country with the highest immigration rates (Vancouver) and highest levels of immigrant population. If immigration was a problem, surely you'd see the problems manifest here first, but instead we're doing very well, thank you. And you don't have to take my word for it: the party which flirted with anti-immigration rhetoric last cycle (the Conservatives) got wiped out here. You're from Toronto so I don't want to speak for that city, but from a distance I observe a similar pattern there, and there's absolutely a similar pattern in the US, the UK, and various other nations. Anti-immigrant sentiment is most easily stoked in rural places which hardly have to deal with immigrant population at all because it's simply playing to a very natural human fear of the unknown.
The Canadian level of immigration isn't a problem. What's a problem is candidates who wish to make it one in order to win votes by appealing to the darker natures of people, who would foment social tension in the name of winning a vote (see also: Le Pen, Farage, Trump). I had really hoped Bernier would be better than this (I'm on the libertarian side of the spectrum myself); he seemed decent at a first glance but I haven't really heard much from him of late that I like. The comments about Thunberg were also embarrassing. You seem like a fan and I admit I haven't heard much else beyond these two things, so by all means fill me in on the good aspects I may be missing.
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.
-
5 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:
why?
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. -
2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:
He's not the reason, the competition committee is.
Tom Brady has taken a ton of hard, legal hits and came back up swinging. Can we stop diminishing this man's accomplishments because it makes us all look like morons for this because he's the most accomplished QB in NFL history.
Seriously, watch the 2015 AFCCG against and tell me Brady gets prissy about hard hits. Watch the 2014 AFC divisional round. Fuck me, watch super bowl 36 and 38 and the tuck rule game.
Now,
1. Tuck rule was in existence before 2001 bro. The Patriots actually lost a game because of the tuck rule in 2001, then they won in the divisional round because of it. Tuck rule was abolished after the 2012 season by Harbaughs recommendation. The letter of the rule was followed in the divisional round.
2. Late hits on QBs started with Carson Palmer against the Steelers in 2005. They added more after Brady and Rodgers, but Palmer is the primary reason and patient zero.
3. OPI was never called on rub routes until the late 2010s, but they've always been OPI before Brady did it, it was just never called.
Now if Brady were on the competition committee that would be different, but your three points make zero sense in relation to Tom Brady. I get you're a Bills fan and you hate him, but just cuz the Patriots routinely fuck the Bills doesn't mean any of that is true. Why are you so abrasive towards Ana about the *one thing* she's right about when you're so wrong yourself lol. Being abrasive and hard headed and condescending really doesn't work...
Tfw u accuse ppl of lacking self-awareness as you lack self-awareness. After the Jesse James catch the competition committee rewrote the catch rule around borderline catches that they want to call a catch. There's a whole string of shit that happened up until that point (Calvin Johnson and Dez Bryant were the major people who had catches taken from them) but the 2017 game on primetime was the straw that broke the camel's back.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Fire Brand said:
I support a return to Kaga FE. But I also think that Genealogy's story and villains were far better than FE16's.
A flawed villain does not a good story make. Especially when they're not presented as a villain, and the character who is presented as the villain instead is far too weak willed and inconsistent to be a villain. Manfroy was a better than both of them combined by default, because he was a villain. Imo Three Houses would have benefitted greatly from a generic evil cult as the main villain and focus on a divided front of heroes fighting back, aka the three lords.
I was thinking Arvis as the major antagonist rather than Manfloy and comparing him to Edelgard. But yes, I see your point.
-
56 minutes ago, Troykv said:
If we still followed the Kaga approach we wouldn't have these discussions about meta stuff only designed to avoid killing the franchise again.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Vince777 said:
Independence shouldn't be achieved solely for economical reasons and isn't sought for those reasons anyway so there wouldn't be any asking to join the confederation back after 10 years, nor would Canada allow it anyway.
It is silly to believe Quebec lacks resources of it's own. It stands on the Canadian shield, which is minerals heavy, it is nearly completely electricity-energy efficient and independent, and it is pretty much enjoying a nearly full-employement climate at we stand. Best it's been in decades.
The benefits from equalization payments, which is only a small part of transfer payments to the provinces and some of which is Quebec money coming back, stand against Canada and it's government's priorities, which do not always align with Quebec's. When Canada bailed out the Ontario's auto industry from collapse, for example, we didn't benefit from that and yet still contributed to the pot. Oil producing provinces (basically what you need to be to be an "have" province, ask Newfoundland) rave about their revenues but it is still an industry that's yet still subsidized and was developped largely thanks to investments by the government, which mostly came from eastern Canada. For thanks, we had the industry denationalized and now there are complaints about the formula.
Quebec managing it's own economy means managing it's finance with itself alone as focus. It would invest in it's own strenghts and industries. Besides, nothing stops Quebec from scaling back some of our numerous social programs if ever it is required to do so. Of course it could support itself. The only argument you could have is that you believe it would fare worse and that's in my opinion debatable.
Under any free trade agreement, and why wouldn't there be one, western Canada would still have full access to the Maritimes and the eastern ports, just as well as the St Lawrence river, which Ontario is dependent on.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.
-
7 hours ago, Anacybele said:
lol yes, and his team was involved in the play that caused the change for the catch rule too! (that infamous Jesse James "no catch" was against the Pats) lmao He has no right to complain.
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.
-
6 hours ago, Vince777 said:
Why?
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.
-
On 9/15/2019 at 2:40 PM, Life said:
Actually, let's expand out on Byleth because I am relatively certain that Byleth is the only objectively bad thing about this game. I don't care about spoilers anymore, this game has been out for over a month and this community has picked it clean within the first two weeks of its existance.
So let's start with the "Rewind Time" feature which is the least egregious sin of Byleth. And I'll be the first to praise this game for using it in the plot to attempt to reverse Jeralt's dealth.
This reminded me of FFV when Galuf dies and the party tries to use items and spells on him to no avail. This is actually good plot development because it does actually give off the "death is actually death and not just plot armour for the miraculous reveal later" vibe and since this series is built on the fundamental concept of perma-death, not being able to save Jeralt is a good thing.
But holy shit, does it create plot holes that are just stupid when you try to think about them... and they all stem from Byleth's existance.
First off, because Thales appears to save Kronya from dying here, that is stupid to the nth degree because Solon simply just sacrifices her soul a month later. Was that the plan all along? Why not use some other mook? Or did Solon go rogue? This shit is not explained well because even the game understands that Byleth is entirely uninteresting and just wants to get to the meat and potatoes of the story already (the Holy War that was aped from FE4).
Secondly, why kill Jeralt in the first place? I find it hilarious that when we first meet Jeralt, anyone familiar with the series was thinking "well, here's a Greil clone" except that Greil's death actually means something because now Ike and Mist are stuck in a foreign land without their father and a dwindling band of mercs. Jeralt's death literally feels like going through the motions... except there is no logical reason for him to die. Maybe it's because I haven't done the Church route yet but it really feels cheap if you've played FE4 or FE9 (and maybe even FE13).
My only question was "why is it Chapter 9 already and Jeralt is still alive?". Then the cutscene starts and I'm relieved because I'm not wrong about this obvious death.
The whole thing is stupid.
Now, let's dissect the more serious issue about Byleth; the lack of personality that apparently doubles as a personality.
I had someone on YouTube try to honestly convince me that Byleth's lack of a heartbeat is a character flaw.
Byleth has no character flaws (aside from being thick as shit). Byleth also has no character traits. Byleth exists only for the obligatory avatar wank that has plagued this series since FE12.
A character flaw is a deficiency in a person's moral or ethical compasses that create conflict (big or small) with someone else. Byleth is never in conflict with anyone because Byleth doesn't have ANY deficiencies. Byleth follows Edelgard into the abyss and passively encourages her to keep up with her genocide for "peace's sake" despite clearly understanding how goddamn hypocritical it is AND not actually having a personal stake in the matter since plot armour keeps Byleth alive after the death of the Immaculate One regardless of his role or not. Byleth is pointless in Claude's journey due to simply replacing the mirror that Claude would obviously be talking to instead. It's really only with Dimitri does Byleth actually have some reason to exist... and could have been entirely replaced by another character like Felix who could snap Dimitri out of his funk after Rodrigue's death.
And let's be honest, we're here for the three way war which is actually done really nicely. Sure, Edelgard gets a bit shafted by the writing but she still has a complex and deep character that invokes serious contemplation about ethics.
This game could have been better than Geneology in every aspect... if only Byleth didn't exist.
/rant over
Oh and the designs are also garbage. God, I hate Byleth.
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.
-
1 hour ago, NoirCore said:
Man, I can't wait for the Battle of Eagle and Lion on Sunday.
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.
-
1 hour ago, NekoKnight said:
So you strip away the gameplay/story excuses and what do you have? Corrin makes imbecilic, outrageously immoral decisions in the story and Byleth... well in your list, all you'd have left is that he jumps in front of an axe, and the game immediately points out that was stupid.
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.
-
1 hour ago, XRay said:
While I understand the hostility towards religion, as an American, I see banning government employees from displaying their beliefs as a violation of their free speech. In my opinion, encouraging religious neutrality or secularism is just as bad as encouraging religiosity. I think the best way to handle religion is to not have any policy or stance on religion at all. Religion is a private matter, just like sexul orientation and ethnic backgound and cultural practices, and I do not think it is right for the government to dictate matters that are personal and private. As long as whatever outfit government employees are wearing do not interfere with their work, putting in a new dress code just seems like a petty move to get back at the church.
To truly separate the church and the state, I believe the best way to go about it is for the church and the state to pretend the other does not exist. We should still have laws protecting people's right to believe in what they want and have anti-discrimination laws cover religion, but outside of things like that, the government ideally should not have any policy or stance on religion.
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.QuoteWhen asked about the bill on CTV’s Power Play, People’s Party of Canada Leader Maxime Bernier said he, like Scheer, would not intervene in the matter.
“The Quebec government will have to be judged from Quebecers at the next election, so I won’t interfere in that, it’s in the constitution,” he said. “It is not something that I can speak about because I’m respecting the constitution and I respect the decision from the Quebec government. They will have to live with it.”
QuoteIn a campaign advertisement released last week, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh addressed the discrimination he would face as a turbaned Sikh in Quebec. Under the legislation, he would have to remove his turban to work as a police officer or school teacher.
“I think about all the people I’ve met in Montreal – the young women who I met who love science and teaching but can’t because of the bill. It’s a divisive law,” said Singh in his campaign launch speech in London, Ont.
“We say don’t discriminate someone by the way they look, there’s a law that says we’re allowed to. I’m hoping my presence in Quebec as someone who wears a turban is a way to show people that I believe in fighting for your identity.”
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?
2019 Canadian Elections
in Serious Discussion
Posted · Edited by 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?