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.

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.