Politics in 2017

[Flavus101]

illegals are just that: illegal.  And as such, they are criminals who are openly defying Canadian law.  Some argument can be made for ensuring that they are not forced to return to a country where their lives are in jeopardy (that is called an extenuating circumstance) but for those whose only reason for being here is a fatter paycheck those rules don't, and should never apply. Instead they should be prosecuted under the law and sent back with the requirement to remit to the Canadian government the costs of housing, feeding and ensuring their safety until such time as they are escorted onto the first available aircraft.(for which they should also pay)

While I agree with most of what you are saying I do not believe that you will ever see a cent from most illegals. In general I think that most have already spent their savings on arriving to Canada, as such a program that seeks to collect compensation would simply be a waste of taxpayer money. 

 

[Halifax Tar]

Those people don't understand Canadian or international law - not really surprising.

Or they do and they disagree with it.  Thus they have expressed their democratic rights, of expression, as protected by Canadian law.

 

[Journeyman]

"Some 48 percent said ... Canada should 'send these migrants back to the U.S.' Another 36 percent said Canada should 'accept these migrants'." 

"The poll has a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of 4 percentage points."
I'll let you do the math yourself on what that does to your percentages, so that no one thinks I'm being condescending (that means I talk down to people).

....a similar number disapprove of how Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is handling the influx...

Yes, that's from BOTH SIDES:  "He is questioned about it every time he appears in parliament, from opponents on the left, who want more asylum-seekers to be allowed in, and critics on the right, who say the migrants pose a potential security risk."

....underlining the potential political risk for Trudeau's Liberal government.

Trudeau faces no immediate threat, since the next elections are not until 2019.

Wow, contradictory alt-facts within the same article;  maybe one of your intellectual giants, Spicer or Conway, helped write this.


While I'm still not a fan of PM JT, forgive me if a dubious Yahoo news article doesn't have me clamouring to build walls or Twatting about how "This Hour has 22 Minutes" is hurting supposed-politicians' feelings.
      :

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'm considering taking Rome to the international courts for restitution for the Roman occupation.

If you've got a contract signed by a Roman leader saying they'd take care of your descendants as long as the Tiber flows and the sun shines, have at 'er  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

If you've got a contract signed by a Roman leader saying they'd take care of your descendants as long as the Tiber flows and the sun shines, have at 'er  ;D

Wrong angle.  Pain and suffering and failure to keep the Scots out.

 

[tomahawk6]

Wrong angle.  Pain and suffering and failure to keep the Scots out.

Things have really changed,now the Scots want to stay home.

 

[GAP]

Things have really changed,now the Scots want to stay home.

I think they did then too......

 

[jollyjacktar]

Pic y, Pic y.

 

[Kirkhill]

Nothing left in Scotland but Irishmen with names like Connolly and Connery.

All the Scots left and became Prime Ministers in London (Cameron, Brown, Blair, Home...)  or set up opium shops in Hong Kong.

 

[jmt18325]

Or they do and they disagree with it.  Thus they have expressed their democratic rights, of expression, as protected by Canadian law.

Of course - but there's nothing that can be done once they claim asylum.  We have to process their claim, no matter how they got here.  We signed the relevant treaties, after all.

Changing that is an entirely different discussion.

 

[jmt18325]

God, jmt!  I remain in continuing awe of your generally amazing superiority. 

I genuflect.  I genuflect. I genuflect.  [

I'm definitely superior to no one.  Just the other day, right on this website, I misunderstood the meaning of statist.

 

[jmt18325]

The interesting thing about law is that it can be changed. The law must balance between protecting the minority's rights while following the constitution (although I believe the constitution as a whole only covers Canadian citizens, with non-citizens being granted the rights laid out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) while ensuring that the majority's will is respected (as per democracy(.

Your absoluteness on every subject must be a real conversation starter at parties.

In real life, I'm much less absolute.  I don't disagree that the illegal border crossings are concerning (though they're being blown out of proportion).  I simply don't think that people generally understand the process.  Most people that I know don't even realize that those caught are arrested immediately.  Once they say the magic word, and if a criminal record is not found (generally not a problem in the case of those crossing) the must be released and their claim must be processed.

We should do away with the safe third country agreement.  Then people will stop sneaking in.  The Liberals won't budge on that, because they brought the agreement in.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm definitely superior to no one.  Just the other day, right on this website, I misunderstood the meaning of statist.

:cheers:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Nothing left in Scotland but Irishmen with names like Connolly and Connery.

All the Scots left and became Prime Ministers in London (Cameron, Brown, Blair, Home...)  or set up opium shops in Hong Kong.

They grow up on a cold, wet, always raining island. To make improvements, they move half way around the world.... To a cold, wet always raining island (Vancouver)  and become union executives.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... That the Liberals continued their path (on Ukraine) in a situation that has remained largely the same should be a rare opportunity for them to show solidarity and applaud the government.

And in politics, it often seems that even if side x (be it Team Blue/Red/Orange/Beige/whatever)does what side y wants, it's either "too little, too late," "it's STILL not enough" or silence leading to criticism about the next thing y disagrees with.


- mod edit to clarify quote with yellow add -

 

[Flavus101]

The Romans ran into this problem where the politicians simply bickered to bicker without any just cause.

We know how well that turned out...

Historically, countries (or societies of people in general) have an interesting cycle where they are more democratic for a bit, then more authoritarian, back to more democratic and the wheel just keeps on spinning.

 

[jmt18325]

The Romans ran into this problem where the politicians simply bickered to bicker without any just cause.

We know how well that turned out...

Historically, countries (or societies of people in general) have an interesting cycle where they are more democratic for a bit, then more authoritarian, back to more democratic and the wheel just keeps on spinning.

In fairness, I think that our particular bickering issues is actually a design function of Westminster Parliamentary Democracy.

 

[Flavus101]

I sometimes watch Question Period (I know, I really must have nothing to do  ) and you will find members of both sides continuously making a loud raucous that prevents the other side from speaking thus requiring the Speaker of the House to shush them like children. Or you have the pointless snide comments that are only made to try and improve the ego of the individual saying them.

I agree that there must be a back and forth, otherwise you will never be able to reach a compromise. I do not believe that our back and forth in it's current form is very useful nor does it provide anything of actual import the majority of the time. Perhaps removing the Friday sitting and the subsequent cut in pay (yes I know that the MP's will still "technically" be working but it is nice to dream) would be beneficial.

 

[jmt18325]

I sometimes watch Question Period (I know, I really must have nothing to do  ) and you will find members of both sides continuously making a loud raucous that prevents the other side from speaking thus requiring the Speaker of the House to shush them like children. Or you have the pointless snide comments that are only made to try and improve the ego of the individual saying them.

For a time, the Liberals didn't under Trudeau, as they said they wanted to do Parliament better.  The media has reported that lately, in the last couple of months, that has been returning to the governing side of the bench as well (I can't remember where I read that in the last two weeks or so).

 

[Jarnhamar]

I sometimes watch Question Period (I know, I really must have nothing to do  ) and you will find members of both sides continuously making a loud raucous that prevents the other side from speaking thus requiring the Speaker of the House to shush them like children. Or you have the pointless snide comments that are only made to try and improve the ego of the individual saying them.

I agree that there must be a back and forth, otherwise you will never be able to reach a compromise. I do not believe that our back and forth in it's current form is very useful nor does it provide anything of actual import the majority of the time. Perhaps removing the Friday sitting and the subsequent cut in pay (yes I know that the MP's will still "technically" be working but it is nice to dream) would be beneficial.

Someone here wisely pointed out it's called Question period, not Answer period (or was that Question and Answer period?).  I've seen it a few times and thought it was a complete joke. It reminds me of reality TV where the point is to one-up each other and get cheers from your side.