O Canada

[phyllo]

You're the one who brought up Hitler in this thread.

[Immanuel Can]

You're the one who brought up Hitler in this thread.

Only because the Left does it constantly. The man himself is a crispy-critter, and could not be less relevant to anything today...yet pathetically, they continually go back to him. It's like their poor little imaginations never progressed beyond 1945.

[FlashDangerpants]

You're the one who brought up Hitler in this thread.

Only because the Left does it constantly.

Do they? I see right wingers complaining about it all the time, but they seem to be winding each other up. It's all very War on Christmas.

[Radagast]

So out of boredom with the ubiquitous barren discussions of US politics, I start a thread on another topic altogether - Canadian politics. Great.

And within three pages the thread has been sucked down into the Charybdis-like whirlpool created by Trump, by his genuine talent for creating division and distraction ("They are all Communists! And they called me a Fascist! It's not faiiiiiiiiir!") and by his narcissistic talent for putting himself at the centre of all conversation. Why people fall for this is utterly beyond me. It's like he has sucked his supporters' and his opponents' brains right out and replaced them with a series of irresistible posthypnotic commands. This is not normal.

I'll go elsewhere to learn about Canadian politics.

[phyllo]

So out of boredom with the ubiquitous barren discussions of US politics, I start a thread on another topic altogether - Canadian politics. Great.

And within three pages the thread has been sucked down into the Charybdis-like whirlpool created by Trump, by his genuine talent for creating division and distraction ("They are all Communists! And they called me a Fascist! It's not faiiiiiiiiir!") and by his narcissistic talent for putting himself at the centre of all conversation. Why people fall for this is utterly beyond me. It's like he has sucked his supporters' and his opponents' brains right out and replaced them with a series of irresistible posthypnotic commands. This is not normal.

I'll go elsewhere to learn about Canadian politics.

I hate to break the news to you but a lot of Canadian politics is about what should be done about Trump and the new relationship Canada has with the US.

[FlashDangerpants]

So out of boredom with the ubiquitous barren discussions of US politics, I start a thread on another topic altogether - Canadian politics. Great.

There's only one Canadian here though, and he is a massive simp for the American alt-right. So what was your expected outcome?

[Immanuel Can]

So out of boredom with the ubiquitous barren discussions of US politics, I start a thread on another topic altogether - Canadian politics. Great.

And within three pages the thread has been sucked down into the Charybdis-like whirlpool created by Trump,...

Trump isn't here. He didn't do it. Nor did I. The Leftists here did it. I wasn't even mentioning Trump, nor even remotely thinking of him. But they couldn't help themselves.

What's noteworthy is that they were, again, using "Trump" to tar all conservatives -- in this case, even the rather left-of-center-leaning Pierre Poilievre, who still believes in things like general welfare, pensions, socialized medicine, and unions, among other things. In truth, you'll find that there are no genuinely conservative or right wing parties of any size at all in Canada... But somehow, the Leftists have to invoke Trump, and then try to use him to denigrate anybody they don't like. And it just shows they have no understanding of what they're talking about at all.

They don't care if it's not apt. They know they're making it up. They just hope you won't notice.

[phyllo]

If Trump is wonderful, then how can comparing Poilievre to Trump be bad?

[Immanuel Can]

If Trump is wonderful, then how can comparing Poilievre to Trump be bad?

Did somebody say "Trump is wonderful"? You'll have to point him out.

But Poilievre is definitely not Trump, be he bad or good. And the attempt is proof that the speaker knows nothing about Canadian politics, for sure.

[phyllo]

But Poilievre is definitely not Trump, be he bad or good.

Have you ever seen them in the same room at the same time?

I thought so.


For sure, eh.

[Immanuel Can]

But Poilievre is definitely not Trump, be he bad or good.

Have you ever seen them in the same room at the same time?

You need help.

[Radagast]

There's only one Canadian here though, and he is a massive simp for the American alt-right. So what was your expected outcome?

I have the impression from his comments in this thread that Mike Novack may also be Canadian, or at least has strong family connections with Canada. I wasn't ever expecting that only Canadians would comment here - I'm not Canadian myself. But I do think Mike and IC both, with their knowledge from different perspectives, have added something valuable to this thread, and to my knowledge.

I've had a quick look around and can see various dedicated Canadian politics forums, though not large ones. (Apparently Reddit is the place to be). I'd love to imagine that a philosophy forum, such as this one, might tackle issues at a more fundamental level than them. Is that naive?

[Radagast]

What's noteworthy is that they were, again, using "Trump" to tar all conservatives -- in this case, even the rather left-of-center-leaning Pierre Poilievre, who still believes in things like general welfare, pensions, socialized medicine, and unions, among other things. In truth, you'll find that there are no genuinely conservative or right wing parties of any size at all in Canada...

Oh okay - in that case Poilievre sounds fine to me. Sounds like a right of centre conservative in the sense that we understand over here in Britain. I also believe in general welfare, pensions, socialised medicine (I suppose you mean like the NHS?) and unions. So long as the unions aren't allowed to gather too much power.

For clarity, I used to be a full-on libertarian, and thought taxation was theft etc, but I have mellowed. I still place a big emphasis on individual liberty though. I just don't think that state-supported healthcare and pensions represent an intolerable infringement of that liberty. In fact, in some ways they enhance it.

[phyllo]

There's only one Canadian here though, and he is a massive simp for the American alt-right. So what was your expected outcome?

I have the impression from his comments in this thread that Mike Novack may also be Canadian, or at least has strong family connections with Canada. I wasn't ever expecting that only Canadians would comment here - I'm not Canadian myself. But I do think Mike and IC both, with their knowledge from different perspectives, have added something valuable to this thread, and to my knowledge.

I've had a quick look around and can see various dedicated Canadian politics forums, though not large ones. (Apparently Reddit is the place to be). I'd love to imagine that a philosophy forum, such as this one, might tackle issues at a more fundamental level than them. Is that naive?

Maybe you need to be more specific.

What do you actually want to discuss?

[Immanuel Can]

What's noteworthy is that they were, again, using "Trump" to tar all conservatives -- in this case, even the rather left-of-center-leaning Pierre Poilievre, who still believes in things like general welfare, pensions, socialized medicine, and unions, among other things. In truth, you'll find that there are no genuinely conservative or right wing parties of any size at all in Canada...

Oh okay - in that case Poilievre sounds fine to me. Sounds like a right of centre conservative in the sense that we understand over here in Britain. I also believe in general welfare, pensions, socialised medicine (I suppose you mean like the NHS?) and unions. So long as the unions aren't allowed to gather too much power.

For clarity, I used to be a full-on libertarian, and thought taxation was theft etc, but I have mellowed. I still place a big emphasis on individual liberty though. I just don't think that state-supported healthcare and pensions represent an intolerable infringement of that liberty. In fact, in some ways they enhance it.

I agree that some such social programs can be good. I only point out that full-on Socialism is extremely dangerous...and that's not a difficult case to make: it's evident everywhere it's ever been tried.

Poilievre isn't, by American standards, even conservative. He's what we used to call a centrist classical-liberal, but one who can do numbers. He's an extremely unimpressive little man, in person...rather like the current PM...except he's also fairly competent in matters of economics, which the current PM is clearly not. Neither has anything to do with Trump, and Trump is not fond of either one of them, although he has said he's pleased that Carney, the current PM, is such a pasty little man of no particular consequence, and refers to him as "the governor of Canada," and says "it would be easier to deal with Canada with a Liberal guy at the helm" than with Poilievre. So Trump actually seems to prefer Carney.