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.

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.

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.

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.

You're focusing on one side of the supply-demand graph. Immigrants increase both the demand & supply side, they require more jobs but also the increase in population increases demand for more products and services. There is no fixed amount of jobs in a country.

I do agree if a country were to let in 100 million immigrants over night or some insane number that it would mess up the economy, there is an upper bound to this.

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.

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'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.

>Other countries can feel free to pitch in if it suits their interests, as you say. But the primary responsibility for our motherlands is with ourselves.

Yes this would make sense if the US & other countries had a policy of non-intervention. When the US & its allies are actively destabilizing these countries, you can't turn around and be like oh now its your fault your country is messed up and you are solely responsible to fix it after we bombed, invaded, or otherwise economically destabilized the region. The long term solution to stop people from immigrating to the US for a better life is to promote political and economic stability in those countries, ie. not bombing them, invading them, removing their leaders, promoting trade with them etc.

I live in Canada and the US is actively trying to destabilize my country through threats of annexation, disregarding trade deals and implementing tariffs, promoting separatism. What can I do to stop the US from doing this exactly? If the US ends up destroying my country, is it my fault? am I solely responsible to fix it?

That's an ignorant thing to say. Even in democratic western countries, it can be very difficult for the average person to institute change even at a local level. If you have to battle corruption or war on top of that, it could be impossible. For example, would it be fair to say that a Sundanese villager should just fix their country as PMCs being hired by the UAE(and others) are committing genocide? Or would you consider that reasonable to flee the country in search of a better life?

We have to admit there are lots of cases where people can't just "fix" their own country as there are complex geopolitical issues that a normal person, or a group of normal people are not able to fix. If Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, the idea should be to promote global economic and political stability so that people can reasonably make their countries a better place, not to just tell them to go away and fix their own problems.

I would say accidentally mistaking the patient is dead in any case is hardly the same as purposefully harvesting the organs from people they know are alive to get paid. The article does not state any evidence to suggest they are doing this.

There is obviously going to be some pressure to make a decision to retrieve the organs in the interest of not wasting something that could save another's life as there is a limited time frame where these organs can be viable. There is a huge distinction between that and going to patients that have no doubt they are alive and harvesting their organs.