Almost Four Years Later
- Thread starter Retired_Can_Soldier
- Start date
Curious. What is your perception of "globalism," and what problems do you have with it?
Perceptions? My perceptions or the perceptions we see getting tear gassed at G20 meetings?
Allow me to clarify. . .
DaSleeper, I'm curious. What is your perception of "globalism," and what problems do you have with it?
This seems to be how elections go in the US. Lesser of two evils. In Canada we simply let two provinces decide who is the most incompetent and clueless moron they can call a resident and anoint him.
Will Rogers said "The two parties each pick the worst man they can find, then the American people pick the worse of the two."
Google agenda 21
Then find a book of your choice that explains it to you!
I'm also against the UN in principle, Other countries telling my country what to do and when to do it!
That's it!
Last edited:
I've read that before. I believe there is some truth in it. The catch of course is that you never get to find out how truly bad the alternative could be. Canada could actually have done worse. Could have had Singh. Or the greenie.
I doubt Singh or the greenie would have thrown money around in the same fashion , nor could they have got away with the corruption and ethical violations as neither have the amount of high level bureaucrats carrying their water that the liberals have .
Maybe. But they would have cratered the economy. Just because it fits their ideology.
We're seeing down here that your "two provinces" formula basically amounts to 4 or 5 states for us.
I still favor direct, national, popular election of the chief executive, though I realize that would require a lot more changes in a Parliamentary system like yours than in ours.
Just seems to me that popular election in the jurisdiction (riding/district, state/province, nationwide) over which the official will have power is the most "fair" thing I can think of.
Read the rest of my post, not just what you quoted
Or is parsing a lawyer thing!
I'm dealing with them one at a time.
You do realize, do you not, that the UN cannot and does not "tell Canada what to do" in any binding fashion, right?
It's a powerless talking shop. The worst you can say about it is that it's a waste of money. But everything the UN "tells" Canada to do, Canada does because in each case, Parliament and the government choose to.
Paris Accord
Q: Is this agreement legally binding?
The Paris Agreement is a legal instrument that will guide the process for universally acting on climate change. It is a hybrid of legally binding and nonbinding provisions.
The Agreement consists of a core agreement that governs the international process will be binding on parties, while there are elements that are not part of the legally binding agreement. These parts, such as the intended nationally determined contributions, may be binding at the national level.
Yup....And that's the problem I have with a liberal government and it's globalist leader
Trudeau would like nothing better than a permanent seat on the U N council but some of the demands that the UN has are too much for the Canadian parliament to agree to.