Toxicity Scores & Embeddings

O…M…G…! I did not realize, until I read these comments, how many nincompoops we also have in Canada! 1) we are ALL IMMIGRANTS with the First Nations being here first.* * since "time immemorial," a concept referring to First Nations presence on the land long before recorded history. Archeological and genetic evidence suggests migration from northeastern Asia, likely via the Bering Strait, with research pointing to human arrival 30,000 years ago or even earlier. 2) we have welcomed immigrants to settle our lands since more inhabitants equals more revenues for infrastructure. Yes, restructuring of the process is a good idea. 3) Poilievre is a thin skinned man of the pointy finger and blame game with little to offer in actual plans or programs. He plays to people’s gripes, whining, and general b*tch*ness. He IS very similar to the blow-hart down south although more literate. 4) There is no possible way he, especially being of like behaviour, could deal with The Felon. He is NOT a negotiator. He is not calm; he’s bombastic. He’s waaaaaaaay to the right, and will trample equal rights for women, and other valued communities. He has no interest in listening to other positions, views, or suggestions. His way or the highway. Again like the Fascist down south. 4) Our provincial leaders (except a few traitors to Canada’s sovereignty) are behind the extremely difficult work Carney is doing for our country. 67% of Canadians are cheering him on, including the Conservative playground scrapper, Doug Ford, plus Stephen Harper. So, put your bile on hold and support the positive. We’re in a really difficult, daily changing, coming at us from all sides, battle with the POS south of us. Carney is giving it his all. Can’t imagine he gets much sleep. How ‘bout break with the party-love, and have some respect for someone working so hard. Fighting for YOU! ❤️🇨🇦❤️

Pierre Poilievre’s Immigration Hypocrisy: A Study in Convenient Principles Disguised as Conviction Pierre Poilievre has never met a border he did not want to fortify, a refugee claim he did not want to scrutinize, or an irregular crossing he did not want to turn into a national morality play. For years, he has warned Canadians that the country is being overrun by “illegal border crossers,” “queue jumping asylum seekers,” and “abusers of the system.” He delivers these warnings with the solemnity of a man announcing a biblical plague, not a handful of exhausted families walking across a ditch in Quebec. In Poilievre’s political universe, Roxham Road is not a rural footpath. It is a symbol of national decline. It is chaos incarnate. It is the place where the rule of law goes to die. It is, in short, the perfect stage upon which he can perform his favorite role: the lone defender of order in a world gone soft. At least, that is the story he tells the public. The private story, as publicly reported, is considerably less heroic. The Public Record That Refuses to Behave: According to reporting from The Breach and the National Observer, someone described as the uncle of Poilievre’s spouse has an immigration history that reads like a greatest hits compilation of everything Poilievre claims to oppose. The reporting outlines that he entered Canada and made a refugee claim. That claim was refused. A deportation order was issued. He later re-entered Canada through Roxham Road. He then filed a humanitarian and compassionate application. Poilievre’s spouse reportedly helped prepare that application. This is not fringe gossip. This is what journalists documented through correspondence, interviews, and immigration records. In other words, the exact pathway Poilievre condemns as “abuse of the system” is the same pathway publicly reported to have been used by someone connected to him. And suddenly, the man who treats Roxham Road like a national security breach becomes quieter than a library at midnight. The slogans stop. The outrage evaporates. The border, once a sacred line, becomes a flexible suggestion. The Rhetoric: A Symphony of Outrage: Poilievre’s immigration rhetoric is a carefully orchestrated performance. He warns that irregular border crossings undermine the rule of law. He insists humanitarian and compassionate applications are loopholes. He claims the system is being gamed. He declares that Canada must “take back control.” He delivers these lines with the moral certainty of a man who believes compassion is a gateway drug. In his speeches, asylum seekers are not people. They are symbols. They are props. They are the raw material from which he fashions his political identity. He is the sheriff. They are the threat. The border is the battleground. And Canada is the damsel in distress. It is a compelling narrative. It is also a narrative that collapses the moment it becomes personally inconvenient. The Reality: A Study in Elastic Principles: When someone connected to Poilievre uses the very same system he condemns, the rules change with breathtaking speed. Irregular border crossings are no longer a crisis. They are a misunderstanding. A technicality. A regrettable but understandable choice. Humanitarian and compassionate applications are no longer loopholes. They are legitimate pathways. Necessary tools. Evidence of a compassionate system. The border is no longer a sacred line. It is a suggestion. A guideline. A flexible concept open to interpretation. It is a remarkable transformation, like watching a man insist that jaywalking is a crime against humanity until his friend does it, at which point it becomes a misunderstood act of civic expression. The Political Convenience of Shifting Standards: Poilievre’s political identity is built on the idea that he alone will restore order. He alone will enforce the rules. He alone will protect Canada from the chaos of irregular migration. But the moment the rules become inconvenient, they are no longer rules. They are preferences. They are vibes. They are whatever he needs them to be in the moment. This is not a minor contradiction. It is a fundamental collapse of the moral architecture he has built his political brand upon. If irregular crossings are a crisis, then they are a crisis for everyone. If humanitarian applications are loopholes, then they are loopholes for everyone. If the system is broken, then it is broken for everyone. But Poilievre’s version of justice is not universal. It is conditional. It is situational. It is deeply, profoundly personal. The Broader Pattern: Institutions Are Sacred Until They Are Not: This is not the first time Poilievre’s principles have proven to be more flexible than advertised. He has attacked the Supreme Court of Canada when its rulings do not align with his political needs. He has accused the justice system of being too lenient when it suits him and too harsh when it does not. He has framed himself as the defender of institutions while undermining them whenever they become inconvenient. It is a pattern. It is a habit. It is a worldview. And it reveals something essential about his politics. For Poilievre, institutions are not pillars of democracy. They are tools. They are props. They are instruments to be used when helpful and discarded when not. The Satirical Truth: A Philosophy in One Sentence: Pierre Poilievre’s immigration philosophy can now be summarized with clinical precision: Canada must crack down on irregular border crossings, except for the ones that are fine. And he will decide which ones are fine. It is a stance that bends so far backward it could qualify for a gymnastics medal. It is a stance that reveals more about political convenience than national security. It is a stance that exposes the gap between what Poilievre says and what Poilievre does. And it is a stance that makes one thing abundantly clear. Polievre's Hypocrisy

This is what gets me, I’m an immigrant. I came from a place where we speak a broken dialect of English. As part of my processing, I had to demonstrate my ability to speak the queen’s english. To work, the expectation is you’re able to communicate effectively with whoever you’re interfacing. These folks come here, make zero attempt to improve or learn English or French - the national languages. They go home after the day is done, revert to their native tongue. How would you ever perfect something like a language without some degree practice and immersion? And they do this with their generations. The 1st and sometimes 2nd generation kids will speak their native tongue first, before learning English or French. It’s like the language they should speak to effectively work and live in Canada is an accessory. The govt at all levels encourage this by having driving tests and forms in other languages. And don’t get me started on the pockets - Brampton for example. The politicians kowtow to the voters and give in to them having huge temples, and nonstandard shopping complexes. It’s a running joke how many Indians will be living in the same house, renting from other Indians collecting money under the table in completely unsanctioned and illegal rental scenarios. Companies set up by Indians, to service Indians. So they don’t even care to present as Canadian business with English / French. I’m in the midst of charting my family’s exit from Canada. It’s become something entirely unrecognizable. Where those who know how to game the system get ahead, those of us who play the rules - stay behind. I’ve worked my way up to being upper middle class. I’m about done paying for Indian “students” who later claim to be refugees. Who are now claiming to be in gay relationships, to support their refugee cases. It’s all a joke.