@B46V7MR

B>B  Personal answerPro-life, and I also oppose abortion for victims of rape and incest

B>B  Personal answerYes

B>B  Personal answerNo, and the government should not be involved in healthcare

B>B  Personal answerYes

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo, and gay couples should not be able to adopt children

B>B  Personal answerNo, and enact legislation preventing government surveillance of citizen communications

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo, the problem is implementation not funding

B>B  Personal answerNo, and ban all gender transitioning treatments

B>B  Personal answerNo, and more services should be privatized

B>B  Personal answerI would advocate repealing all so-called "anti-discrimination" laws and adopt a robust and radical policy to strengthen people's right to freely associate and discriminate for whatever reasons they choose. We have a deficiency of shame in our society, and our tolerance has run amok, and we can't hope to repair our culture with such laws on the book.

B>B  Personal answerReform to a flat tax

B>B  Personal answerNot required, but I would accept military service as an alternate path to earn the right to vote without owning property or having children.

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerOn multiple occasions, when exposed to large enough data sets, large language AI models have developed data-driven prejudices against groups who have higher propensities for criminality, low time preference behaviour, subversion, communism, violence, etc. Invariably, the superior processing ability of AI creates the patterns that many progressive and similarly morally relativistic people would call "racist" or "prejudiced" which would present a political obstacle to this becoming a reality. It's entirely possible that our courts could produce better outcomes simply by treating people in-line with their groups and data sets, rather than proceeding from "impartiality" but it would be a difficult sell to Canadians disconnected from their identity who believe Trudeau's reprehensible rhetoric about Canada's status as the first post-national county.

B>B  Personal answerYes. There is no such thing as "hate speech". The term, as it's used, is a manipulative tool of a globalist elite intended to stamp down in-group preference and pride in western countries by lending a negative connotation to expressions of in-group and nationalist preference

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo, and eliminate all wage standards

B>B  Personal answerNo, but they should be allowed to refuse artificial life support

B>B  Personal answerNo, the government should not be involved in healthcare

B>B  Personal answerYes; the test should be borderline impossible, and even passing the test should be no guarantee of entry. Immigrants should be required to be sponsored by a Canadian citizen, and that individual would assume 100% financially responsible for the burden of that person; never the taxpayer. If the immigrant commits a crime, they will be deported to face the law in their country, and the sponsoring Canadian would face prosecution and punishment here for their actions,. No sponsoring Canadian willing to take the risk on you? No entry

B>B  Personal answerNo, and the government should pass a national “stand your ground” law

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerYes

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerCorporations headquartered in Canada should pay a significantly lower tax rate than other countries with freer markets, particularly to offset the costs of bureaucratic corruption, socialist policies and over regulation, but mainly to incentive businesses against leaving Canada.

B>B  Personal answerNo, and I believe global warming is a natural occurrence

B>B  Personal answerMy preference would be a complete halt to immigration and the reallocation of immigration-related funding to be used instead to pay Canadian families to have children at above replacement rate. I would need to see data comparing the effective contributions of immigrants of European/English decent, vs. non-English speaking arrivals, as well as some sense of the undoubtedly large cultural cost to increased diversity, in order to accurately assess this question. My preference would be to reject anyone outright who did not have significant cultural overlap with the founders of this country, meaning French or English would be one of may bare minimum expectations for immigrating. What little remains of the cultural identity of Canada (going back as recently as the 1990s) lies festering and we cannot afford any more progressive colonization

B>B  Personal answerMore, and privatize the entire healthcare industry

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo, and there is no such thing as "Transgender". Gender is typically used to describe the behaviour of individuals, and is often described using the Marxist word "performitivity" (whether or not they act out male-specific sex stereotypes or female-specific sex stereotypes). Transgender is a failed re-branding of Transsexualism and is offensive to common sense. The motte and bailey of "we just want tolerance and for you to respect our pronouns" vs. "you must agree a trans woman is a real woman" is a non starter for most rational minded adults. No person was ever born in the wrong body. The cult must be stopped

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo, and the implication in the question that somehow the government and its proxies (ie. Five Eyes, NATO, UN, EU, etc.) are not the largest contributors to fake news and misinformation is truly hilarious. Thanks for the chuckle.

B>B  Personal answerYes

B>B  Personal answerYes, we currently have too many immigrants

B>B  Personal answerNo, because the bulk of the recipients are foreign born. 44% of the people within Canada are either foreign born or first generation. I would prefer to see incentives for married Canadian couples to have more children, and subsidies for rural living (including food and energy production) than facilitate first time home buyers

B>B  Personal answerWhile this would be preferable to the current system, this model could be improved upon greatly by privately owned and managed roads with voluntary and negotiable rules. For instance, one could imagine an individual that has an immaculate driving record but for frequent violations for speeding. That person could negotiate terms that would allow them to drive at excessive speed without punishment, but in the event that they cause an accident, they would be personally, financially and criminally responsible. A private owner of a road may choose to voluntarily engage with such a driver because they will spend less time on his road, and therefore facilitate faster movement of greater numbers of people along the road. Also, if this driver were to cause an issue, the road owner's risk could be externalized onto the driver or his private insurer, who, in turn would be at liberty to assess their exposure to risk based on the driver's capabilities independently of the road proprietor risk and each could charge appropriately.

B>B  Personal answerRegardless, healthcare should be privatized

B>B  Personal answerNo, treat all traffic equally and continue the openness of the internet

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo, and we should not try to influence any other country’s elections or policy

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerYes

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerYes

B>B  Personal answerNo, and we should slowly phase out funding

B>B  Personal answerNo, and remove the U.N. headquarters from the U.S.

B>B  Personal answerYes, and politicians of any age should be required to pass a mental competency test

B>B  Personal answerNo, I do not believe in the death penalty

B>B  Personal answerYes

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerYes

B>B  Personal answerNo, as long as all donations are public knowledge

B>B  Personal answerEliminate foreign worker visas. There is no excuse for the government to tax us, monopolize and destroy education, and then "solve' the problem of an absence of skilled workers by importing them. This is a failure of government so compounded and on such a scale that people should be in jail.

B>B  Personal answerRegardless, we should end all social welfare programs

B>B  Personal answerNo, and I think we ought to expand the legal definition of rapist to include anyone who feels that they are entitled to put ANYTHING in someone else's body as a condition for employment and participation in public life. This is a conversation that cannot take place in the West until we have full transparency about what took place from late 2019 til 2023, and the criminal perpetrators of COVID and their tyrannical accomplices are brought to justice

B>B  Personal answerProperty ownership in Canada should be conditional on citizenship, and the owner's primary residence should be within the country. Further to that, dual citizenship should be banned. If voting were conditional on property ownership, citizenship and possible having children, this country could possibly survive, and even have greatly improved outcomes for Canadians

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo, and make it a criminal offense

B>B  Personal answerYes, but it should not be taxed or regulated in any way. By legalizing marijuana, previously classified as an illegal substance, the government (as with other organized crime) has created a new stream of stolen revenue to finance itself, that up until five minutes ago, would have been considered the proceeds of crime, possibly even racketeering. Also, through legalization, the government was able to rally a contingent of the population who are grateful to no longer "criminals" in the eyes of the law, which had the unfortunate effect of manipulating public sentiment in favour of the government. It's a true match made in hell.

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerThis is a bad question. A whistleblower who does not threaten the government is no whistleblower at all, and any protection that the government might extend to them would either be performative or politically expedient. The presumption that the government would or could protect a legitimate whistleblower whose actions threatens regime power, is naive at best. Under our system where our rights are granted to us by the government, you would be a true moron to think in that circumstance an individual would be granted any rights or protections at all.

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerHurt

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo we should be pursuing peace, and possibly even considering statehood with the USA, now that the new administration has indicated that they would not continue the provocation of Russia in this conflict, and instead would be making peace the goal Barring that, in the event of more extreme escalation by the corrupt actors in the UN, NATO and the EU, Canada would be wise to strongly and loudly condemn the race towards nuclear war, and instead re-prioritize a stable relationship with Russia to hedge against the actions of Davos/Club of Rome/Fabian Society-types.

B>B  Personal answerI have greater concerns over the unchecked terrorism of Israel, and would approve of sanctioning the state if the slaughter of Arabs continues. As with previous ceasefires, we can expect Israel will violate the terms with impunity and nothing will be done by the west. As an aside, could we even imagine if a foreign state, (China, let's say) supplied Canadian politicians with pre-rigged exploding electronic devices that could be detonated at any moment to defend the interests of China. This is just rank terrorism, with no moral superiority to be found for anyone. The fact that our government doesn't condemn the terrorism of Israel is as offensive to me as honouring a Nazi in parliament.

B>B  Personal answerNo, and in the interest of minimizing tyranny, I advocate a referendum on jailing anyone who proposes or supports this. Better yet, I would voluntarily contribute to a crowdfunding effort to launch them all into the sun.

B>B  Personal answerNo, and mandatory diversity training should be banned

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerYes, but with the caveat that citizens must be allowed access to the same equipment and tools.

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerWelfare should not be a function of government. It's disgusting and perverted to subsume this role from private people and to remove a community's ability to discriminate against who and what they support

B>B  Personal answerNo, and voters should be required to pass a basic test demonstrating their understanding of politics in order to vote

B>B  Personal answerMost Canadians cannot even agree on who our allies are and who they ought to be. For instance, it would be preferable to arm and facilitate Russia in the conflict in Ukraine, as it is likely to bring the conflict to a close faster, potentially with fewer deaths

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo, and mandatory diversity training should be banned

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerDrastic reductions in the government's ability to extract wealth from Canadians, with the end goal of making the concept of "public spending" understood as synonymous with corruption and theft, and ultimately undermine confidence in the state. Defaulting on the national debt would be preferred, however arguments could be made for allowing the US to absorb our debt in exchange for statehood.

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerEliminate the program altogether and hold people responsible for the absence of skilled workers the failures of our bureaucracy have produced.Deal with resulting austerity, and change course so that we do not need to import the third world in the name of sustainability,.

B>B  Personal answerPrivatize

B>B  Personal answerNo, and repeal the Canadian Pension Plan

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerYes

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerThe question would do better to read non-citizens, not non-residents, in which case I would answer Yes, and the tax should be higher

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerDecrease, and we should not give foreign aid to any countries

B>B  Personal answerNo, and abolish NATO

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo, this is a violation of free speech

B>B  Personal answerNo, and mandatory diversity training should be banned

B>B  Personal answerThe government should not be involved in education

B>B  Personal answerNo, the government should have no role in interfering with private markets, but if we accept that degree of corruption in our country, then I would prefer to see the government taking steps do ban the deployment of battery-operated cars altogether.

B>B  Personal answerNo, and we should privatize more public transportation services

B>B  Personal answerNo dual citizenship, including Israel. No new immigration. Look to modern effective leaders like Bolsonaro, Orban, Millei, Bukele, Trump, etc. for immigration policies and attitudes towards nationalism.

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerI would rather see a re-imagining of corporal punishment than so called "restorative justice". In the United States of America, the male half of the 13% black population commits over 50% of the crime. Most of those crimes are committed by men aged 15-25. One could use "Restorative Justice" to justify locking up all American black men from 15-25 as a proactive measure to protect the non-criminal majority. As you could imagine, in this example it would clearly be more ethical and effective to merely cane or whip the guilty parties on conviction.

B>B  Personal answerNeither, I am satisfied with the current amount of spending

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerYes

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo, they should be reduced

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerThe formation of Israel was illegitimate and an act of terror. Since it exists now, the expedient solution would be to remove all support offered to any involved parties including the Zionists and Hamas, and force a resolution, either by peace or by war. 70 years of the west standing next to Zionists and handing them weapons and resources to facilitate Israel's "mowing the grass" has corrupted our souls, done permanent damage in the region, and made the world a more dangerous place. To this day, the USA pays Egypt and Israel billions of dollars annually to NOT go to war, and that is considered a model for effective peace! Enough is enough.

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo, and eliminate funding

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerAbolish

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerYes

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerYes

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo, and land acknowledgments pose a significant legal challenge to laws regarding unreasonable search and seizure. If we structure our society as if we were occupying stolen land, or in possession of stolen property, we would forfeit any legal rights to due process. These acts of Neo-Marxist legalistic colonialism must be put down brutally and quickly.

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo, and all federal funding is unconstitutional

B>B  Personal answerYes, and our entire education system should be privatized

B>B  Personal answerYes

B>B  Personal answerThe government should remove existing emissions standards and crash safety standards so that new vehicles can be purchased for sub 10k, and provide economic opportunity and freedom of movement for a lower price

B>B  Personal answerYes

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerYes, but only if it’s truly decentralized and cannot be manipulated by any person, group, or government agency

B>B  Personal answerYes, and also allowed to use a privacy layer that prevents monitoring of funds and transactions

B>B  Personal answerNo, privacy is more important than statistics

B>B  Personal answerConsumers should not use products that are not suitably transparent. I avoid any product that requires I use my real name or create a user account. I would prefer a cultural shift where the average person could not be persuaded to use a product with no algorithmic transparency.

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerLet the free market, instead of the government, decide

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo, and citizens should be allowed to protect their savings from reckless fiscal policies or subjugation

B>B  Personal answerYes

B>B  Personal answerNo, and eliminate funding

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerNo

B>B  Personal answerYes