All Activity

Lessons for the wokejobs, episode 1.

Democrats are already on the curb. How does it feel, wokejob?

Here's the reality in really small print. Canadian household net worth reached an all-time high of $18.6 trillion, but this headline figure obscures systemic economic inequality, concentrated asset ownership, and staggering debt loads. It is a misleading measure of the average Canadian's financial well-being due to several glaring realities: Extreme Wealth Concentration: Much of these record gains are driven by financial markets and equities, which disproportionately benefit the wealthiest households. In Canada, the highest 20% of earners hold nearly two-thirds of the total net worth, while the bottom 40% account for a mere 3% of the collective pie. Soaring Debt-to-Income: Total household credit market debt exceeds $3.2 trillion. Canadians owe roughly $1.80 for every $1.00 of disposable income they earn. The Mortgage Crisis: With the ongoing wave of mortgage renewals, the household debt service ratio has climbed to 14.7%, putting immense pressure on everyday household budgets. Spiking Insolvencies: Alongside record-high "paper wealth," financial distress is mounting for a large portion of the population. Consumer insolvencies reached levels not seen since 2009, with over 37,000 Canadians filing for insolvency in a single quarter

Hey, this is interesting. Trumps name have been torn off the Kennedy Center. Nice! 👍👍👍👍

To what?

Like Dislike In 2024, the total trade between the U.S. and China amounted to approximately $660.7 billion, with the U.S. importing $461.4 billion and exporting $199.3 billion. Like Dislike In 2025, Canada and China conducted $124.8 billion in two-way merchandise trade, with Canada exporting $34.1 billion and importing $90.6 billion from China. Trump is basically finished. He cannot complete a full sentence or stay awake for more than a couple minutes. And that is the just the beginning of his stoopidity.

Once again Ahhh yes, back to pedophile and insulting dead people. Typical LOSER response when LOSING with every post you make HA. HA HA So sad you have such reading issues LOSER so, here it is for the third time HA HA HA "Oh...did you miss it the last time LOSER??? LOL Here it is for you again LOSER I am sure you have seen this before but you do not seem to get it so, here it is again LOSER LOL LOL LOL As usual, a zero value post from a ZERO LOSER LOL LOL LOL A LOSER like you does not deserve anything new. I repeat so you won't forget you are a complete ZERO LOSER and need your equally ZERO LOSER buddy veradahbouy to back you up HA HA HA No meltdown...that is what happens to you when I tap dance in your LOSER head LOL LOL LOL Once again, your post only proves confux the LOSER is suffering from blatherskite HA HA HA

Looks like I stuck a nerve. 😁

Keep that delusion alive.

oh he's lying and twisting his ass off right now to be sure. And people are starting to notice. And they're starting to notice that he's all about the announcement but nothing happens. I'll Sizzle in those steak at the same goes. We will build like never before! Except there's nothing new being built. It's been a rupture we must form a coalition of middle countries! But there's no coalition and he's saddling up to china. We must fix the food problem, and he anmounces spending more money but even he admits it will be years before it makes any difference and in trurth it won't make any difference Politically he has to start making some significant actual deliveries. He has to achieve something not just announce something and it can't just be his usual taking credit for somebody else's work. If we get to the fall and things haven't substantially improved on that front I think he's going to start facing some serious headwinds Yours do. In fact that's all they do when they're they're kind of people you like. They lie their asses off and expect people like you to Lap it up

Not when the Dems take control of Congress and kick Trump to the curb. Of course you MAGAt can never face up to the FACT that Trump's polls are that deep in the dumper. LMAO

Except... this is your baseless accusation. There is no evidence he was lying to incite an attack. The evidence we do have shows him explicitly calling for them to go march peacefully. Pardoning those involved was because of how the Biden administration abused the DOJ process to vindictively go after anyone involved.

Canadian household wealth rose again to more than $18.6 trillion thanks to strength in both stocks and real estate Households added $243 billion to their collective wealth, a 1.3% increase from the fourth quarter of 2025, according to Statistics Canada Canadian households continued to get wealthier overall in the first quarter of 2026 reaching just over $18.6 trillion in the 10th consecutive quarterly increase. Households added $243 billion to their collective wealth, a 1.3 per cent increase from the fourth quarter of 2025, according to Statistics Canada’s latest national balance sheet, released Friday. Compared with last quarter, however, net worth gains were boosted by increases in both financial and non-financial assets. Non-financial assets (which include residential real estate) were up 1.1 per cent overall in the first quarter of 2026 after two consecutive quarters of declines, while financial assets (such as stocks) grew 1.3 per cent. Toronto-Dominion (TD) Bank economist Maria Solovieva said declining home prices over previous quarters may have enticed those sitting on the sidelines to enter the market, driving residential real estate values higher. The national average sale price was up 2.2 per cent on a year-over-year basis in April, according to the latest data from the Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA). “This (upcoming) quarter, we’re expecting some strength in home prices,” Solovieva said. “It’s a reflection, mostly, of some recovery in the housing market after a fairly low slump.” However, Kari Norman, senior economist at Desjardins Group, said there is a “bifurcation” between higher-cost metros such as Toronto and Vancouver where home prices have been falling since 2022 but may have hit their bottom, compared with the rest of the country which has seen price increases over the past three years. Meanwhile, financial assets grew at their lowest quarterly pace since a year ago, likely influenced by the downswing in markets in March, Solovieva said. “The conflict in the Middle East … was the biggest factor in the first quarter.” Weakness in U.S. equities was offset by the S&P/TSX Composite index gaining 3.3 per cent during the first quarter. The resource-heavy TSX benefited from growth in the energy sector amid the spike in oil prices due to the conflict in Iran, said Norman. “We are continuing to expect strong gains in stock markets for both the Canadian market and south of the border, and that is likely to continue to support household net worth,” she said, adding that growth in artificial intelligence has been bolstering the U.S. stock market. Energy cost pressures may have also weighed on the household savings rate, which dropped to 3.5 per cent — the lowest savings rate since the first quarter of 2024 — as household spending outpaced disposable income, Solovieva said. However, the savings rate is still “relatively healthy” especially in comparison with the quarters of negative savings seen before the COVID-19 pandemic, Solovieva said. Household borrowing increased to $35.5 billion in the first quarter of 2026, despite softening mortgage demand. In fact, net originations of mortgage loans (new loans minus mortgages paid off) plunged to $22.6 billion in the first quarter of 2026, the slowest pace of borrowing since the first quarter of 2024 and the biggest quarterly decline since the fourth quarter of 2023. Non-mortgage debt (which includes lines of credit and auto and student loans) picked up instead, offsetting reduced mortgage demand. The household debt service ratio — measured as total obligated payments of principal and interest on credit market debt as a proportion of household disposable income — rose after two consecutive quarterly declines. Household credit market debt was more than $3.2 trillion in the first quarter of 2026 and the ratio of this debt as a proportion of household disposable income increased for the sixth consecutive quarter to 179.6 per cent. The household debt service ratio (which includes total obligated payments of principal and interest on credit market debt as a proportion of household disposable income) rose to 14.75 per cent as debt outpaced income, which Norman said could come down to the mortgage renewal wave hitting homeowners with higher payments. Mortgage interest payments edged up 0.9 per cent in the first quarter, following declines in the previous two quarters. Soloveiva said TD is expecting some stabilization in this measure in the next quarter, though if it rises over 15 per cent, that could be cause for some alarm. “Households continue to be in a relatively healthy position in the face of significant economic shocks,” said Bank of Montreal senior economist Shelly Kaushik in a note. “The slow grind higher in debt levels bears watching as the Bank of Canada debates the direction of monetary policy, but for now, we’re not seeing warning signs of significant vulnerability.” https://financialpost.com/wealth/canadian-household-wealth-rose-again-18-trillion

"You finally attempted to answer the four questions," What did they suggest that you are saying was wrong and what do you base saying they should have known it was "MUCH" higher on? Yes, UNEXPECTED, side effect. They did warn there were risks. Where did they say this? No, I made no such admission.

You mean politicians stretch the truth and even lie sometimes? Wow. Who knew?

There are NUMEROUS examples. The most notorious was on Jan 6th when he LIED to INCITE the attack on the Capitol. Of course, you know that, but are in denial about his clear INTENT as PROVEN by the FACT that he pardoned the perpetrators. Who is "the Dems"? LMAO Your fantacies are amusing. LMAO LMAO. You really are IGNORANT for someone who always pretends to know everything. SOLELY BASED on EVIDENCE of CRIMES. Bolton was convicted of mishandling classified materials. You know, JUST LIKE the SECOND SMITH INDICTEMENT OF Trump, IGNORAMUS.

Liar. You're a complete and utter coward. The questions were asked every time you asked them right away. You admit as much. you say: Yeah. That's a fcuking answer you lying sack of shit. There is a much higher risk of unknown side effects than they suggested. MUCH higher. ANd in fact there DID turn out to be unexpected side effects. So they absolutely DID NOT properly warn canadians that there were risks. They instead said the risks of an unknown effect were much much lower or non existent, certainly no more than other vaccines which was COMPLETELY UNTRUE, Are you just admitted that I was selling the truth all along and that you've been lying for the better part of three pages because you couldn't cope with the truth. In this thread you have been a sniveling little coward doing an amazing impression of an emotionally disgruntle liberal I'm not bother with the rest of your absolute cowardice. The government should Have properly advise Canadians that there were risks taking this product, they did not properly advise them of the risks and now they are not properly standing behind people who have suffered adverse effects as a result. And none of your whining and crying changes that. Watching your antics has been absolutely disappointing and depressing. Do better

This is what AI generates when you ask it to create a Trump supporter vs a Biden supporter. I love the sandal with an actual foot in it for the loser Marxist fool on the left.

You finally attempted to answer the four questions, but the answers still don't really support your original claims. Lets go back to the beginning, wich the statement that started all of this: "Obviously this is somewhat Canada specific, but I think a big part of the problem was that the government was unwilling to admit that there was a possible risk in any meaningful way" Question 1: What risk? Your answer was: "Because it's an unknown and untested medical product there is a higher risk of unknown and dangerous side effects." This sort of answers the question, but only by identifying the possibility of unknown risks. You did not identify a specific risk that officials failed to disclose. "Unknown risks" is not itself a specific risk. It is simply uncertainty. So you answered: There could be risks. You did not answer: What specific risk are you claiming officials concealed? Question 2: When did officials know? Your answer was: "Officials knew from minute one that this was an untested brand new medical technology and that there may very well be significant unknown side effects." This answers a different question. I asked: When did officials know about the risk? You answered: They knew uncertainty existed from the beginning. Those are not the same thing. If your claim is that officials knew about a specific risk and failed to disclose it, then you need to identify: The specific risk When they learned about it What evidence they had What they disclosed Instead, you're simply pointing out that everyone knew uncertainty existed, which was never in dispute. Question 3: What did they say publicly at the time? Your answer was: "They said that the risk was the same or lower as any other vaccine..." and "People that disagreed were bigots..." At least this is a factual claim that can be evaluated. The problem is that you still provide: No quote No source No date No citation No official statement You are making a claim about what was said publicly, but you are not providing evidence that it was said. So this remains an unsupported assertion. Question 4: What should they have said instead? This was your strongest answer. You stated that officials should have said something closer to: "This is a new product with limited testing and there may be serious unknown side effects that cannot yet be anticipated." That is a legitimate opinion about how risk communication should have been handled. However, you still have not demonstrated that officials failed to communicate uncertainty, nor have you shown that they claimed there were no unknown risks. So while this is your strongest answer, it is still an opinion about what should have been said, not evidence that your original accusation is true. At the beginning of this discussion, your claim sounded like: The government knew about risks and failed to warn people. After several rounds of questioning, the argument now seems to be: The government should have emphasized uncertainty more strongly. Those are very different claims. The first is a factual claim that requires evidence. The second is a subjective judgment about risk communication. The reason I kept asking these four questions is because they force the discussion away from assertions and toward evidence. Even now, most of your answers are still assertions rather than demonstrations.

LOL, now you are talking to yourself. Clearly, internet forums are not your thing. You are unable to engage on any level of real intellect here to defend your positions and mostly end up talking to no one and now yourself.

Carney is backpedaling and now the Libtards have to, too.