Leaderboard

My take. The Liberal and NDP platforms are now essentially identical. Even though the NDP represents by far the greater danger to the Liberal party brand, she is still gunning for the tories and hoping the NDP gets in. Because at heart she's as rabid an ideologue as the Liberals have ever seen at the provincial level. By conceding defeat she knows a lot of people who would otherwise have voted Liberal will vote for fellow travelers in the NDP. I don't see a lot of difference at the federal level either. Trudeau has taken the federal liberals so far to the left he's forced the NDP to try to shift further left to give people a reason to vote for them. But aside from the necessary compromises being in power makes to their behavior, there is very little daylight between the NDP and Liberal positions at the federal level these days either. I wonder how long before they merge.

I buy Coke instead of Pepsi because I prefer the taste of Coke. When shopping for footwear I buy what looks good to me and what is comfortable to wear without regard to brand.

Effing left wingers. It would appear as though all the political party's in Canada have been boring and reading from the handbook of Lenin, Stalin and Alinsky.

Trump is trying hard to save the US of A from sinking from the result of the international globalist banksters who have treated America as if it were their own country to do with as they please. I cannot wait for the day when the international globalist banksters and their petrodollar bites the dust. The world needs a change from that cabal.

Trump is doing a lot more for America and Americans than the idiot that is running and ruling over this country right now into the ground. Just what has Trudeau done for Canada since he was elected that can outweigh what Trump is doing for America today? The only thing that I can see that Trudeau has done so far for Canada and Canadians is to open up the legal/illegal border gates wide open. Now those are great projects that will be creating hundreds of new jobs for the immigration lobby but not much else. Trudeau does not show any honesty, integrity or intelligence in anything he does. He just shows us what sheer stupidity looks like.

This country is full of traitors. As far as I can note Angry is not one of them. Sometimes it hurts to say and yell out the truth. Maybe you should think about leaving Canada for good? I and Angry will do just fine without you. Goodbye.

No. It's Trump looking after America first. Something your feminist leader does not know how to do here in Canada. The rest of the world is more important to that feminist. NAFTA worked well for Canada but not according to Trump. Trump says that America has been getting the shaft regards NAFTA. But you would not know anything about that because you listen too much to the CBC. So, why does both countries export steel to each other if each other make it themselves? Doesn't that look a bit dumb? Just wondering. Tariffs do not work. Competition does. Leave the business of trading and exporting up to the business people who know what needs to be done to compete and survive. Why does the government have to be involved in trade deals anyway? They only f things up in the end. Let the people who know how to do business be allowed to make their own deals with other businesses in other countries. We don't need the government to get involved in something that they know nothing about except maybe as to how to find a way to tax something.

5) "Distracts from objective analysis" ? I don't see how. It is a starting point to acknowledging a problem, which is a predecessor to analysis. We need to agree on language, or agree to disagree. Michael Hardner: Well, it distracts from objective analysis because it's based on a subjective premise. Actually, asserting the concept of "white privilege" does something worse as it sets an emotional and/or ethical presumption in place to oppose any challenge of its legitimacy, i.e. 'of course there's racism and inequality so the idea "white privilege" MUST be accepted as being legitimate'. While race-based stats do indicate that members of some racial groups face greater difficultly prospering in this country, the notion that this justifies the assumption of white privilege is nonsense. Some minority groups including East Asians and some South Asians, particularly those in the second generation or afterwards following immigration, have little difficultly competing for resources and achieving prosperity in countries like the U.S. and Canada. I recall a conversation I had a few years ago with a black guy, who asserted that the Canadian education system is fundamentally biased and racist. I asked why so many non-whites excel within that system if it's so inherently biased in favour of whites? His response was that East Asians (in particular) have been indoctrinated into complying with white culture - as if they had/have no cultural values of their own upon arriving here. (Hmmm... seemed presumptive to me.) I asked him whether he was aware of the centuries-old value attached to education in Chinese culture, but apparently his mind was made up. His world view was predicated on an assertion of institutional racism and he wasn't changing his mind about it, whatever the evidence. Perhaps he had some justification in holding his opinion based on his own personal circumstances but in applying his opinion broadly I believe he was expressing a received rather than an actual truth. And that's why the concept of "white privilege," which requires acceptance of a received and broadly subjective premise or truth, is so inherently non-objective and, to apply David Brooks' logic, so counterproductively fragmentary and centrifugal.

I believe racism exists, as it does and pretty much always has in most of the world throughout modern (I.e. recorded) history because by nature human beings are tribal. I believe that "white privilege" on the other hand is an academic construct that attempts to draw (often erroneous) conclusions on the basis of conflating current circumstances, which are presented in isolation as outcomes, with a system that's somehow (and even conspiratorially!) designed to allocate benefits on grounds that are related to race. My point is that unequal class structure, entrenched privilege and negative outcomes long predate Canada's current demographic circumstances. In fact, class and economic differences may be less entrenched in this country today than was the case several generations ago. If we allow ourselves to believe that current inequities are predicated primarily on race, the argument for diversity is lost. In a recent NY Times article ("Educated Elite's Failure"), David Brooks discusses what he calls the "misplaced idolization of diversity," noting that "diversity is a midpoint, not an endpoint" and that "diversity for its own sake, without a common telos, is infinitely centrifugal and leads to social fragmentation." The academic stratagem of "white privilege" distracts from objective analysis and, worse, negates the possibility of and prospects for organic social progress.

Funny you mention greedy. I was thinking this morning along a similar line. The Right is often called greedy at the corporate level - rich companies and CEOs - runaway capitalism - that sort of thing. But this election more than any I remember plays to individual greed - the "what's in it for me" attitude/entitlement. Started by the Liberals and doubled-down by the NDP, it's a schmorgasbord of "free" baubles in the window. I'm so damned disappointed that so many people are falling for the NDP "free" schtick - or are just plain greedy. There's a lot of buyer's remorse already at the federal level - so all I can say is.....be careful what you wish for.

Those who assert white privilege too often conflate outcomes with design and confuse specific circumstances with generalized assumptions. For those of us who grew up decades ago, as I did, the concept of having benefited from white privilege amounts to an absurdity. In the high school I attended, for instance, there were a handful of non-whites among a total of about 1,500 students. The situation at university wasn't a whole lot different. Back in those days, economic class was the biggest single predicator of economic outcomes, as I suspect is still the case today. We had an entire class structure, from top to bottom, within the context of an overwhelmingly European population. So, privilege and associated inequality long predated Canada's current relatively more diverse demographic reality. Logically, diversity didn't and doesn't in its own right generate privilege or inequality. Education is clearly the key to breaking down entrenched privilege, provided individuals are prepared to take advantage of the opportunities that are made available. My paternal grandfather moved from subsistence farming to become an urbanized industrial labourer. During the Great Depression, he and his family suffered enormously, living in inadequate housing and facing malnutrition. Of his five children, however, three were able to obtain post-secondary qualifications, two as a result of programs made available to service members returning from WWII, while the other, who was an academic genius, studied on scholarship and obtained a PhD at an American university. None of this newfound prosperity was premised on pre-existing or inherent "privilege" but, instead, was grounded in opportunity, hard work and perhaps a bit of luck. Who, after all, could have designed to benefit from a war or planned to have a genius-level IQ? There is a lot of inequality in our society. The best we can hope for is to ameliorate its worst impacts over time by promoting the ethos of "equality of opportunity" because in a free and open society it is almost impossible to achieve equality of outcome. And were we to pursue the latter, we might find the society that results to be far less appealing than the paradise some imagine it might be.

Christian baker wins Supreme Court case over wedding cake. http://news.trust.org/item/20180604150452-eu3tg

I too fear the consequences of silly policies from the NDP but what is Ford offering? Some economists say his platform announcements would if carried out generate the biggest deficit among the three main parties. If the PCs had stuck to a mainstream leader like Elliot or Mulroney, they'd probably be cruising to a massive majority at this point. Instead, they're tied in the polls with the NDP.

Canadians ignore basics like service costs, and service levels. For example, we are in the middle of an Ontario election and I haven't heard a single story about 'Code Zero' (no ambulance available) in Hamilton. Googling it I found a single reference from the Liberal (!) candidate for Hamilton mountain: https://www.thespec.com/news-story/8629187-riding-profile-hamilton-mountain/ Reasonable people from all points on the political compass need to create an online public independent of government and workers associations to advocate for users of these services: the justice system, the healthcare system should be priorities.

One thing for sure a NDP win is going to end what is left in this province. I just can't believe people can be so fucking stupid or just down right greedy. The unions have had it very good for 15 yrs and now it is time for them to back off. So many people have suffered that last decade,but unions people seem not to care, it is all about them

According to Giuliani, Trump can't be charged even if he killed Melania. And his supporters would blame Hillary.

Burqua banned in Denmark. https://www.apnews.com/04c05a9dec884257b71fc9e83d27db1a/Denmark-joins-some-European-nations-in-banning-burqa,-niqab

A problem for Americans to solve, who do not look to Canada for economic stability.

You brought up productivity, but productivity is a messy concept to quantify, because while it's mostly a good thing, it can also mean bad things. A sweat shop may be highly productive. It's like measuring a country's progress strictly through GDP. Cleaning up environmental catastrophes boosts a country's GDP, yet people aren't wishing for more oil spills like the Exon Valdez. The most important metric overall is progress. We can argue about what exactly constitutes progress, but if we don't agree on some fundamental benefits -- safe, humane work environments; clean air and water; good wages; health; longevity, equal opportunity, etc. -- then it's very difficult to talk about the benefits of certain trade policies or any other economic policies. With regard to the Maritimes, yes, some Canadian regions receive more supports than others. There is regional disparity in Canada for a host of reasons. We try to level the playing field with transfer payments and other redistributions, not always very well. The U.S. has its neglected "other side of the tracks" in many cities and some regions. I like the safety of Canadian cities. How much is living in a palace an indicator of success if you risk getting shot going to buy milk at the corner store?

For those who are interested, here it is: Link: http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/chap-22.asp

Doesn't bode well for Trudeau's Liberals. http://brianlilley.com/poll-shows-trudeaus-liberals-would-be-wiped-out-west-of-quebec/

Now you're talkin'. They're working on "truck size" thorium reactors that can provide power to smaller communities up to 20,000 people. Thorium does away with most, if not all of the drawbacks of Uranium. I suppose it's possible this breakthrough will fall under the radar because of it's clear ability to eat into the oil market. But then again - maybe that's just a far-fetched conspiracy theory - tin foil stuff.

It's easy to bully a drama teacher who hasn't even grown pubic hair yet. Go Trump!

Almost done. Technically speaking the real traitors are the socialists in Canada who voted in Trudeau and potentially the NDP in Ontario.