Derek 2.0

Is that the same with "getting the youth vote out"?

That is but my point, with today's exchange rate, we can't afford said proposed deal (when our dollar was at parity) at ~$85 million CDN x 65 F-35s......as such, with today's exchange, we can't afford ~$100 million CDN x 65 Super Hornets.......and the numbers are even more dire when one exchanges CDN for Euros, hence making European aircraft even more expensive than the F-35 or the Super Hornet...... Likewise, as I noted countless times prior to the election, the promise of selecting a "cheaper aircraft" to free up funds to invest in the navy is also bunk.......regardless of exchanges rates, of currently produced Western aircraft, the difference in pricing of the currently cheapest aircraft (F-16) to the most expensive (Eurofighter) is in the neighborhood of ~$30-40 million per aircraft. As such, using these extreme ends of the scale, ~$30 million x 65 aircraft is ~$2-2 1/2 billion...or about the cost of a single Canadian produced destroyer for the navy........but of course, the previous Government never intended to purchase the most expensive aircraft, as such, the difference in proposed savings is negligible at best, and might afford the navy or Coast Guard a small auxiliary vessel or two......... Hence another "over promise" that the Trudeau government will have to "adjust" to fit into reality once they were met with actual facts........and is why the Trudeau Government still paid into the F-35 program, has not left the program and the Minister of National Defense won't go on record as stating the F-35 won't replace our current Hornets.......

More than 85x65.

Source? Feel free to present where the Liberals have put aside billions for new fighters, and billions more to make up for our slumping dollar.

It is, as cited and applied to today's exchange rate.

Are you suggesting the competition they promised won't be fair and is designed to preclude the F-35? No, we won't buy anything, unless the Liberals allot Billions more they don't have into defense, because the Canadian dollar is worth slightly more than Canadian Tire money.

A proposed purchase plan for 65 F-35s at ~$85 million per, when the Canadian dollar was near parity with the American dollar.........Super Hornets at over $100 million Canadian don't fit inside said budget.

No, Coyne is pointing out the dishonest promises made by the Liberals during the election......the inclusion of the F-35 into the Hornet replacement program is a broken promise.....likewise, their claim that any savings, which there won't be, could be invested in the Navy.

No it isn't, as Super Hornets (like other alternatives) are now over $100 million, per plane, in Canadian dollars.

What could be very telling, confirming your point, to date, the three Republican primaries have all set historic voter turnouts in each State.......The Democrats are below levels that elected Obama and Clinton.....

The last heavily contested Republican race would have been Ford vs Reagan in '76........like then, now the later delegate rich States (New York and California) will likely play an important role........and as said before, this could come down to a brokered convention, where (if they're still in it) a Kasich or Carson could play kingmaker.

Exactly, 3 down and 47+ more to go.........as said prior, Texas alone has more delegates then Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada combined.

No, it isn't, not spread over 65 aircraft.............hence there will be no savings to invest in the navy, from not selecting the F-35 (even though Canada is still a member of the program)........

And that is Coyne's point......they made all sorts of bunk promises. So?

Didn't they do exactly that during the election? Likewise, suggest they would realize enough savings to invest in the navy....considering that with our weak dollar, all American and European alternatives are now outside of the spending envelop, that is now unlikely.....could this be yet another case of Liberal promises meeting reality, and henceforth, being "adjusted"?

How is it "legal speak"?

I largely agree, I think outside of a cabinet position, this generation of the Bush family is finished.......but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see George P Bush pick-up the torch after the next 4-5 election cycles have passed. Well Rubio did beat Cruz last night, in a contest with both Bush and Kasich in his lane..........Southern Bible belt States are suppose to be Cruz's turf.........Funny enough, from the polls I've seen (granted some are weeks old), Rubio leads the field in several Super Tuesday States, Virginia/Georgia/Alabama, slightly ahead of Trump (and these are polls with Bush still in the field)........The only States where I've seen Cruz leading is Texas (in polls with Bush still in the race) with Trump and Rubio on his tail......one would assume the Bush machine in the State will get behind Rubio now..... Another thing to consider, with Texas being an open primary State (Democrats and Independents can vote) is that it historically (for the last 50+ years) both sides will vote in the others primaries to keep out the extreme loons...

I never thought of that, that is a good comparison.

Yes, in a winner take all Congressional District State. Starting with Florida, March 15th, the winner take all State wide rules start to enter the race......to put these first three races in context, a third place finish with ~25% in Texas could result in ~50 delegates......... ------------ In my view, with Bush gone, its a three person race, with Kasich acting as an anchor to Rubio, and Carson to Cruz, in the race to beat Trump.

Just to add, by winner take all in South Carolina and several of the Super Tuesday States, its winner take all by Congressional District.......in other words, for South Carolina for example, Trump has won the majority of the districts in SC, as such, he'll win 40+ of 50 delegates, with the remainder going to Rubio

I agree, on paper he is the most qualified, but comes across as an accountant.........if Bush's support had of been placed in Rubio's column in South Carolina, he would be within a couple of points of Trump.......Nevada should be interesting now.

Yup........and on Super Tuesday, its a mixed bag with the States, some are winner takes all, some are proportional, and some States, like Texas have a 20% threshold in support and then they are proportional......i.e if South Carolina's results were to hold true in Texas, they would be divided between Trump, Cruz and Rubio.......

How is that thread drift? Isn't that the crux of Rock's point of white and black peoples "progression" within the United States? To rephrase, how long can the "abused side" use the "excuse" of abuses that transpired generations before they were born? In 2116, should white people feel guilty for slavery in the 1800s or the inequalities that led to the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s? My point, at what time can "white people" no longer feel guilty and "black people" no longer use past abuses as an excuse?

My question, and could apply to countless other examples, at what point is the "abuser side" no longer responsible for past actions? Sins of the Father and all that....

Yes, as long as said parent is a US citizen.........which is why the birther conspiracy launched (by Trump?) against President Obama was nonsense.....even if he was born in Kenya, his mother was still a US citizen.