SpankyMcFarland

50 million is a conservative estimate, Citizen. The regime that did that is still in power.

Even Harper is expressing bewilderment at Team Trump’s outlandish behaviour: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/trump-trade-beef-with-canada-former-canadian-prime-minister-weighs-in And Trump said “the gig is up”. Not jig, gig. I’ve never heard anybody make that mistake before.

1. I would disagree with both. 2. A sunset clause makes it much less attractive to sign. We should not sign it. 3. Canada should pay more to support NATO. 4. China is ascending but modifying its behaviour is crucial for the rest of the world.

Each country involved - Russia, China, the US, the Koreas, Japan - has a quite separate agenda which suggests this problem cannot be solved by one chat. Perhaps it can, and all credit to Trump if he manages this unlikely feat, but the North Koreans are past masters at making promises and not delivering. Why would they give up the one thing that makes them significant? The problem in any deal will be in implementation and verification.

Or by Trump perhaps. He has a lot to lose in Trump's preparation free-trip to Singapore.

Yes, rarely used and a very different situation. If the US left NAFTA it would end the entire deal. A sunset clause, on the other hand, would mean definite, constant renegotiation of NAFTA which would make it useless, not worth signing. Trade benefits both countries - Canada AND the USA. Businesses understand that. America Alone destroys the post-war consensus that America built in the world at precisely the time it will need support to shape Chinese behaviour over the next century.

Such an escape clause exists in many international agreements but is very rarely used. For example, Iran could leave the NPT if it wanted. Trade benefits both countries. The old ideas about win-lose trade gave us a much poorer world.

There's a big difference between being able to terminate a deal and having a definite time limit on the deal. The option to leave clause has never been used. By contrast, a 5 year sunset clause discourages companies from investing in Canada because they can't plan for the future. 10 or 15 years might have been tolerable but 5 means never-ending negotiations and uncertainty. Both countries have peculiarly high tariffs on certain agricultural products which are a tiny part of the overall relationship. And how big is the US trade deficit with Canada right now anyway? We should get rid of supply management but Trump's loudmouth insults make it a lot harder to do so. Some negotiator he is. We are an independent country and deserve a certain respect in how our leader is spoken to publicly by a close ally.

Don't bring families into this, especially children (of any age) of politicians. There's no need for it.

Horwath is an awful speaker at the best of times.

If you’re going to make serious accusations like this at least get the woman’s name right.

Jaysus, Citizen, that was one Joycean monologue. https://archive.org/details/MollyBloomMonologEnd You need to put more punctuation in. To answer your question, China is a secular tyranny so they're not so big on hijabs but a regime that has been responsible for c. 50 million deaths is pretty bad by any standard. They tick a lot of those boxes on mass imprisonment, summary execution, torture, pollution, crackdowns etc. etc. and yet we all buy their products.

I’d go with the ‘at best’ interpretation here - bizarre behaviour from a crazy in-law.

Horwath is a dreary speaker - wall to wall cliches especially ‘everyday families’. Her supporters look bored stiff as they listen to her. This lawsuit against Ford could not be more cynically timed. Crazy family.

I didn't say it's bad or good, merely that most Liberal voters would be closer to the NDP in their views and in an FPTP system would see their views more clearly represented by abandoning Wynne for Horwath.

A vote for the Liberals is a vote for Ford.

FPTP only works well with two parties. Voting for the Liberals is now a complete waste and I suspect some self-declared Liberal supporters may realize that when they get in the polling station.

It makes sense this way: do you want to see more debt or less? Long-term, debt is bad no matter who piles it up.

The worry is that the provincial debt will get even bigger.

The worry with Ford is that Ontario may trade high tax/high spend for low tax/high spend.

Israel and Russia are not exactly enemies. There's increasing evidence that Russia is co-operating with Israel to squeeze Iran out of Syria now that Assad's position is more secure. The Iranians should be very concerned about what this may mean for the future as Israel and the US prepare for war against them.

For Canada’s most populous province, the standard of debate was truly awful. You had one candidate who heckled the whole way through and another who doesn’t even have a costed platform yet.

I would certainly concede that the fiscal situation is a major worry and that the PCs seem to be showing the most awareness of that.

I don’t think he’s capable of doing the job and I’d be surprised if he lasts for a full term.

I don’t think Ford supporters can see how repulsive he is to many other voters. He’s that ignorant loudmouth in the bar who won’t shut up. The thought of having to listen to him for an extended period of years is too awful to contemplate.