WestCanMan

1) he said that living in a state of consumption started in the 70’s. I don’t know if you meant for this to be a Trump hatefest video but #1 has nothing to do with Trump. The US is creating more oil and gas than ever before under Trump, and he’s also reversing the death of the coal industry. Moving towards energy self-sufficiency is a three-pronged benefit to the country. Less money going out, more people working, more tax revenue. America is lucky Trump got elected. He’s also clawing back the trade deficit, which is what this is about. Yay Trump! 2) Democratic institutions remain democratic when they work within the framework of the constitution. Ie, judges interpret the constitution instead of changing it from the bench. Yay Gorsuch and Kavanaugh! 3) I’m pretty sure that if you look at the drug-dependent crowd you’re looking at left wingers. People who want hand-outs. The Bernie Sanders crowd. I don’t know many junkies that are against free stuff. Where is all this right wing extremism that everyone is talking about? Antifa and BLM are the only groups running amok, burning, looting and killing cops. 4) True 5) Canada is in a far worse state than the US in that regard. A condo in Surrey costs as much as a house in Vegas. Our government is busy killing our energy sector and piling up massive debt. Our manufacturing sector, small as it is, relies on the US economy. I’ll take Trump’s economic plan over our village idiot’s plan any day.

Your constant attempt to dodge counter-points by just pointing at his reputation, and your sandbox insults, are your only contribution to the thread. You could just as easily say “every assertion made by the author is 100% correct and everyone here is stupid but me.” You should go to the “orgy of trump-hatred site” that linda sarsour runs. That kind of thing is right up your alley.

Some people believe what they want to believe, and they disregard the rest. They're scared of cognitive dissonance. They'll follow anyone that comes along making even the most outrageous claims that fit their narrative, even if it's total BS at the grade 8 level. That's you and dialamah. "Ooh a girl claims that Kavanaugh tried to rape her in '82 or 83, it has to be true because we hate Trump! A guy said that this is the erosion of the democracy and that it's Hitleresque! So true!" If someoone came along who claimed to be an FBI haircut analyst and said "Trump and Hitler part their hair the same way and that's proof of Trump's evil intent" you would believe it. You would call people stupid for not believing it. That's your answer to everything.

I made a lot of factual statements here about this guy's blatant inaccuracies that you can't even deny. The situation in Germany when he got elected being one of them. For gawd's sake the fact that they were coming off 4 years of brutal trench warfare and a punitive depression were by far the determining factors leading up to the election of a Hitler. Trump isn't on a diabolical demagogue path. The appointment of his SCJs was perfectly above board and beneficial to the democracy. Trump isn't a divisive President, Obama is the poster boy for divisiveness. If Browning had half a brain he would know that. Trump's foreign policy isn't isolationist. This is just an attempt to back up CNN bullshit with assumptions, inaccuracies and a farcical comparison. Maybe C Browning would blow me away in a game of WWII Germany Trivial Pursuit but he's not good at figuring on what's going on around him. He's the type that learns by rote but can't connect dots by himself.

People understand it reefer. It’s not written in hieroglyphics, or containing difficult subject matter. They just think it’s all BS

Interesting to know that Ted Turner feels that way. I had no idea. Domestic affairs in the US have been a really big deal here ever since the rioting and looting started in Obama’s last years. Plus you had a string of shootings that were highly politicized events. Disgruntled kids, terrorists, the Vegas guy that shot up all the country music fans (imo that was probably because they were deemed to be NRA supporters). The Dems raced to make things about gun control and racist pigs, Republicans raced to make things about terrorism, the need for law and order and for protection in schools. It’s all really emotionally charged stuff. Issues here play out the same way as down there. Terrorists attack and our Liberals want more gun control. Our worst attack here was with a van but getting rid of guns here is the Liberals’ main priority for keeping us safe lol. I think the Dems down there watched how easily the MSM brought down our conservative government with the Duffygate scandal, that was all over $90K worth of travel expenses. That’s how we ended up with the village idiot in charge of our country. They’re trying to do the same thing with Russian collusion imo.

If CNN is to be believed he’s the cause of just about everything in the last 3 or 4 centuries. I think that being alive in the time of Trump is very interesting from a historical pov. Depending on what cahnnel you watch, he is a completely different person. People who live across the street from each other have wildly different opinions about who he is and what he has done so far. Is he a huge racist that’s riding Obama’s coattails and guiding the country to oblivion, or is he cleaning up Obama’s mess and destroying Islamic State while he’s working 80 hrs per week to make America great again? How will Trump be remembered 200 years from now? Probably one way or the other. Unfortunately for Trump, CNN’s version has a lot of people sucked in right now. It makes me doubt everything that I know about everyone who was alive before I was born when people are so divided over who Trump is, despite the fact that we have the ability to see so much with our own eyes.

Re: ecological overshoot - the Chinese government was onto this a long time ago when they implemented their 1 child only policy. They knew that 3+ kids per family was unsustainable. People who were in government for a long period of time saw how hard it was to keep finding the space to build more cities & roads, and how hard it was to keep finding more fresh water and more food. Compounding the problem of food was the fact that cities were taking over valuable farmland. That’s why they are taking over the fish stocks in the south china sea. A lot of liberal types over here thought it was a violation of human rights to stop people from having as many children as they want. They talk about eating just vegetables so that there’s enough food to stop global hunger (eating meat is a much larger strain on the environment). That’s true enough, but without limits on child birth, global hunger is a moving target. You can’t just “feed the kids”, mom and big sister will eat too, and they’ll have more and more kids. That’s “the tragedy of the commons”. People do what seems normal on a personal scale with no regard for the overall effect of what happens on a larger scale when everyone else is doing that exact same thing.

LMAO: https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/ I just read about this on FB, so I looked for other sources to verify it. There's a lot of talk on the net about a 2018 solar minimum, but I take everything I see on the internet (& CNN) with a grain of salt. I'm not saying this is true, false or anything else. It's just on the net.

If you have a problem with the entire system of "lifetime appointed judges" that's one thing, but there was no actual manipulation of the system to get the SCJs appointed. President appoints, Senate confirms. If the Dems didn't have a majority in the Senate when Obama was President then he was at the mercy of the Senate. He should have been a more popular President so that his Senators won their elections. One other major consideration, Trump made a list of all the judges from which he was going to choose his appointees BEFORE he got elected. The names Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were on that list, and Americans voted for Trump with full disclosure.

For some reason I couldn't separate paragraphs with the enter key, I had to end that reply and carry on here. FYI global warming due to human interference is a farce. The avg temperature of the earth has always fluctuated and our contribution is minimal. We're running out of fresh water because there are 7 billion people. https://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/04/28-000-rivers-disappeared-in-china-what-happened/275365/ The situation in Germany that led to nazism is hugely worth studying and I'm shocked that no one does it. People are happy to rage about it and vow to stop it but I think that studying how it could even happen should seriously be done before everyone with living memory of that time is dead. But that's not what this is. 1935 Germany was nothing like the America of today. A whole generation of German men died in the muddy rat-infested trenches of WW1 just 17 years earlier, or survived to face a vast depression which was easily attributable by Hitler to the reparation payments that they were forced to pay, regardless of how much of that was true. You think that comparing Trump with Hitler is fair game, but it actually requires more than the writer's own incorrect assumptions.

I talked earlier about the importance of SCJs doing their actual job, and not ruling from the bench. No one argues about the fact that Republicans appoint judges who make rulings based on properly interpreting the constitution. Both sides have no choice but to agree with that statement. If McConnell was able to stop the appointment of another Ruth Bader Ginsberg that's actually a win for democracy. Not digging a grave. If you'll agree that fair elections are the key to a democracy, then you must also believe that elections should actually mean something. What's the point of holding elections if SCJs with lifetime appointments don't abide by the legal statutes in the constitution and legally changed by elected officials? "The dubious legitimacy of the Supreme Court" is this writer's fiction. The Republicans had the power to stop Obama from getting a SCJ appointed. They used it. That's not dubious, it's the result of the will of the electorate. "It's possible that adversarial momentum will build... serious economic or military conflicts..." blah blah blah. Anything is possible. I could say that the Sun might get 10% colder in the next 50 years. That doesn't make it a topic worth discussing. This is more fiction based on his doom and gloom whining. Trump ran circles around Putin and Assad. He came out with the concession that removing Assad was no longer a must, because the country was facing too much devastation - then Assad got bold and gassed people. Trump bombed him. Win for Trump. Assad and mighty Russia rattled their sabres something fierce, and then 6 months later they gassed people again. Trump stuffed more bombs down Assad's throat and his troops killed 200 Russians. HUGE win for Trump. Syrians praised Trump, but Democrats said "he lacked a clearly-defined foreign policy" lol. The rest of the world understands his policy of bombing shitheads. And the fact that he is actually fighting Islamic State. Equating Trump with racial division is another fantasy. Obama was the biggest racial divider I've personally witnessed on this planet in my lifetime and that's easy for me to prove. Can you recall how many racially motivated riots and lootings occurred in the two years 2015 and 2016? Was it more than the riots that occurred in the 33 years between 1975 and 2008? Yep. What was the basis for all that? The Treyvon Martin killing, and the Michael Brown shooting. Did Obama witness the T Martin shooting? Nope. So was he in a position to say that "he looked like me, so that could have happened to me"? Nope. Did it cause racial divide when the POTUS insinuated that Martin was gunned down just because he was black? Yep. Ditto for the Micael Brown shooting. When CNN initially reported that Brown was an innocent "gentle giant" and loved by everyone who was just shot from a police car while his hands were up did they ever really back down from that initial stance as evidence started to mount against that scenario? Did Obama ever say "the initial reports were wildly inaccurate and the riots are out of place"? Nope. Did he comment on the video of M Brown's robbery, and say that the police actually did have reason to come for M Brown? Nope. To say that Obama fiddled while the USA burned is inaccurate - Obama fanned the flames. He dined with the BLM leaders. When 5 policemen were killed in Dallas did Obama come out and unequivocally state that it was a heinous act by a lowlife criminal, or did he make a martyr of the killer by linking the deaths of policemen to "centuries of discrimination, slavery and Jim Crowe laws" in his infamous "I'm a racist" speech? Of course he made a martyr of that killer, I can show you the video. There are approximately 1M police officers in the US and they do a tough, dangerous, emotionally damaging job every day. Did Obama make their lives better or worse? Remember that Trump was supposed to unequivocally state that "white supremists" started the violence in Charlottesville, and he just said "Two sides came looking for a fight"? Was Trump's comment 100% accurate? Yes. It's sick that those people exist, and even more sick that they feel like they can show their faces in the light of day, but the actual truth is that the violence was mutual. It's also true to say that non-racists also opposed the removal of the statue. Did Trump take more heat for telling the unfortuante truth than Obama did for his "I can see why cops get killed sometimes and I'm a racist" speech? Yep.

I did read it, and your specific quote was edited to make it appear reasonable. It was not reasonable. The full quote goes on the say that the biggest difference between them is that Hitler didn’t want any more elections. Is that why we hate Hitler? Because of his dislike for elections?

1 members of the conservative party 2 when did I say that?

Another baseless allegation from Dialamah. Surprise surprise. If a Hillary supporter saw an article called “Why Trump is the greatest human since Jesus” would they read it and give it serious thought? 99% wouldn’t, and reefermadness and dialamah would support that decision and they wouldn’t insult their intelligence. FYI comparing Trump to Hitler is in reality a non-starter for intelligent conversation. Period. We’ve all seen it done before and it’s always moronic. This article was the same and anyone with half a brain who read any of it would actually know that.

I’ll type this really slowly so that you can read it. It’s perfectly fine for someone to guess that your article was crap, and not worth reading, just by looking at the title. And they were 100% correct. It’s just more leftist hyperbole. “Hillary didn’t win and Trump is the devil and here’s what I came up with to undermine the presidency while I was bawling like a baby”. You can’t handle the fact that people don’t get sucked in by the same BS that you do. Get used to it. Here’s what you need to understand: Kavanaugh’s appointment was a success for America, because if one woman’s baseless accusations can change the fate of an entire nation that is not a victory for anyone - it’s a recipe for future failures. BK’s appointment is also a success for the whole American democracy because Judge Kavanaugh is a man who operates properly within their constitutional framework. FYI judges are not supposed to make laws, or change laws, they’re supposed to interpret the statutes and legal precedents that are already in the books. Changing laws is a job for elected officials, not judges with lifetime appointments, period. That’s called ruling from the bench. Therefor the appointment of Kavanagh despite a baseless allegation wasn’t an erosion of a public institution or whatever that moron called it. It’s the opposite. The appointment of a Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who makes decisions based on what she personally feels America should be like, is an erosion of all institutions at the same time: congress, the senate, the presidency, and even elections in general. What’s the point of going to the trouble to elect all those people and make new laws if RBG is just going to do whatever she wants until the day she dies anyways?

There’s still a selection process for party leadership which is voted on. Oir PM can’t cancel an election, and we can have a PM with a minority government which is the most lame duck scenario possible

A PM doesn't have the unchecked power that you are talking about. PMs don't just belch out executive orders like Obama and Trump. The entire nation does vote, and the party leadership selection isn't that much less democratic than that of the US. I'm well aware of the fact that at some point in the past a President came to the conclusion that a 3 term prez would be too powerful, and that measures were taken to stop it from happening, but I don't know how bulletproof they are.

You're just assuming I never read it, I actually did read some of it before I came to the conclusion that it has no merit. I was merely commenting on the fact that it's perfectly reasonable for OftenWrong to call it drivel and save the 2 minutes that I wasted on it. You also had no cause to be so insulting towards him/her.

The Prime Minister is elected, not appointed or born with the power of an anointed monarch. Normally PMs don't have as much power over our government as a potus does over the US, but Trudea really has his MPs lined up to suck the power teat. In the States a 3rd term is looked on as a big no-no. A serious grasp for too much power. It would be troubling of Obama or Trump went for a third term.

Why would someone need to read the article? Here's the title/link you posted: A leading Holocaust historian just seriously compared the US to Nazi Germany. It's perfectly fine for someone to see that title and disregard it as drivel. Stupid comparisons between Trump and Hitler are made all the time, especially by people here. It's a mistake to read that stuff, quote it, give the author credit for his brilliant insights, etc. It's leftist drivel. And stop with the sandbox insults already reefer.

If the queen had as much power over our every day lives and foreign policy as the US President does then your point would make sense. She has less influence than Oprah. Oprah has no term limits either.

To be honest, if you read your own words, you're talking about Canadian Liberals and American Democrats. If it wasn't for lies and unsophisticated platitudes they'd be silent. In the States their platform is impeach 45, Russian collusion, Trump is a liar, Kavanaugh and the Republicans are rapists, open borders, no id requirement for voters, white privilege is rampant, free health care, free post-secondary, institutionalized racism, etc. There's nothing sensible at all in there, it's pure emotion based on lies or fantasies. In Canada we get the same pathetic virtue signalling, and the last election was won by the Liberals on the strength of the Duffygate smear campaign, which was probably where the Demmies got the idea for the Russian colluison investigation.

C’mon b_c, making claims that you know to be false is beneath you. You spent so much time arguing with liberals you are acting like one now. You know that the queen is just a figurehead with no say whatsoever in Canadian politics or foreign affairs. The day she becomes controversial is the day her pictures come down.

Some more interesting info about the baseless allegations of Blasey Ford.