?Impact

Certainly the aerospace and transportation industries have been fairly volatile during recent years and Bombardier is no exception here. It is worth noting however that the market has decided to increase their value by 383% since the beginning of 2016. A lot of that has to do with them overcoming problems with the C-Series, and more importantly winning several large sales.

Yes things today are different then they were in 2009. We don't have the bottom falling out of the economy, the entire world in recession, unemployment at twice its current rate, etc. Yes the country is in a mess, and in 2009 it was all sunshine and lollipops.

A little late, but I ran across this old paper by one of the founding fathers - Alexander Hamilton - on the electoral college and thought it might be of interest. I included it in it's entirety, but if you don't have the patience then focus on the bold text. He was arguing the necessity of having a disperse group of men (sorry ladies) with the capabilities of assessing the selection instead of a straight majority of the citizens to prevent a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens, set out to either harm those in the minority or work only for those of the upper echelon. Of course in the 1700's he couldn't envision the effect television and other modern media would have on the electoral process. ----- The Mode of Electing the President From the New York Packet. Friday, March 14, 1788. HAMILTON To the People of the State of New York: THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded. I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for. It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture. It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place. Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty. Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice. All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office. The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,'' yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration. The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner with the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in respect to the latter. The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice-President, has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous. It has been alleged, that it would have been preferable to have authorized the Senate to elect out of their own body an officer answering that description. But two considerations seem to justify the ideas of the convention in this respect. One is, that to secure at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of the body, it is necessary that the President should have only a casting vote. And to take the senator of any State from his seat as senator, to place him in that of President of the Senate, would be to exchange, in regard to the State from which he came, a constant for a contingent vote. The other consideration is, that as the Vice-President may occasionally become a substitute for the President, in the supreme executive magistracy, all the reasons which recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one, apply with great if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other. It is remarkable that in this, as in most other instances, the objection which is made would lie against the constitution of this State. We have a Lieutenant-Governor, chosen by the people at large, who presides in the Senate, and is the constitutional substitute for the Governor, in casualties similar to those which would authorize the Vice-President to exercise the authorities and discharge the duties of the President.

Many western teenagers decide to dress all in black, even during the summer. Which is hotter, tight fitting or loose fitting clothing? I don't think either is good, just pointing out that we don't frown on one.

I missed my calling: Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. - Genesis 3:21 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare. Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine. - Ezekil 16:7-8 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. - Matthew 5:28

Yes, Rosie O'Donnell certainly qualifies as unhinged. I promise you I will never vote for her.

No, I'm saying you seem to be the one with a problem understanding English. I already explained about coup, go back and reread it is not that difficult. I didn't know about Whoopie Goldberg but just looked it up and she did not call for martial law. She was saying that Trump's statements on Chicago sounded like he was calling for martial law.

My point was not about the phrasing of your point, it was about the logic. You labeled those who didn't like Trump winning as unhinged loonies. Since Trump didn't like Obama winning, and responded just as those you are labeling, logic dictates that he is an unhinged loonie. b.t.w. I avoided the other thread as it was getting way off track but to preempt some silly dialogue about the different words used we should look at the real definitions. First coup and coup d'état mean 100% the same thing, there is no difference, one is just shorthand. Both a coup d'état and a revolution can be violent or peaceful there is no difference there either. The only difference between the two is a coup d'état implies leadership from officials (could be a different branch like legislative or judicial or yes military as was suggested) and a revolution implies leadership from the people outside of the official government.

So you are saying that Trump is a loonie? He did far worse when Obama won, so by your logic he is a loonie. The difference however is I don't know anybody that would support Silverman for President. What does that say about those that did support a 'loonie' for President?

It is human nature to relate to other people, and not faceless, nameless organizations. Love 'em or hate 'em, it is the people that make democracy work. While I understand the point you are trying to make (even if I don`t agree with the example), I think you are underestimating the value of the human relationship. As you said earlier, people are emotional creatures and not logical robots. You can`t change people, you have to find a way to work with them. Isn't that called polling? It happens all the time, and the pollsters are always trying to figure out ways to ask the questions without revealing what the real intentions are. The challenge is that people are not completely dumb, and of course there are many people out there that try to analyze what the polls are getting at and tell the larger population their interpretation (pundits). Yes, education is very important and we need to do a lot more. To a certain extent it happens, but the delivery vehicle to the masses has been the newspaper, radio, television, and now Internet. When you bring up conferences that implies there is only one vehicle, and more significant that it is controlled by the government. When you have that control are you not losing democracy, and just having a brainwashing session where the government tells you what to think? Would that not only give you the illusion of free choice? You should google "tyranny of the majority", a lot has been written on that subject. For a practical example of a system that moves toward the goal you are seeking, but does achieve some level of balance you might want to study how democracy in Switzerland works.

Bombardier has roughly 65,000 employees worldwide (there were over 70,000 at their peak). The two main divisions are aerospace and transportation, with employees divided almost 50/50 between them. About one third of their employees are in Quebec.

The Trump Presidency is apparently about filling the Trump pocketbook. This is outlined in a recent New York Times article about Melania Trump launching a lawsuit. While I didn't see one detail in there, I have read elsewhere that she registered the trademark MELANIA for a line of perfume, etc. after Trump decided to make the run for the Whitehouse, and as recent as 2 day before the inauguration was signing contracts to cash in on a line of jewelry.

Trump tweet (alternative fact) at 8pm this evening: It is a disgrace that my full Cabinet is still not in place, the longest such delay in the history of our country. Obstruction by Democrats! Real fact are that Trump has been in office 19 days. For Obama we had the following confirmations: Hilda Solis, Labor Secretary - February 24 Gary Locke, Secretary of Commerce - March 24 Kathleen Sibelius, Health and Human Services secretary - April 28 For Clinton, Janet Reno wasn't confirmed until March 11 For George H.W. Bush there were 4 nominees that were not confirmed until March

That was clearly articulated in the Liberal platform for the 2015 election: We will immediately begin an open and transparent review process of existing defence capabilities, with the goal of delivering a more effective, better-equipped military. The Canada First Defence Strategy, launched by Stephen Harper in 2008, is underfunded and out of date. We will review current programs and capabilities, and lay out a realistic plan to strengthen Canada’s Armed Forces. We will develop the Canadian Armed Forces into an agile, responsive, and well- equipped military force that can effectively defend Canada and North America; provide support during natural disasters, humanitarian support missions, and peace operations; and offer international deterrence and combat capability. We will continue to work with the United States to defend North America under NORAD, and contribute to regional security within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We will ensure that equipment is acquired faster, and with vigorous Parliamentary oversight. We will put a renewed focus on surveillance and control of Canadian territory and approaches, particularly our Arctic regions, and will increase the size of the Canadian Rangers. Last spring they launched a major review on Canada's defence policy. It was supposed to report to Cabinet by the end of 2016, and be released to the public early this year. I haven't seen the actual document released, so I am not sure what 'early' means. I have however highlighted a bullet point you can attack them on.

Bombardier just got $372.5 million in loans from the federal government. This is a lot less than it asked for a couple of years ago, and it is a repayable loan. Is this a good move by the federal government? Note that the C-Series order pipeline is looking up (many orders received late last year), so this will allow them to tool up to meet demand. Most of the money however is targeted to the Global 7000 business aircraft program that will be going commercial next year.

In testimony before the Senate Defence Committee on November 28th, 2016, Lt. General Mike Hood said: "The government has announced a policy whereby the Royal Canadian Air Force is required to be able to simultaneously meet both our NORAD and our NATO commitments. I am at present unable to do that with the present CF-18 fleet. There aren't enough aircraft to deliver those commitments simultaneously". No reading comprehension problem here.

I bet you there are tens of millions of American's wishing they had an eraser for their ballot.

Juanita Broaddrick claims rape, and Paula Jones claims indecent exposure. There is not much to support either claim, but they are claims of non-consensual actions. Of course there are several other claims of "adultery" but yes consensual.

Don't you mean [tectonic] plate drift?

Just to add to the Trump alternative facts about crime, he recently compared Chicago to the middle east. While I can't find a complete up to date list of US cities with violent crime, Chicago is not in the top 10 from the most recent data. In terms of murder, it sits at #24 on that list.

No, it does not. It support exactly what I said above, the crime rate ticked up slightly in 2015 from the lowest ever in 2014. His claim was that it was highest in the past 47 years with is an outright lie. The highest year was 1980 where it was over twice the rate it was in 2015, they year you refer to.

I though a thread about Presidential alternative facts would be in order, hopefully Greg has some dollars to purchase more storage for this one alone. Today, Trump told a group of about 3000 sheriffs that "the murder rate in our country is the highest it’s been in 47 years". The real fact of the matter is that murder rate is way down, less than half what it was in the 1980 (b.t.w. other violent crime is also way down). It has been declining steadily for years, 2014 was the lowest year and there was a slight uptick in 2015 and the 2016 final numbers are not published as far as I am aware.

There are more sushi restaurants in Toronto then there are Japanese.

Ok, let's try this one on for size: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. How is that working out? More important however is the two-thirds law that is all over the Constitution, but it seems that Trump is encouraging it be ignored for his appointments. Specifically: He [President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The only place that I am aware of a President's appointment only requiring a majority vote is when a new President replaces one (e.g. death or otherwise removed from office), then he/she gets to select a new Vice-President and only requires a majority confirmation from both houses.