H10

I agree with this point, it would comparable if Kennedy said something like the Irish have the right to self determination and to separate from Britain, and he walked around wearing a big cross and big mitre or something silly like that.

Except, there are concerns that Singh might be a seek extremist or nationalist or separatist of some sorts and he doesn't give reassuring statements. In fact, he said he believed all people have the right to self determination as a UN human right = Sikh have right to separate if they want. And how would Singh deal with French Separatist if he believes people have a right to separate. Singh is going to get punked in the debates from both the left and right. I can only just imagine what Scheer is going to say about Singh.

So in your view Singh has no chance in Quebec because of his overt religious symbols? How did he do with delegates from Quebec in the NDP race? You certainly raise a good point, the NDP, federally, is really a Quebec and BC party. Singh is widely popular with Indian groups in Ontario. He is young, charismatic, and charisma goes along way in politics. Trudeau is also charismatic and young, and from Quebec. The problem that the liberals will have outside of Quebec from what I can see, is that in alot of these ridings have ndp and liberal vote splitting in the riding which leads to conservative candidates getting elected. Kinda like how the conservative vote was getting split up across different factions on the right until they united into one party. I could see alot of the Quebec voters going more for Trudeau thanks to Singh overt religiousness and your comments on religion and quebec. The real question will be can Singh sway the toronto suburbs, which are the real battleground and never vote ndp traditionally.

Most of these "native indians" are just white guys pretending to be indians.

It does raise a broader question which non-whites have raised in Canada for a while, Canada has a racist media. They routinely conceal the identities of white criminals, while focusing disproportionately on non-white criminals in the imagery and stories.

Yeah because child rape and fraud are so godly of trump?

I don't see a scenario where he does except by his own cabinet who he has thoroughly alienated. More likely Trump will quit because he realizes he is completely ineffective as a president and cannot push through any of his agenda. Being president is hard work, it is not like inheriting a family business where you can just do whatever you want, whenever you want, play golf all day and go to dinners all night. You actually have to read documents, build realtionships, and do work. Trump is lazy. Why would the democrats impeach Trump and get president pence? How is that an improvement to replace a bumbling bafoon who is wildly unpopular with a relatively intelligent, but vanilla uncharismatic, vice president. If Trump doesn't get primaried by another Republican, which is very likely, I suspect he will get slaughtered in a landslide as long as the democrats run another progressive democrat, even a relatively unknown one. America is a progressive nation, they strongly prefer progressive candidates over establishment ones. We seen this with Obama, an unknown progressive junior senator who beat the wife of what was then a very popular president among democrats and then a very popular Republican senator.

So much for a guy who claims to be pro-canadian, rrejoicing at our jobs going to mexico. Misery index is subjective, has nothing to do with president achievements or conduct. Alot of people felt miserable under Obama because Bush had destroyed the economy and they were homeless, alot of people felt miserable under Carter cause Nixon had practically destroyed America. There are already large portions of wall, walls are ineffective. Most mexican illegals don't cross illegally. They enter America legally under tourist visas or under the guise of visiting family, once they are in they just skip town and don't return. The only people crossing outside the border are people who have already been deported multiple times and get flagged at the border or who don't have enough money to pretend to be a tourist. A wall would not work because the drug smugglers in Mexico have substantial power and access and what they do is tunnel under the walls. Even in Palestine, you have criminal organization tunnelling hundreds of feet under walls that go down to the bedrock. Then it becomes much more profitable to smuggle people too. You want to get rid of crime and drugs, its not going to happen by electing a guy who was on trial for rape and fraud and child rape. The latins would argue, why are Americans buying so much drugs, willing buyer, willing seller. Trump is great on talking but where is the action.

Not really. There are two demcorat parties really. There are the progressive and the "classical liberals" which are basically republicans who are gender confused. These are basically your Hilary Clinton type candidates, they give wishy washy statements on illegals, they claim to be tough on crime, pro open borders, pro foreign trade and usually strong for abortion and and want all kind of weird things like men in women's washrooms. Trump beat Clinton because Clinton is a coward Republican, she believes most of the same things as Trump and is against the working class like Trump, but is too coward to admit it. The voters see right through it.

You know maybe your right, I think this is the fault of the supreme court when they had allowed unlimited money in politics. It meant the wfew politicians around had to simply become huge corporate sell outs, which made Clinton much more competitive than she should have been and Trump.

Yet all those who will complain about California are the first to run off their from hicktown to try to get a real job. California does have real problems, most of them caused by right wing democrats and republicans who realize that there only hope to get elected is to run as a democrat. California is a huge state with a huge population. The worse states for welfare are right wing states where dems have zero chance of election like Mississippi, Tennessee, West Virginia, etc. Cali does have a disproportionately large amount of people on welfare but that is only because its rules for welfare permit children to collect, even when the parents are ineligible, and it also last longer than most other states and it pays more. And what is wrong with welfare, I'd prefer a poor person on welfare than robbing my house or raping for food.

Which you would agree was nothing compared to the much worse oil crisis of 1973? In fact the oil crisis of 1979 had nothing to do with Carter at all as it was the free market reacting to the Iranian Revolution. Explain what exactly was so bad about carter. You see this is what I mean that the Republicans were very good at vilianizing him, so good that you just conclude he is terrible without any facts. Carter took on washington lobbyist, including the ones in his own party, and he tried to bring transparency to a corrupt institution, you think corrupt democrats are going to like Carter? Of course not, alot of democrats in congress wanted Reagan to win because they knew he was corrupt and that Reagan wasn't going to be in a position to assert any moral authority.

Are you forgetting the American economy was in a malaise since the days of Nixon and stagflation? This is precisely what I am talking about, the right wing was very successful at demonizing Carter, but they cannot actually point to anything he did wrong. He inherited a terrible economy, that economist didn't know how to fix that had been ongoing since the days before him. Reagan won because he was an actor, a governor of california, who was charismatic and Americans often prefer style over substance. Carter had alot of issues in his own party, but they stem from him trying to be more transparent which most politicians HATE.

Carter wasn't a bad president, but Reagan, who was an actor, was very good at demonizing him and vilifying him as weak, when it was actually Reagan who ran from terrorist. I do agree the president isn't the sole factor, but this is a Republican congress, and senate with a large number of reich wing extremist. Trump is not reading the intelligence, it is very bad, disaster is ahead. Hopefully the Republicans around him can reign him in and prevent him from doing too much damage.

Such as? I can't think of a worse president. Bush was incompetent but nothing as dangerous as Trump. What economic hegemony, the USA has fallen from 60% of the world's economy who was 70% of consumption down to 18% of the global economy and a much smaller share of consumption.

It is odd when you think of it, Canadian federal politicians basically start from scratch, instead of working their way up like us politicians. America has a large religious nut wing in the bible belt. It is kind of funny that the "religious" "Christian" people are the most bigoted haters in the entire hemisphere.

Well this is frequently used as rhetoric, with Trump, it is not rhetoric, he really is destroying the country. I don't think that America will just collapse overnight, more like slowly collapse, they will not recover, a slow decline, then death.

Yeah the 6 o'clock news is not going to publish it, and the union had been fighting it but ultimately they have no real power to make the curriculum. It is true there are lots of bad teachers who don't care, but many do.

Hilary is a candidate who can literally not win a national election, a ham sandwich would beat her. She is terrible at campaigning, dislikes her base voters

I thought Franklin Pierce was widely acknowledged as the worse president mainly because he bowed down to sedeistionis terrorist who wanted to destroy America and set the background for whimping out to the confederates early on, allowing them to amass weapons and power to set the stage for a future civil war. But Trump will probably rank as the worse president of the 20th and 21st century mainly because he is a grossly ineffective leader. Never mind the policies and rhetoric, Trump's best asset is conning naive poor and ignorant bigoted white voters that he is as racist as they are so they should vote for him. He is quiet bad at politics, I mean he struggled against Hilary Clinton who is widely perceived as the worse candidate the democrats have run in a really long time. That being said, Trump is a bad president because he degrades the office but more importantly he is ineffective, ineffective with his own party, ineffective at pushing through any of his agenda, ineffective at turning any of his ideas into laws, ineffective at working across the aisle or building political alliances, ineffective even within his own administration, he is constantly firing his own members of staff and cabinet. He makes threats, but the countries he is threatening do not even take him seriously so he has substantially degraded the office of the presidency, not even talking about all the lies. Prior to Trump there was just fears that North Korea could one day hit America, hypothetically with a nuclear weapon, under Trump its not a fear, you have the leader of North Korea threatening to do that. TTrump has managed to undo the Iran deal, and he is basically going to turn America into a failed state.

Is English your 2nd language? If racism was just a few here and there with no effect on policing he wouldn't make those comments, why address something that is a non-issue, why is it a SURPRISING ADMISSION of policing has just a few bigots sprinkled here and there like every other job, that is not surprising, why would acknowledging racist police be key to the missing and murdered aborginal people if these 2 racist in the force have no effect. Rather it is quiet obvious to everyone, policing has a racism problem. It has a racist culture, attracts racist whites who like abusing non-whites

Except the data actually coming from police? The un data list no source, so it cannot be relied upon. Especially when it conflicts with the official data from police.

Sure based off of what, was he convicted ? Or is this just a series of allegations?

This is not on teachers or unions, the teachers and unions had fought the provincial government for a decade and the school boards who had made a backdoor deal with book publishers, where book publishers and consultants who finance politicians role out new curriculums like "common core" where instead of kids learning multiplication tables and 10 +12 = 20. Kids are being taught 10 + 12 =20 is wrong, and now you must do 10 +12 = 10 + 10 + 2= 20 +2 = 22. This is the real reason why test scores are falling. The union and teachers cried foul, the government vilinized teachers to the public as lazy and over paid - despite cops, firemen and several other blue collargovernment workers with less education outearning them substantially. This is the price you pay when the public is naive and full of teacher hatred.

I strongly support the 2nd amendment and believe that the attempt to ban bump stocks is an infringement upon the 2nd amendment that is illegal and unethical. It has been shown time and time again that a half decent armed untrained milita is still able to hand consistent losses to large convention armies, ie Russia and USA in afghanistan, usa in vietnam and southern africa, rebels in libya, isis in syria and iraq, Hell, ISIS would have overrun the entire region but for USA, russia and turkey all ganging up on it with assad. We seen in Somalia as well, well armed militas crush western armies including our own. The technology is so good that the assymetrical warfare components has made alot of the fighter and bomber planes not so relevant. The Yemenis have proved that as well. Further most countries do not have soldiers willing to drop bombs on their own people in large enough numbers.