H10

I have a minor in stats, took it for 4 years.. The polls did not underestimate trump. And you cannot combine polls because you have no way to know if you are not double counting.

The evidence shows he is non-white. Ancient Greece was much more racially diverse than you probably thought. Ancient Greeks. Greek culture is not the foundation of western civilization, it is actually middle eastern and african civilizations which are the ones who created Greek culture, language, religion and art. Do you have any evidence of this? Especially given that it was the samis and not germanics who were first in scandinavia.

I thought he actually had less. Nope, Trump did better with Latinos, African Americans etc. Trump garnered 13% of the African American male vote, and 2% more nationally than Romney, and alot of that was concentrated in Detroit, just pushing him over the top there. Trump lost votes in places like Utah, or heavily republican and heavily democratic areas, so it didn't change the EC for him though. Trump brought out unlikely voters, ones who do not usually vote, so it is difficult to poll. How do you calculate a person who hasn't voted for a decade just showing up? I don't think so. People just misinterpreted the results for the us one, the polls were accurate nationally. People errnoeously assumed that winning popular vote = winning election. When this isn't the case. Brexit polling was very close, I recall the poll I saw the night before was within margin of error. In the US there was widespread voting suppression as well, voters being purged last minute, voters being removed from the rolls but did not know it, voted, gave honest answers but it didn't show up in the vote. The polls were not wrong in those case, people told the truth, but their votes were removed without their knowledge. The leader just has to be more charismatic than his opponent. Of course there are other factors like organization or time, establishment, name recognizition, etc. But all else being relatively equal, people choose the more charismatic candidate of the two. George W Bush isn't a hotbed of Charisma, but compared to gore, he is. Using a charismometer

Why don't they make the developers who fund their campaigns pay the taxes on their property instead of being tax exempted? I agree they need to stop stealing from tax payers.

Can you show me some evidence to support this, I thought odin was a god.

Stigma of supporting Trump? I doubt it. He had thousands and thousands of people going to his rallies. The pollsters used the polls on most likely voters, and Trump brought in alot of UNLIKELY voters. Widespread voter suppression in swing states and Gerrymandering also made things alot harder to predict. That makes things hard to project, because when someone has not voted in the last 2 elections, and they show up they are classed as an unlikely voter and not counted in these polls usually. Clinton also had low turnout from likely voters. Also most of the polls were national, and they were largely correct (it is a myth they were wrong) in that Clinton had a national lead as she currently has 48% of the vote compared to Donald's 46%. I did not see alot of electoral college polls, the polls had the swing states in the margin of error so a Trump win was not like something that couldn't happen. It just needed all the stars to align and they did. From what I seen the Brexit polls had stay ahead by like 1-2% points, seems to me to be in the margin of error. The error was not the polls but rather how people misinterpreted them because they don't understand it. They though 48-46% Clinton = Clinton wins, not understanding that the % have to come in the right spots. Sure but why are they unpopular? Lack of charisma comparatively. Harper was unpopular before he even took office. Polls showed Trump was more unpopular than Clinton. People didn't care that he was unpopular and is a constant liar, they are voting for an attitude, for charisma, they don't care he is unqualified and hides his tax returns and is corrupt. It is the same reason people vote in Hitler and Mussolini, charisma can really woo people over easily. If you listen to the Trump voters, their reasons are mostly not logical. It is o Obamacare wasn't working out good for me because the price went too high. Ok, but now it will go higher when it is repealed by republicans. Or, Trump will have to face checks and balances, no he wont he controls all levers of gov't now. The dems did not give me what I wanted for 8 years, yeah but the republicans blocked them in congress and the house for 8 years so you are going to reward them with more seats in government.

What of in the Indian culture, in their mall santa is always brown? What of the Chinese? What of the jews, in their malls there is always no santa? Jews own alot of malls in Canada now, does that mean we get no Santa at all? And what is white culture and traditions? What if the santa dresses in white face or looks white from far away, how much blood quantum classifies a santa as legally white? What if he is 75% white but doesn't look white, or what if he is 50% white and looks white? Wasn't marxism and liberalism invented by white people, so how can you want to keep white culture but throw away white culture at the same time, doesnt wanting to get rid of liberalism and marxism (invented by whites) contradict your position of hanging on to white traditions and heritages?

I agree if this is accurate. It has to do with the more charismatic leader though. Trump was even more unfavourable in polls than hilary. His charisma closed the gap. Trump would lose because Obama has more charisma. Romney would have lost because he is not as charismatic as trump and he would not have gotten 30% of the vote in detroit and the high % of african american and female voters trump did. Harper had 37.6% of the vote in 2011, not 39.6, and Trudeau had 39.5%. Trudeau also had less room to manuever as the NDP got 30% of the vote as compared to just 18% in the previous election. Harper was compartively more charismatic than iggy.

LOL, I laughed at this one, yes, I second your nomination, turban sanata

Go ask them. you asserted there is a white tradition and heritage, and we need to hang on to it, so I am trying to figure out what it is. It was white people who made the paintings in the ancient times of black santa, so I am trying to figure out what tradition are you trying to protect. Are Russians, turks, Italians not white to you? Do they not share your tradition and heritage? The main conflict in Canada has been between Anglos and French (whites). Why are you so hung up on Santa's race, what is the benefit and consequences? I think most Canadians are liberals. The conservative party could never crack more than mid 30s nationally. As we were discussing in the other thread on populism in Canada, a conservative populist party is not viable in Canada. The main supporters of Rob Ford (our closest thing to that) were mainly racial minorities (Indians, Carribeans) combined with poor whites and white working class in Toronto's north and west side. Which is less than 40% white. His main "haters" and "opponents" were white wealthy Torontonians and Hipsters living in the downtown core backed by the elite financing and headed up by John Tory. Canada, unlike many of its European counterparts and the USA, has the reverse issue in that the vast majority of poor Canadians are white as is the majority population. Further, these poor whites are mainly rural and small towners and for whatever reason are not as independent minded as the American counterparts. Ie. where a place like Saskatchewan and Manitoba is home of the socialist NDP and socialized medical care and Canadian socialism because these people cannot exist without big socialist government. Its Southern neighbours like Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and North dakota, are extremely anti-socialist and want none of those things. Then you have the whole east coast which is very dependent on government handouts and saving it plus quebec. I don't see how a Rob Ford style government, could ever work in a national scale or a provincial scale in Canada. Mainly because there are not enough upper middle class minorities to support him or independent minded Canadians who want government to just get out of their way, cut their taxes and stop the gravy train.

Most politicians enter into politics quiet old if they are seasoned. If they are good at their job they can stick around much longer like john chritien but age factor pushed him out. The issue tends to be those type of candidates draw all the air in the room and they leave weak successors. Romney would still have lost because he would not connect to the voters trump did. Trudeau would not have lost those elections, because iggy and dion were deeply unpopular, and lacked charisma. A charismatic candidate like Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan or Eisenhower can easily unseat a sitting president like Bush or Carter or Stevenson type candidates. He wasn't, but he had showed a charisma that Canadians had not seen, that is why he surged in the polls. Mulclair was obviously more qualified, and Harper even more qualified. They picked the most likable candidate.

Why? Everything else about him is lies and made up anyways, Santa died more than 1000 years ago. He lived in Turkey, which back then was extremely diverse, racially, ethnically, religiously, etc. The society he lived in would be probably more diverse than our own. Most people do not see the world from such a heavily race based view as you. Even if Santa was white and died yesterday, there would be people dressing up like him just because he is famous.

What exactly is a white tradition and heritage. Are you trying to suggest whites are a monolithic block with unitary traditions and heritage? And why not ask your mother why Santa was white? Critical thinking means to question everything.

Look at the pictures from the art museum on the first page I presented. Santa was not just portrayed as non-white from political correctness, some of that art goes back to the year 1000 and earlier. Unless your argument is they had pc culture 1000 years ago in Russia and Turkey when I don't even think race existed in its modern form or any form of political correctness. Isn't it the right wing always saying they don't see color and all that jazz. Even if Santa were hypothetically white, why would it matter if you don't see color? Frankly, I don't care what color Santa is portrayed. He was a real person who lived in Turkey, gave away a bunch of gifts and the mythology has become so exaggerated that he lived in the north pole, had flying reindeers and talking snow men, does the change of hue of his skin color really seem far fetched at this point. In some countries in Europe (Austria and Bavaria), Santa is associated with evil demon named Krampus that kidnap and punish children.

What is anti white about it. The whole show is run by white people! Maybe, but then again, alot of original people have straight grey hair too.

See the above comment, Santa was portrayed as African before he was portrayed as white, and this goes back more than a millennia, not "centuries". White people told a lot of lies in the last few centuries on the race of key figures in case you have not noticed. The fact that despite the large historical evidence of Santa as everything but white that they choose to ignore the evidence and pretend their fantasy is real simply shows how not credible they have become in their art. So does being a original santa mean that he is not going to visit pink children now? What is Santa racist only if his skin is brown, is there some forcefield on all white people's homes that stops the chocolate santa from entering but the vanilla santa can pass through it unharmed? The creation of a white Santa was done for inclusiveness. They take a muurish man from turkey of original Ellenic extraction and claim he is white and lives in the north pole and pretend he is white. If anything it is ridiculous to portray him as white when the history and his museums from over 1000 years ago portray him as this. Not white!

Boy, I knew it had to be you, because only you could make such a blatantly false comment. Saint Nicholas was an original person living in Anatolia of original hellenic descent, he was not white and if you even opened your own link you would have seen that he is portrayed in ancient Europe as an indigenous person. On what planet is that white? Other pictures of Saint Nicholas from his museum Notice in the picture Saint Nick is in his coffin and is original in his complexion, and the white people in the left corner have skin nothing like his, you know, it is white and Saint Nick is muurish in skin color Saint Nick was not white but an original anatolian of african descent or a so called "black" person. When white people portray historically original people as white, no one says a peep, it is not political correctness to show a mediterranean Muurish Anatolian as white, but to portray him as historically accurate is politically correct and "Stealing western culture" (which is Ironic because he was born in Turkey not the West). The real question is why have some cultural marxist of today tried to white wash santa clause into being a white guy when they have the pictures showing him as an original muurish afrikan guy? It is almost like there is an agenda here. Is this a case of the lady doth protest too much. You are getting angry Santa Clause is portrayed as African because deep down you know its true and white santa clause is a myth. Frankly, I don't care if people want to show Santa as white,yellow, red or any other skin color, the skin color shouldn't matter, but if we are going to have a discussion on this white people trying to act all indignant like Santa was white is ridiculous

The real question is how did a Turkish middle easterner ever get counted as white and counted as living in the north pole. The multiculturalism is never PC when it is non-white characters being turned into whites, but when white people have thoroughly changed the narrative through political correctness ie reassigning santa clause, jesus, etc as white when they were not, putting it closer to accuracy is pc. You are the marxist. And Western culture and traditions mostly come from Africa and the middle east anyways so get over it. Speaking of Caucasian culture, having been to Russia, I find it funny because whites in Russia, the Slavs, treat the Caucasians peoples like shit and call them black anyways.

You don't think kids have never asked why is Santa white? You don't think those kids parents never had to explain that? Who says the character of Santa Claus is Caucasian?

No I was not. However, as for the leadership race. Liberals had already figured out with Ignatieff and Dion that it was not enough to simply run candidates with good policies. Liberals for the most part share a large view on policies. They came to learn that canadian electorate does not vote policy enough to be able to run good policy and win after having a series of 3 or 4 candidates losing on policy. Just look south of the border, Clinton was policy, Trump was charisma. Charisma won. Clinton was boring and out of touch, Trump was charismatic tv star. Usually the more charismatic candidate wins or makes substantial gains. Liberals learned their lesson that boring candidates would not defeat Harper. You see the problem with liberals historically is that they run candidates like John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter, Hilary Clinton, Walter Mondale and Al Gore and think just because the policy is right the candidate should win. Sorry, most voters do not sit around reading policy details like that. The swing voters who decide elections vote personality, they see the candidates for maybe a total of 5 minutes. And vote for one.

Trudeau was charismatic. I don't see Hall being a better candidate. Mulcair in theory should have won, but his lack of charisma cost him.

Maybe he believes in liberal policies, that is why he is in the party, most of which were crafted by his father. And what is "Real progressive leadership" that he could do but is not doing? Harper was elected because people got tied of so many elections and liberals ran poor candidates. Canada has a different history. In France and Britain and the USA, and Germany, the majority of population was able to benefit from government handouts from literally 100s of years ago that gives them direct benefits today to the point where conservativism can make some sense. In America, you can have a tea party because you have a large contingent of whites who were given free land, free slaves, who produced wealth and labour that had caused them to become so rich they do not have to work. In Germany, you had alot of Germans who got rich off of the Holocaust and all that stolen wealth the Nazis raided from other places. People can benefit off of far right conservatisim, they already got their hand out, so they can draw up the bridge and still be set for life. In Canada, most farmers are still heavily in debt, the farms aren't worth that much, there are no opportunities outside the major cities, and the majority population is frequently poorer than the immigrants coming in who are sustaining the economy from imploding in the four largest provinces. Most Canadians in the major cities and suburbs are immigrants who have seen the damage of far right governments in their own land and are not going to vote that way, so it kills the concept. Look how hard it was for Harper who ran as a moderate right of center candidate to even penetrate the suburbs in toronto which he needed to win just to form a majority. You can elect a far right candidate, go ahead, but it will be primarily the rural and small town whites who will suffer(the far rights presumably base voters). These people are inherently dependent on large government because it is not viable to send electricity out to a place like that in the free market without significant markup.

There will be more taxes, rob ford was right about the gravy train, they will just roll out more and more road tolls.

1) The law is not limited to the charter. Common law is law the clause does not apply to common law but just 3 parts of the charter(not even the entire constitution!) 2) IN communist Russia, but not canada 3) irrelevant 4)Yes it can, but this has nothing to do with that clause! You are not intelligent enough to understand contract law is not in section 2 of the constitution. The clause does not apply to common law doctrines developed by courts.

The ROC has no access to french speakers on a frequent enough basis to ever learn any meaningful amount of French. They would not even understand you asking them to pass them a pencil. Vikings, apaches were here before the English or French, get over it. Also Quebec claims it is its own nation, so did you find the nation or make your own nation? You cannot even lie properly. Yeah but there are only so many emmigrants from france. What did you expect, every France person would leave France for Canada? There are more English speaking people so naturally you'd get overwhelmed. You live on an English speaking continent. it is not cultural genocide, what French did to the natives was cultural genocide, what you are proposing of eliminating new comers culture, and language is genocide. French and natives were married but did the natives get to keep their language? Are french and English not married? Your first link is empty. " After Manitoba joined Confederation, many French-speaking Métis migrated farther West, leaving more space for English-speaking Protestant settlers from Ontario (see French in the West). " French people left the province to go West, no one was genocided. French are immigrants, like everyone else, learn English. Keep on showing your true colors. Denial of slavery and racial slurs, no surprise coming from your racist ilk. O so slaving indians is sooo much better than Africans. Yet 80% of the slavers remained french according to the experts. French were 3rd class citizens, then what were the Africans they denied services and genocided along with the indians they were enslaving? Yes. If FRench are getting it, then we got to give it to every other whiny group. The quote above showed they spread, and they should assimilate they lost the war. French has no special status in the ROC nor should they, don't like it, to bad.