H10
-
Posts
1,140 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by H10
-
-
1 hour ago, WIP said:
I want to throw this one on the pile from a Guardian correspondent. Not sure where he's working out of, but he seems to be bang on in his assessment of Doug Ford and conservative populism:
Just shows that Trump would have gotten the fake universities degree beaten the hell out of him by a socialist candidate like Bernie Sanders. Where Wynne is hilarly Clinton, and Ford is Trump, And Ford is crush Wynne in the polls, despite being unpopular, he is getting his head smashed in by the NDP.
-
2 hours ago, WIP said:
In Hamilton, we had to buy back the city's waste treatment plant and deal with the costs of upgrades after it had all been privatized to some grifter who failed to live up to agreements to upgrade and modernize the facilities after a rate increase. And conservatives wonder why Hamilton is so unfriendly to their market agenda.
Hmm, so that is why Hamilton is so NDP. Yeah, privatize businesses only have 1 obligation which is to extract profit, even if it means the complete destruction of the assets and resources.
-
Just now, WIP said:
I've tried to remind a frequent conservative poster here that it was Conservative or....at least a string of PC governments in the past who set the course for Ontario Hydro, first by prioritizing nuclear sinkholes (with a couple of coal-fired stations) and then coming up with this wonderful privatization idea that created Hydro One and was supposed to get the province out of debt. But that frequent flyer considers everything that happened more than five years ago THE PAST...so I don't bother anymore!
They don't want to talk about selling a $5 billion ighway for $1 billion to a spanish company. Conservatives destroyed the province.
-
Just now, taxme said:
The problem with the MSM in America is that they will not give any good grades for what Trump is doing. They only want to make him always look bad. I guess the reason for that is that the their hero's the dumbocrats have no good ideas themselves as to how to make America great again. Ford cannot be any worse than those two other misfits that like to call themselves politicians. Those two offer nothing be grief and sorrow and more taxes for the taxpayer's of Canada. How can Ford make things any worse than what Wynne has done already? You think that the NDP will be any different than the lieberals? Come on, get real.
What good has Trump done?
Ford doesn't even have a platform in writing and its two weeks before the election. How the hell is he going to run the province, when he can't even make a platform in time?
Ford can make it worse by having no plan causing the shutdown of th eprovince like other hell hole nations run by incompetent right wing leaders.
Ever seen Bulgaria, that is where we are heading under an incompetent leader, they really should have picked someone else to lead.
-
1 minute ago, WIP said:
I'm reminded again that Milton Friedman advised Ronald Reagan and his cabinet back in 1980..when the Dems controlled Congress to just go ahead and slash taxes without trying to fight Congress over spending..and just blow a hole through the deficit. Friedman's reasoning was that as debt levels increased, future presidents of either party would have no choice other than to cut spending on domestic priorities....and this has been a conservative strategy ever since!
This seems more realistic, conservatives create massive deficits through massive spending programs and tax cuts, then claim we have a debt problem, which they created and of course, only conservatism can stop. It is a pretty clever plan when you think about it. Create a problem, then claim you are the only solution to the problem you made. That would be like a tire store owner who also owns a sprinkler/security company slashing tires at night and burning down other tire shops to get business and the only solution of course is to hand him your money.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Rue said:
By the way H10 I am like most Ontarians smack in the centre and I want Wynne out and I think Rae's NDP era was a disaster and I think Horvath's wishful thinking promises of more spending is insulting but I do think its resonating. Ford represents going on a diet, Horvath more over-eating. Ironically they are both chubby and talking o chubby Ontarians who are not in the mood to be told go on a diet. I will admit she is doing a good understated job. Then again Ford is nice and toned down. Both of them have avoided name calling for the most part.
Ford will increase spending like Harris and Eves. The debt will increase no matter who wins.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/onvotes/poll-tracker/
Notice how, on the poll tracker even though it shows the two parties pretty close to equal in the poll, it still shows PC with an 81% chance of winning a majority, and 5% chance of winning a minority? There's a reason why that is.
Yes, because for now, the NDP vote is concentrated as the last few liberal holdouts debate if they should for NDP or hope Liberals come back, but come election day, you are going to see a orange wave. For now, the conservatives have narrow broader support as the Liberals voters are shifting into NDP. When that shift is complete, NDP will win ridings they never had a chance to win before.
-
1 hour ago, Centerpiece said:
Good to see so many despondent posters jump back into the fray. I think the last poll by Forum was an outlier with the NDP at 47% - but there's no doubt it's a real horse race. It appears neck and neck right now. The PCs tend to have a very good ground game to get the vote out so that might give them a bit of an advantage. All told, who the heck knows what's going to happen? This is Ontario - home of the self-flagellating masochists. The interesting side show is that in order to actually win, the NDP would have to pummel/destroy/annihilate the Liberal vote - which more than likely would cause them to lose party status.
Expect to see an orange tidal wave. With the liberals have no chance of winning, who would bother to vote for them? Liberals voters are left wing, NDP are left wing, and have a chance to win, why vote for a party with no chance to win? Half the liberal voters always just voted for liberals because ndp historically had no chance to win. Ford will block a minimum wage increase which will hurt 1.5 million workers. That alone is equivalent to the Hudak fire 100,000 people gaff in my mind. Who the hell is going to vote for a pay cut?
-
7 minutes ago, taxme said:
I can't see how any political leader can win if they say(Horvath)that they want to make Ontario a sanctuary province. Only self-flagellating masochists would vote for a foolish talking person like that and I am pretty sure that liberals would have no problem with the idea of making Ontario a sanctuary province. It would be in their interest to try and get the ethnic vote.
I don't agree with sanctuary province, let them become citizens and pay taxes like everyone else.
-
1 minute ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
That's why polls matter so much in our FPTP system. If they want their vote to count, Liberals have to dump their party and move left just as NDP voters moved right in the general.
Which is precisely what they will do, no one is going to waste a vote on liberals come election day. It will be an NDP landslide to block a bad candidate as liberal voters all run away.
-
People who think Horwath cannot win don't get it. There are 3 parties who get 95% of the vote. The conservative vote is 40%, which is basically their ceiling. The rest of the voters are left wing. Now that they see Wynne cannot win, the 20% of liberal supporters will abandon ship and vote NDP, which is why they are now tied at 37% with cons now. Expect a NDP landslaide as liberals abandon ship and try to block Ford.
-
1
-
-
So in true PC style, Doug ford stepped on his own d*ck right before the election by trying to sign up phony members for a whit elady with an indian name, kinga surma.
-
8 hours ago, betsy said:
Surely there are immigrants from Europe who can speak English or French?
Of course, that isn't the problem, the problem is the immigrants from Europe who speak English or French tend to be either immigrants themsleves from Africa/Arabia/Asia and won't suit your racial liking or are white people speaking 3-4 languages with substantial wealth and connections and have no interest in moving from a highly developed society where they occupy a uniquely advantageous position to a backwater like Canada. Do you understand that in a city like Oslo which would be considered small by Europe standards of 500,000 people had more subway stops than Toronto when I visited it 10 years ago? Do you understand that despite heavy snowfall buses still come every 2-3 minutes and if a bus breaks down, another one is there as relief in 5-10 minutes? Do you understand that even Canada's most advanced cities are at least a decade behind in infrastructure than the rest of the developed world? The trains that Toronto brags about being not cart trains, I was riding them a decade in France before they had them in Toronto. The idea of no tickets or tokens but prepay before ride, all existed in europe decades before.
Ultimately, I must conclude you have never travelled to another developed nation other than Canada or maybe USA.
8 hours ago, betsy said:As far as I know, Canada is an attractive destination for immigrants! Yes, we trail the US - but between the two of them - this side of the continent is attracting immigrants......so I don't know where you base your opinion.
Attractive to who! Attractive to third world immigrants from brown nations where the standard of living is like India where people poo in the streets or South Korea where people work themselves to death for a similar wage. When I was in Spain, people do not even work for 3 hours of the work day but sleep from 2-5. Essentially they have a 4-5 hour workday. I saw the same thing in Norway, most offices are really just open from 9-2:30, people take 2.5 hour lunches between 11 and 1:30. The concept of face time doesn't exist in many nations in the reigon of the world. I knew several Canadians who MOVED to Norway because the standard of living is substantially higher. You earn more money, for doing less work.
8 hours ago, betsy said:It shouldn't be about numbers! It shouldn't be about colors, either! There's nothing wrong with white people, as long as they also meet the criteria!
What's the point of getting immigrants if you're getting people who'll be relying on welfare most, if not all of the time? That's what doesn't make any sense!
Your entire mind on this issue is in an unrealistic place. 1. Brown people will work harder because they come from countries with no welfare state and if you do not work you die of starvation and sleepon the street. Its not like Canada where you can collect a welfare check. 2. White people come mostly from Europe and value a more balance of life and work. Even in Europe/Britain they had to get Carribean immigrants to rebuild Britain because British whites refused to do the work for years, hence the current windrush generation scandal in the UK. 3. What white person under 30 do you know who wants to work on Christmas and holidays, most of the whites I know want work-life balance, they don't want to work 18 hours a day. 4. White people do not want to immigrate to canada because Canada has a lower standard of living than most white nations. USA, Australia are richer. West Europe is more developed, has better transit and lower wages and more realistic wage-price levels. If you want to live within waking distance of the main streets, just a quick glance showed me that you could get a 2 bed room, 2 floor condo in the central district of london within walking distance of old street subway station for 500k pounds =750k cad. 750 cad will just buy you an average 2 bedroom downtown Toronto, not even the good parts.
What you are basically asking is peeople from white majority nations in Europe to leave a higher standard of living, to live a lower standard of living to "save" Canada from brown people. Which will likly just cause Europe to collapse faster, then what? Where do we get more whites from then? Europeans are smart enough to know Canada is doomed so they are stayng away.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, betsy said:
That's the problem. Due to our ageing population - we don't have the time! We can't rely or gamble on refugees (in the meantime, we'll be supporting parents who can't work)! We have to get qualified people who can work NOW, through immigration!
Refugees should just be for temporary status unless they meet the criteria to become permanent.
No immigrant with qualifications and speaks English is going to come to Canada in large numbers. It just doesn't make sense for them. We tried that already but we couldn't hit even 10% of our target for immigrants that way. Any English speaking educated person will probably be more successful in another country than canada. Canada is not all that developed as many canadians think it is. The standard of living is not as good as other countries, and it is cold. The only people who are dumb enough to come here in large numbers are people with poor English, refugees, and people who aren't that bright. If our government could attract first world english speaking smart people in large numbers, they'd do it, they can't, we are not that competitive. There is a reason why Australia and Canada have almost the same WHITE population. Canada is behind, even other white nations.
-
8 hours ago, betsy said:
I don't mind immigration. But the problem with the Liberals, they bring in more to care for than those who'd be productive. Even someone with a pea-size brain will know it's impossible to find work if you cannot speak English (and/or French).
As for refugees, it should be just a temporary status.....unless they meet the criteria to become permanent.
Taking in refugees is a not done primarily for immediate economic gain, it is a long term play, their many kids will grow up here and earn incomes and work jobs.
They will learn the language, its easiest to learn through immersion.
-
15 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:
With respect to that...
He is Armenian. Does that count as white? What about Turk, Iranian or Northern Indian. Because sometimes I see these ethnicities referred to as white and other times I see them referred to as "people of colour".
Same with Elliot Rodger. He is half asian, but is referred to as white by the media. Yet often I see the media refer to half asian people as "people of colour". Barrack Obama is also half white, but is never referred to as white. It is all very confusing.
In any case, this terrorist attack doesn't seem to have much to do with race. Rather, it is related to the incel ideology.
Well most of the Armenians call themselves white, they are technically west asians and not Europeans but most people cannot tell they are non-whites and many of them are mixed with white anyways. Turks, Iranians, Indians etc. rarely are white passing. Most are some kind of brown.
Rodgers looked more to the white side, and was basically white passing and tried to identify as white. Obama was not white passing and American society is marked by a strict racial hierarchy and racial class system which aims at keeping African Americans on the bottom. So they typically class any non-white passing person as not white.
iT IS ABOUT RACE, HE CANNOT BE a terrorist because he is white.
-
9 hours ago, Argus said:
Drivel. Much of the 'huge surplus' was diminished in a spurt of spending Chretien made before he was replaced by Paul Martin. This was done out of spite, so Martin would have less money to buy votes for. The economy was not in recession when this surplus was run up. In fact, Chretien ran big deficits during the first few years of his reign because of recessions. The economy turned into a deep recession two years after Harper was elected due to the US financial crisis.
This is more nonsensical drivel. Trudeau ran up huge deficits, and handed one to Mulroney - along with sky high inflation and unemployment. That was what Mulroney had to deal with.
Again, you're ignoring the world financial crisis, and also ignoring the had a minority, and that the opposition were united in demanding a huge economic incentive spending porgram.
Trudeau just ran up a deficit. We have had deficits every year of his time in office and even the Liberals admit they have no plans to ever stop borrowing money.
When Harris took over he was handed a huge deficit. You don't reduce those overnight. It took a few years of cutting to get to a surplus position.
It is obvious you are making up facts that are clearly contradicted by the charts.
-
On 4/23/2018 at 12:14 PM, Argus said:
Actually, even your own chart points out that he only had one year of bad deficits, and they were lower every successive year. Your own chart also shows that Mulroney's biggest deficit was the year he took over - because of what he inherited from Trudeau. And both he and Harper were dealing with deep recessions. As for your statement the liberal-ndp 'blocked him' from insane deficit spending, that's so much drool on a keyboard. The liberals-ndp actually tried to take over as the government because Harper wasn't spending enough on economic incentives, and their only complaint about his spending afterward was it wasn't high enough. What's more, his deficits dropped every year until balance was achieved.
Are you reading the same charts? I think you are reading it incorrectly, read it again. Harper was handed a gift economy then, he was give a huge surplus in a recession, that just shows how strong the liberals were economically! Mulrooney ran up big deficits from incompetence, while the 80s was booming he found a way to destroy the nation. Harper shouldn't have had any deficits!! He took a surplus position and destroyed it, then you want to complement him for fixing the mess he created!
On 4/23/2018 at 12:14 PM, Argus said:What's Trudeau's excuse for running deficits again? Oh, right, you got nothing.
There is none, because Trudeau just ran a 2 billion dollar surplus, duh
On 4/23/2018 at 12:14 PM, Argus said:Why? Your link proves my point.
Your own link shows net debt skyrocketed under the NDP, then dropped under Harris, then skyrocketed under the Liberals. But of course, this is somewhat deceptive since it doesn't point out how Harris brought the spending under control and achieved a balanced budget, while the Wynne Liberals increased program spending well above inflation and population growth to pile the debt ever higher.
The chart showws that the net debt under harris went from 100 billion to 150 billion in such a short time, how is that any success. Worse of all that was during the booming 90s!
-
This muslim Terrrorist, we need to investigate all muslims and find the root cause of this muslim culture...
opps he is white.... so he cannot be a terrorist, he is just deranged individual and no need to look into his connections further.
-
13 hours ago, Argus said:
Your version of history is at odds with reality.
No, deficits were bigger under Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien. And it was the recession which turned a surplus position into a deficit.
Harper ran extremely large deficits, of all the surpluses, all but 2 come under the liberals, and of the 2, they are Harper'sfirst 2 years in minority government, when the liberal-ndp blocked him from insane deficit spending.
13 hours ago, Argus said:Funny how the Parliamentary Budget Officer said in a report that income inequality in Canada had risen steadily until Harper took over, and then declined steadily throughout his time in office. The PBO credited taxation changes the Harper government made, which benefited poorer and middle class people.
Show me that link.
My information shows Harper as the 2nd worst.
13 hours ago, Argus said:Wynne's own Auditor General says he's cooking the books, lying about her borrowing and budgets. So does her own Financial Accountability Office. The Liberals have increased program spending over 71% and doubled the deficit, not because of a recession but because of increased program spending.
Thus everything you're saying is demonstrably nonsense.
Actually Harris really ruined the economy when you look at how short his tenure was an how he doubled the debt. The pace of debt growth is the same under the liberals as the conservatives, they been in office twice as long and have done per year, the same as the conservatives, while maintaining a higher service level and not gutting the basic protections.
-
13 hours ago, taxme said:
The only way that Canada can keep up it's majority white population is by cutting back on non-white immigration. It is said that the reason for Canada's decline in white population is because white people are not having that many children anymore. I think that white people are doing their fair share of having enough white children but what is probably off setting that is that there are massive amounts of non-whites than whites immigrating to Canada that is making appear as though whites are not having children.
Who will pay for all the old white people's social security and retirement? You know the government run ponzi scheme needs tax payers. Also if you stop letting in non-whites just know that you are going to have many school closures and teacher's being laid off like we seen in Toronto. The high prices have basically barred most non-whites who weren't in the market 5 years ago from buying in there. So now schools are laying off teacher's because there are no kids in the classes for them.
So are you fine with paying their EI, their welfare when they cannot find work and are you fine with schools shutting down and white middle class workers losing jobs, houses, cars etc?
Also the real estate market will probably implode without all the foreigners coming in to prop it up, and the cost of transit and basically every shared resource in the city will rise too, including property taxes as there will be fewer payers.
White people are not having that many children, the reality is, there are very few whites who have even 3 kids. The closest I've seen to whites with more than 1-2 kids are white passing conservative jews who don't work, take welfare and have like 8 kids.
"Let's see, your great-grandfather was 1 of 7 children. Your grandmother was 1 of 4 children and you are 1 of 3 kids. You are thinking of having 1 or 2 kids, or, if you happen to be a statistician, that's currently an average of 1.61 children per woman."
"Despite some fluctuations, the total fertility rate in Canada has been below the replacement level for over 40 years. In fact, 1971 was the last year the replacement-level fertility of 2.1 children per woman was reached—meaning that couples, on average, had produced enough children to replace themselves."
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014002-eng.htm
And back in 1971 Canada was still over 90% white.
I don't know what planet or stats you have been looking at, but I find it rare to encounter a white couple with more than 1 kid. 1.61 means that the average white family is probably down to 1 kid right now, and the .61 is coming from Natives, Arabs, jews and other immigrants like latinos who come here with 8 kids. Most white females I know don't want more than 2 kids, and after they have the first one decide it is too hard to raise a 2nd kid and child birth is too difficult. I also notice many older white females trying to have kids in their 30s after drinking for decades and then can't have kids. I also notice many women getting c-sections or who are overweight so it becomes physically dangerous for them to even have another child after their first. I also notice many white females marrying and dating other races so many of them are having non-white kids. I haven't even counted all the gays and lesbians who are disproportionately white. I know so many white females obsessed with their careers in some big company that they will go infertile before any man ever gets a chance to ever impregnate them. They think men will want them forever, but it is not true. Are you going to try to have kids with the 37 year old white female who spent her best years sleeping with every non-white man in town and the entire football team and now has excessive demands due to her "high standards". I even notice many white men now dating yellow women as a result.
Canada is a failed state for white people, we should just enjoy the decline.
-
15 hours ago, taxme said:
There are plenty of white people still immigrating to Canada. But those numbers have been limited because Canada has a policy of wanting more non-white immigration than white. Why would non-white people want to immigrate to Canada if it is a failing nation than? So why would the non-whites go from a failing nation to another failing nation? Explain that one to me if you can?
Canada's immigration policy prefers white immigrants over others. Just look at how they are going to France for French teachers, even though most French teachers are actually in Africa not France. There is a lower standard of living in India, Africa, China than Europe, so they are more likely to leave a poorer country to come to Canada, despite all the drawbacks. If you are making $30 a week as a teacher in India, it makes sense to move to Canada and make much more. If you are making $50,000 a year in France, why move to canada for the same pay?
15 hours ago, taxme said:I don't believe that one million french people are going to want to come to Canada. Maybe a thousand or so but not millions. Besides, the way Canada keeps bringing in way more non-whites than whites into Canada why would they want to come to Canada? They would be walking into the same non-white immigration mess.
Exactly, they aren't dumb, so this is the real issue.
15 hours ago, taxme said:So you do admit that Canada is now a failing multicultural state all thanks due to multiculturalism and thus by bringing in more non-whites things can only get worse, right? There is no concern that millions of Europeans are going to immigrate to Canada every year. It may and could happen but it won't happen. Our politically correct and pro-multicultural non- patriotic leaders are dedicated to seeing that more non-white come to Canada than white people. Like I already said just look at some citizenship ceremony and you will see that there are more non-whites than whites in the crowd. I would like to have millions of Norwegians move to Canada but I also would not want to see millions of Norwegians leaving Norway. That would open the door for the Muslims to take over. Europe does not need an Islamic country in it's midst. That would be a recipe for disaster.
You are demanding an impossible scenario. If whites mass leave Europe to try to keep Canada's white numbers up, the whites back in Europe will become numeric minorities.
-
18 hours ago, Argus said:
Harris inherited a financial disaster after the NDP and Liberals plunged the province into deep deficits. You don't simply take over and slash spending to no deficits overnight. But he did slash spending year by year to reach a surplus position. When Chretien took over he ran up huge deficits for the first several years in office, too. Harper ran surpluses until the worsts economic downturn in decades and the opposition (then the majority in parliament) demanded a massive economic spending program. That is the time to run deficits if you must. What's Trudeau and Wynne's excuse now?
No he didn't he left the province with double the debt he inherited, he never ran a surplus at all. Harper took the largest Surplus into Canadian history and turned them into the largest deficits. Harper destroyed the nation by cutting too much taxes for the mega rich, so now the Liberals are trying to clean up his mess to restore financial order. Same for Wynne. Harris destroyed the province, which is why it took decades for anyone to even begin to trust conservatives again.
-
9 hours ago, taxme said:
What do you mean that Canada wasn't always a white majority? Who settled and built this country? Asians or Africans or Arabs? Fyi, it was majority white when this country was founded.
Canada may have been white majority in 1867, it really depends on who is being counted. Are we counting just formal citizens, are we counting Indians, Africans etc. In many times in the 1800s and before Canada was white minority. The country was built off of slavery and slavery money, settled by many people.
9 hours ago, taxme said:They do okay for now because they have either given up or never did care and have just learned to live with it for now. When Toronto and Ontario becomes a majority non-white province I would think that things than will not be okay for old whitey. Then there could be some form of racial cleansing going on where old whitey will either have to stay and live with the changes or leave because they will not be in the majority anymore and will have to live under other foreign cultures and laws that will be forced on them. Do you actually believe that everything will be alright for old whitey when they become a minority in their own province? You better think twice about that one.
Yes, old whitry will be fine as a minority. Plus, even if ONtario don't work, we have what 9 other provinces? I mean old whitey is doing ok in Yukon, NWT and Nunavut and they are white minority.
9 hours ago, taxme said:So, just move, eh? Typical of most whites. Instead of fighting for what is their's they would prefer to give it up and hand it over and run away from the problem. This is why Canada is fast becoming a nonwhite majority country with attitudes like that. Moving to countries like Australia or America won't work because they are having the same immigration problem as Canada is having today.
Curious. Are you aware of anything that is going on in Canada or the rest of the world today? Just wondering? Personally, I really don't think that you have a clue at all. Just saying.
Isn't you position hypocritical? You want whites in Europe to give up their own country and fight for canada which is not even historically white majority, but then you are mad some whites will move in Canada fails? America has 200 million white people. Even if all 110 million mexicans moved to USA, it would still be white majority. America will always be white majority, nothing bad can happen, you are just blowing things out of proportion.
And Canada don't have an immigrant problem, if you don't like immigrants just avoid the 4-10 largest metros. Even London, Hamiliton and Windsor are very white places.
What is "going on in Canada"
Doug Ford - leader of Ontario PCs
in Provincial Politics in Canada
Posted
Trump has raised taxes, not cut them. He cut them for billion dollar corporations and raised them on the middle class, the rich and the poor. Unemployment was falling before he even entered office, he inherited a good economy, it will take him 1-2 years to destroy it.
So why should we vote for Ford if we have no clue what he will do since by your own admission he is lying.
The cons are incompetent and usually on drugs or like harris, ford, etc. They sell off public assets for pennies on the dollar, and run up high debt, while INCREASING taxes. Their goal is usually complete destruction of the middle class. Their goal is to turn Canada into fascist states in latin America with no rights.
Bulgaria is considered right wing and fascist.