Centerpiece

The Liberals have been desperate from the start - but I don't see any choice for them but to try in any way they can to mitigate their losses......and that means trying to get SOME votes back from the NDP. I have no idea how they'll do it but they've proven that nothing - absolutely nothing, is beneath them. Fasten your seat belts.

Interesting Liberal conundrum. They are in such danger of being decimated - even losing party status - that they now have no choice but to abandon attacks on Ford and throw the kitchen sink at the NDP. Wynne is fighting for the party's political life.

Trudeau is embattled in Canada and an embarrassment on his global travels. Reminds me of what Harry Neale once said - coach of the Vancouver Canucks when they had a really bad hockey team: "We can't win at home, we can't win on the road - and quite frankly, I can't think of anywhere else to play!".

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.

Why isn't Hamas storming the Egyptian border blockade? How come we never hear of violent confrontations there? It's rhetorical - but really, it would be refreshing for the media to make that distinction. By the way, does anyone know how Egypt's 30 foot high Iron Wall is coming along - the wall to keep Palistinians from breeching the border or tunneling under ?

Our PM continues to embarrass Canada........even the US media realizes this Emperor has no clothes. If you read the entire article, you'll find that the Washington Post is very willing to say those things that Canadians see - but our media fail to put in the clear terms of this article.... Late correction: the article is actually written by a Vancouver author - not a US author - but nonetheless, you have to read a US paper to confirm what many of us already know. Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/05/17/justin-trudeaus-appallingly-dishonest-speech-to-nyu/?utm_term=.5aac8a626b7c

Both have their advantages - they are not useless degrees.....but you need to figure out which one suits your innate skill-set. We're not talking about a job - we're talking about a career - with luck, it's something you'll be doing for a good portion of your life. It's often said "if you love what you are doing, you'll never work a day in your life". Urban and Regional Planning sounds very interesting and if you think you'd really enjoy it, go for it. But first, do some research and see what jobs are out there in your niche - perhaps scour Indeed and Monster and find some Job Descriptions - see if they motivate you. Below is a link that might be some help. Best of luck. Link: http://www.canadianbusiness.com/lists-and-rankings/best-jobs/2016-urban-planner/

A little verbose - but pretty accurate.

There have been a few mis-steps in the Ford campaign that have been labelled as "scandals" by the media. The 407 scandal, the fundraiser scandal, etc. CBC and The Star have been trying to make hay in saying that the NDP are charging ahead and closing the gap. In fact, the CBC Poll tracker simply shows that the NDP are winning over some of the Liberal vote. The Conservatives have actually gained a bit, and the NDP have lost a bit overall. Much like with Rob Ford and the Toronto Mayoral campaign, it appears the more that the media try to taint Doug, the better he will do. Here's the latest CBC Poll Tracker: Link: https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/onvotes/poll-tracker/

I clinked earlier - but just had a tea and clinked. Good old Bowell. I went to elementary school in Montreal. People may be surprised that the school system was very British - we sang God Save the Queen - but more relevant, we had a good grounding in Canadian history - including all the Prime Ministers. I have to admit - I had to refresh myself on Mack Bowell. I found this website to have good, straight forward summaries on all our PMs. All I can say about our current school system and students is "Why can't they be like we were - perfect in every way.......". Link: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/sir-mackenzie-bowell/

No - we won't move on. I DID say triple the spending and I was wrong and you are right - I did mean triple the deficit as you can clearly see from my response. Goes to show that words matter. Now we can move on.

I was actually being nice to Mr. Trudeau. Inn his campaign, Trudeau outlined a "fully costed" platform with deficits of $9.9 billion in his first year in office in 2016-17, $9.5 billion in 2017-18, $5.7 billion in 2018-19, with a $1 billion surplus in 2019-20 in the fourth and final year of his election mandate. That's a total of $25 billion in debt, give or take. Then came Trudeau's March, 2017 budget showing deficits of $23 billion, $28.5 billion, $27.4 billion - and finally $23.4 billion instead of his stated "cast in stone" balanced budget. That's a total of just over $100 billion of debt, give or take - FOUR times what he promised. And worst - the deficits will continue unabated for years. If you were ready to agree that tripling the budget was "drunken sailor" territory, I'd be curious to know what label you'd attach to this kind of spending. Outrageous comes to mind. Link: http://torontosun.com/2017/10/11/trudeau-by-the-numbers-theyre-bad/wcm/cbd1b9d5-8d0e-4ce9-b3a2-0e2da1b980a2

1) It's not only actual governments - it's the policies and principles of NDP parties who have tried to win power. If you have to go back to before 1990 to find an example of "sensible", I can only encourage you to note that times have changed in the past 50 years. 2) Glad you agree that Mulroney and Harper were "conventional" PMs. Throw in Brad Wall and Ralph Klein as well. And it's not about "attacking" the deficit - it's about having a plan that returns us to within shouting distance of a balanced budget. 3) You're just believing what the Liberals say - and that alone should give you pause to dig a little deeper. When they got into power and tripled their spending - they substituted their "modest deficits" tag-line for reducing their debt-to-GDP ratio. A clever fall-back. If your growth in spending is in step with the growth in GDP, you'll at least be able to tread water on the ratio. Two critical exposures with that plan - aside from the fact that Trudeau's ratio is already beginning to creep upwards - not down. One: spending growth is already outpacing GDP growth - and of course, there is no guarantee that we will have a steadily growing economy - we are in precarious global times. There's a huge exposure for a rising debt-to-GDP ratio. Two: Deficits can be made up of one-time expenditures (like infrastructure) or be the result of bigger government (structural deficit). Harper as an example - spent billions on one time short term infrastructure investments and thus was able to pivot back to a balanced budget. Trudeau has failed to keep his promise on infrastructure and instead, is growing the size of government. So it's not necessarily how much you spend - it's how you spend it.

Who knows. You may prove to be right but history shows that the NDP always has policies (they seldom form government) that veer heavily to spending and deficits. Conservatives tend NOT to veer TOO far from balanced budgets. Choices are tough at all levels. You could take the Trudeau route - promise not to spend too much - and then go crazy like a drunken sailor. Or if you're a cynic, you could say Ford is promising a bunch of spending that he KNOWS he will not be able to deliver. I'll settle for the person who will err on the side of NOT spending. Would be nice to have better choices, wouldn't it. Maybe Bill Davis can come out of retirement?

Not really a threat - just a logical fact. It's a popular mantra - tax the rich. It's the other side of the simplistic populism that people accuse Doug Ford of using. Point is, the higher taxes get, the more a "behavioral" effect comes into play. Accountants are pretty smart and the "rich" pay them for advice. What behavior might come into play - aside from legal accounting/investment changes that might come into play? Retire early? Work less hours? Find more ways to defer income? Move to another Province (but not Somalia)? And who says the Tax the Rich mantra will end with the Ontario NDP's "chip in a bit more" euphemism. Trudeau's Liberals are heading into the financial ditch - how long before they try to pull the same shenanigans? One thing is certain - the NDP would NOT pull in as much revenue as planned - because of that behavioral push-back. As I said, it's the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Several things not to like relating to this topic - and a lot of it goes to the Multi-Culturalism/Melting Pot argument. Some of it goes to dual citizenship. Some of it goes to hyphenated citizens. I dislike the term "white pride" as much as any of the other "prides". I understand Argus' frustration and there is a lot of truth behind "celebrating" other races/creeds and somehow being embarrassed to tout our own. The answer though is not in using a megaphone for our white pride - it's to get our country back to the basics that have become distorted by Pierre Trudeau's multi-cultural experiment. Perhaps the concept had some academic relevance but it has taken on such a grotesque form that we are now apologizing for much of Canada's history - while at the same time, putting up roadblocks that forestall and inhibit the Melting Pot. Truth is we need both concepts: multi-culturalism to allow different cultures to feel welcome - as they themselves make generational commitments to climb into the Melting Pot. All connected by Canada's history, our Constitution, our Charter Rights AND responsibilities, and our shared values of peace and good governance. Do away with Dual citizenship and hyphenated Canadians. It should be PERSONAL pride. We won't be ready to take infant steps towards a "global" society until we get our own house in order first.

It SHOULD be enough. Wynne has played so fast and loose with the books that it's hard to know where things stand to start with - so a complete audit of the books is ia good place to start. NOT making all those desperate Wynne promises - and being the only candidate with aspirations to move towards to a balanced budget is the foundation of a decent platform. As for Horwath.....as nice a person as she seems to be, she's already tipped her hand as a Tax & Spender. We simply can't afford it. Period. As for Ford being a "populist", Justin Trudeau is probably the most twisted populist that Canada - perhaps even the Western World has ever seen. Modest deficits? Populism - and an outright lie. End to FPTP? Populism - and an outright lie. Transparent governance - Sunny Ways? Populism - and an outright lie. An end to Harper's embarrassing emission targets? Populism - and an outright lie. There are plenty more examples of course - all cleverly made to pick off segments of voters - and leave them high and dry. So - I couldn't care less if Ford decides not to present a detailed platform/plan. Just don't promise the world - and I want him to keep his word that once in power, to provide a plan to balance the budget by the end of his first term.

Tax the Rich? If people only knew........it's called killing the goose that laid the golden egg (AKA the law of unintended consequences).. Link: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/measuring-the-distribution-of-taxes-in-canada

Darn - you were doing so well and then you stepped in it. I can understand why the populist Left would despise poverty dropping - because it takes away one of their hand-wringing issues - but why would the Right despise the drop? I'm on the Center/Right and I think it's good news even though more can be done. As for why it's dropping - there are a variety of factors - technology, education and a lessening need to have huge families in poorer countries to name just a few. As for Global trade - the Right has always advocated trading relationships outside our borders - Mulroney on Free Trade, Harper with numerous bi-lateral agreements and the groundwork for the TPP. Quite obviously, it's trade unions on the Left that are loathe to "compete and engage with people outside our borders".

Almost all western countries have found a way to do so. They had mature discussions and have developed legislation (call it Abortion Law if you have to) that provides a compromise between a woman's right to choose and society's aversion to later term abortions - but also the trauma that younger people can carry for the rest of their lives and the consultation that could help mitigate that. Could be that doctors have the mandatory responsibility to have children under 16 meet with a counsellor who can protect their privacy but provide them with the calm. rational introspection that they need. I don't pretend to have the whole solution - I just know there is an issue that should eventually be addressed.

Socialist talk or not - it's your opinion and it should be respected. Your parent/child relationship may be strong enough to lead to a successful outcome - but in many cases, children are "afraid" to tell their parents because they'll be perceived as being "bad". Early teens have such a small world that such a profound trauma can drive them into isolation. Not all parents wish to "impose their will". Third party facilitators can play a role in gauging the situation and doing what's best for the child. But in order for that to happen, a government has to have aspirations to provide easy access to these facilitators with the goal of involving the parents where it makes sense to do so. As with every issue, there is no one-size-fits-all policy but with this one - it's trying to do what's best for the child - not to stand back and put the decision on a teenager under the simplistic guise of a woman's right to choose or right to privacy.

Parents raise their kids in different ways so it's not right to judge your way. I personally think it's important that the decision be up to the child - because it's a decision they have to live with for the rest of their life, one way or the other. 13, 14 or 15 is too young to have the perspective that so-called grown-ups have but I think as parents, it's up to us to provide as much perspective as we can to help in their decision - the various pros and cons of having - or not having a child. It would be just as heart breaking to hear your finally-grown-up child say "Daddy (or Mommy) - why didn't you tell me?". Seems to me that's what Doug Ford was trying to say - and that's why I agree with him. But you have to admit - that seemingly rational approach is being judged and criticized by the usual suspects - instead of being respected.

It would seem that way to a socialist. It's one of the core ideological differences between socialists and left-leaning Liberals vs. Conservatives and more traditional Liberals. The Left includes anyone who they consider "economically challenged" in their poverty industry - constantly using the Low Income Cutoff as their minimum benchmark - even when Stats Canada warns them not to do so. Age 15 to 21 and trying to make a few bucks in your first job? You are poor. Can't afford all the cable channels? You're poor. Elder seniors living on their own - no need for new clothes, commuting or the like but under the LICO - you're poor. My Mom is one of those - and she's having a heckova good time. The cycle of true poverty can never be completely broken - there will always be people who fall between the cracks - or choose to fall between the cracks. But the cycle can be "managed" and the damage minimized - by concentrating our efforts and funding towards those who are truly in need. No one should suffer by not having a roof over their heads or food in their belly or clothes on their back. True poverty is a terrible thing and a compassionate society has no place for it. Socialism's huge net wastes funds on those who don't really need it and some who don't deserve it - at the expense of those who do. There is nothing wrong with working a second job, or sharing an apartment, or living at home a bit longer and having the responsibility and pride to support themselves. So yes - it would be an obvious claim to you, Slick.

That's a pretty wild claim - do you have anything at all to support it?

What does it take to make people understand that Iran cannot be trusted? They count on Western "diplomacy" to give them time and advantages to continually take two steps forward and only one step back. Take the 4 "de-escalation" (AKA ceasefire) zones in Syria agreed to be Iran, Russia and Turkey. The Iran-backed Syrian government respected some but not others - and only when it was advantageous to do so. By respecting one or two of the zones (no fighting), they could move their fighters and equipment to other ceasefire zones and break the agreement. Give them an inch and they take a mile - and that's what the naive Iran/EU/US deal did - as Israeli intelligence has clearly proven. As with North Korea, sending the message that "enough games, the dance is over" may eventually bear fruit. Lord knows, diplomacy has gotten us nowhere, including the toothless Iran/EU/US "deal". Time will tell.