QuebecOverCanada

So there is a big debate among the economists. A side wants free trade, and insists that free trade by essence brings wealth to everyone, as countries with strategic advantages may sell goods for less, thus helping consumers with cheaper goods and bringing costs down as well for manufacturers. By getting cheap aluminium from Canada, the US then concentrates its manufacturing industry on transforming it, and brings added value. By contrasts, the other side wants tarriffs imposed to exterior trade partners, to stimulate industries inside their own economy. By adding a tarriff on imports on aluminium coming from Canada, some economists believe that local producers of said aluminiumi in the US will be more competitive, create more local aluminium and create jobs. The US clearly has shown signs that it would take the latter advice. Is it foolish? Is the US going to replace competitors from abroad by having at-home manufacturing, or are they just going to buy their goods for more, while nothing more will be produced inside the US? So far, markets don't like protectionism. The Dow Jones is not growing since the year started, and S&P500 dropped. What are your takes?

This attitude coming from the pseudo-intellectuals of the Democratic side indicate a tendancy to repeat the same errors as before instead of involving into a party designed to protect workers. It's a losing attitude that created a popular vote election win for the Republicans in 2024. A first in 20 years.

Biden presidency being ranked 14th out of all presidencies is a once in a lifetime joke. That's why he was reelected after all... Oh no he wasn't.

I voted for Michael, for his message to everyone here.

Exactly. Either we, the collective West, arm ourselves as we should, or we fall. It's not about Ukraine. No one sane person in the West wants to die for the interests of NATO and Ukraine, including Ukrainians themselves. The minimum draft age is 25. When France was invaded by Germany in the Great War, they drafted everyone above 18. The Ukrainians don't want to die for their country. Why should we, foreigners, die for them?

The trade deficit between China and the US fell from 418 billion a year to 307 billion a year between 2018 to 2020. https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html The Democrats kept the pressure on after being elected, while they spent many years denouncing the trade war.

Ok then it is preposterous.

If what is reported here is true, it is shocking. The thing is, I will not believe this claim upfront and the source. The Heritage Foundation is a known conservative thinktank.

Pennsylvannia is THE swing State of the election. For instance, this is what happens currently according to the polls if Trump wins Pennsylvania according to Real Clear Politics. If it were Harris it would look like this. Will we have the results for Pennsylvania on November 5th?

OK, so the 2016 election was rigged by foreign campaign contributions, got it. So the 2020 elections were rigged too, or not?

Strange post. Trump gave Stingers and Javelins to Ukraine before leaving office. These weapons have helped Ukraine repel the Russian invasion. Did you know that Obama was against sending those weapons to Ukraine and even supervised Ukraine demilitarization itself? Also, there were many sanctions made by Trump against not only Russia during its administration, but he also started the trade war against China, which the Democrats at the time called the trade war suicidal and isolasionist. Then they came back into power in 2020 and pursued the exact same course; more sanctions on Russia, and maintained and even expanded the trade war against China.

So you really believe that the 2016 election results were because of Russian interference, rather than a weak Democrat candidate? If the 2016 election was rigged by Russia according to you, do you believe that any election, such as the 2020 election, could have been rigged?

On this day, the 3rd of November, two days before the election, there was a lot of discussion about a poll for Iowa, showing a lead for Harris by three points, despite other polls showing the opposite. The institute that did the polling is respected, but I am skeptical for two reasons; 1. The Democrats did not campaign a lot in the State of Iowa. It has only 6 votes in the electoral college, and it has a religious culture. Democrats would surely spend money and effort on swing States instead of Iowa. 2. A poll in 2020 showed Biden leading by 17 points against Trump in Wisconsin. This State had less than a 1% margin at the election despite this poll.

Your post is really interesting in the way that you're obliviously describing Trump as a no-no, but insist for a De Santis presidency. De Santis and Trump are very politically aligned.

Here is what the polling looks like since the start of the political campaign, season 2024 presidentials. Trump polling higher than Harris on a national level for the popular vote is really concerning for the Democrats. And the Democrats will call the election a fraud because they will say foreign influence swung the vote for the Republicans. We saw it during the Trump presidency and the alleged Russian influence on the 2016 election.

2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS Welcome to the official November 5th 2024 thread. Please discuss and answer the survey before the election; Who will win, and why. Which swing States will go to who. Will Michigan remain blue? What about Nevada? Anything related to the election, such as any event that could happen that could have an impact on the election. Please, refrain from ad hominems for once. At this date, the 29th of October of 2024, this is what the popular vote looks like according to an aggregation of polls by realclearpolling.com

I think you meant let people out lol?

1. It doesn't matter with the point I was giving; by cooperating economically with China, it became more powerful, and is now a bigger adversary because of it. We shouldn't have moved all our industry to this country. The same thing should be said about India now; we should not engage in more trade with India as we see they are a potential China 2.0. 2. That\s great, but even Haiti has a 2.79 fertility rate. It remains incredibly unstable, unhygienic and miserable.

I disagree. it is a matter of sovereignty for our citizens and our land. We can not allow a foreign state to kill our citizens on our soil, whatever the justification may be. If you allow this to happen, you open the door for pure chaos. Every other country will do the same. Saudi Arabia will decide to kill whoever it wants here. Same with China, Russia... etc. Canada should be a safehaven for Canadians, period. Also, it is not like Canada wasn't in a position of strenght compared to India. India can not pretend to be a super power yet, it is far from it, with lots of separatist movements and issues with its economy. We have to show resolve to them now as they're currently a very poor and weak country, because if we don't, when they're going to be rich, it's going to be worse.

I still wonder what was in the mind of those who let that person come to Canada, and even grant him citizenship. He was known as problematic before entering our soil, but somehow the authorities decided it was a good idea to let him come. Our immigration system is too leniant, to say the least.

@Gaétan It is a political problem... the assassinations on our soil were politically motivated. Also, why should we partner up economically more with another country that seems hostile to us? We did it with China in the past and it did bite us in the end, we may go to war with China over Taiwan in a decade. China is also helping Russia in Ukraine covertly and overtly. India is the new China, it does the mistake of thinking itself of a great nation that can do whatever it wants because its population is very large, but it is a backward country. Its GDP per capita is only $2K a year, while in Canada it is $46K a year. They will stay poor if they keep going that direction of trying to bully its economic partners.

There are many layers here. What you meant by Biden assassinations, if you have a sane mind, would be that you condemn expeditary assassinations made by the US Army abroad its own territories. You make a fair point. The thing is that in Canada, we will not tolerate these kinds of inteferences on our territory. We have the means to protect our sovereignty, and we shouldn't have governments from abroad killing Canadians on our soil, based on their wants. Are India's feelings more important than our own safety? Let me remind you that if we allow India to kill Canadians here, then we invite all nations of the world to kill people here, based on their mood. We need to show strength and make a tantrum to make sure other countries understand that you should not kill Canadians in Canada with the help of their governments. Also, to make it worse, India has not cooperated in investigations surrounding its interferences. India has not apologized and even gave us sanctions for the mere fact that we were condemning their behavior. India acts like a bully, a dominator that wants revenge for its colonial past; let's not forget. They are on a quest for building an empire in South Asia. India is not an ally of Canada - or Canada's allies even -, we merely trade with them comparatively to other countries that size and they are just partners in the region because they hate China. We should not stand down to India, and we probably should shut commercial ties and immigration with them until they realize that their country is just a sewage next to call centers.

In Iran, an islamist woman attacks a woman in another car because her head is uncovered. "It is mandatory by law to wear a burqa here," she says. But but... I thought that women in Iran were progressive as shown by the polls from the study that was quoted before? I thought that women were fighting a cause together against radical islam? How could it happen? rapidsave.com_in_iran_an_islamist_woman_attacks_a_woman_in-clzid4vtj4ud1.mp4

Lol I see the irony here.

There is a clear correlation in between the price of rent and the number of homeless people. I have seen a clear progression in Montreal in the number of homeless people in the public transit when I use it (seldomly now as I drive to work), and it follows a trend we see in many other areas in the province of Quebec. In Granby, a small town consisting of about only 70 000 people, there is now a tent encampment for the homeless. There was almost no homeless in Granby a few years ago.