Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by CdnFox

  1. Fewer than half of Canadians want to buy EVs as popularity declines | True North (tnc.news)

    For the second year in a row, Canadians’ interest in electric vehicles has declined, with fewer than half of Canadians now saying they plan to make their next car purchase an electric vehicle.

    “Overall, while almost half of non-EV owners are open to buying an EV for their next vehicle, interest in EVs has declined for the second year in a row, from 68% in 2022 to 56% in 2023,” said Tiffany Ding, director of insights and intelligence at AutoTrader.

    Canadians who were not interested in buying an EV for their next vehicle cited concerns of limited long-distance travel, higher purchasing costs, and the “inadequate availability of charging stations.”

    Another primary concern with EVs was their capabilities – or lack thereof – in colder temperatures. 



    The technology is just not there yet. Someday. Not today.

  2. 26 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

    My bet is most NDP voters will park their vote, meaning abstain from voting, they feel betrayed by sing, and like everyone dislike justin...I mean i don't think to many conservative policies are attracting NDP voters to be honest...maybe the fringe NDP voters perhaps. 

    You'd be surprised. A lot of younger people who would normally vote NDP are realizing that the current unaffordable situation is a direct result of the left-wing policies that Trudeau and the NDP are pushing. They see that they will be stuck in their mother's basements till they're 50 and that they won't be able to afford to go on worldwide trips or have their own home or any of that stuff and they're getting fed up. Woke is not looking as good as it once did for these kids

    We could very well see both happen. A significant move to the CPC side for many NDP voters, combined with the rest of them staying at home. We saw something similar in Ontario in the last provincial election where motors tended to either Move from the lips and NDP to the conservatives, or just stay home and the NDP and liberals got slaughtered.


    I think there is a lack of choices, justin and sing are not going any where except down with the ship...PP is not my first choice as leader, but he is all we have right now...which is going to explain a lot of his polling numbers...

    I didn't vote last election becasue i did not trust the candidate, there is always that choice...

    Yeah but you kind of proved my point there. If a party didn't have something to attract you to them, then you would probably just say you were still a xXX supporter and stay home and not vote. But the polling is indicating that these kids are moving to the CPC and intend to vote that way.


    In politics anything can happen, Justin lack of performance has got him where he is now...things change very fast in politics.

    Sure, especially in Canada..


    I think there is a lot more to ity than just liking the man...like the poll said he is not very popular as a person...but his party is popular becasue of many reasons , one of them is lack of choices on the other parties, their job performance is crappy, their inability to get anything done really sucks...they have created more problems than they have solved...and the amount of scandals have reached new record levels, the rest of the list goes on and on ...PP really has not laid out in any detail HOW he is going to fix everything...i think once he lays out those plans that will be the moment that will make or break him...

    Anything's possible. But to be honest I think that as long as the plans he lays out seem at least vaguely possible people will be satisfied and will vote for him. I think right now they want to believe that he's competent. They may not like him as a person all that much but they think he is talented enough to deliver. They may not like everything he stands for but they believe that he can bring back economic Prosperity. They're just looking for some reason to confirm that, and that will be at election time of course. 

    Anything can happen. Campaigns matter and they can make all the difference so nobody can say for sure. We'll see

  3. 3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    1. Well, I admit my mistakes and try to learn from them.  

    Admitting mistakes is good. Trying to learn from mistakes is good.

    But sometimes people use the claim that they made a mistake to cover bad behavior that they'd like to "Erase" Because they got called out on it. And learning from your mistakes would suggest that you don't make the same mistakes twice.

    You seem to have a lengthy track record of making firm statements about things without doing your research or homework. If you get called out on it later you claim it was a mistake. But that is not a mistake, that's just being lazy and basing your statements on the way you wish the world was and then backing down if somebody else does the research and demonstrates that you're wrong.

    As I said, once is misfortune but twice is carelessness :) 


  4. 33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

    You can suppose that, but it's supposition. 

    No it's not Mike. Their people already in Canada Are already behaving in an abominable and incompatible fashion. It is a reasonable thing to say that these people will probably behave in a similar fashion for the most part.

    I guarantee you that they won't behave in that fashion here if we never let them in.

    • Like 1
  5. 3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    It's refugees, prioritized from a war zone.  No different from what we have done with Ukraine etc.  

    It's entirely different. Ukrainians aren't rioting in the streets, threatening our politicians, shooting up Jewish schools or threatening to put police officers "6 ft under".

    • Like 1
  6. 2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    Wait, cancel that... it doesn't matter who you choose.

    It absolutely does matter and that's a horrible thing to say. If you hate democracy so much go live in the country that doesn't have it for a while and come back and tell us all about how it doesn't matter.

    Governments never spend as efficiently as private Enterprise tends to. So the correct answer is to vote for the guy who believes in smaller government. Harper believed in smaller governments that did last and focused on their core abilities and left provincial matters to the province. Poilievre tends to think the same way.

    The smaller the government the more efficient it tends to be and the less waste you tend to have. Federal gov'ts should focus on core gov't tasks and that's it. 



  7. 34 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

    No this is par for this government we paid out little omar 10 million dollars , for his terrorist activities... why not continue the tradition of importing terrorist, Actually Canada has long been known for its harboring terrorist...This is Canada we like no we love terrorist here...

    I wish they put in this much effort into bringing back friendly Afghani's that help Canadian soldiers during that conflict...

    I can't wait until this government falls, and we get in one that hopefully has some common sense...

    Common sense would be great, but frankly I'll settle for someone who isn't actively working against us

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 2
  8. 3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

    in this case the Conservatives have a huge majority lead in the polls as of today...and for many reasons the majority of Canadians are sick or feed up with Justin...my pet hamster could outperform Justin in the polls becasue of that very reason....and some of those that voted NDP are most likely parking their vote or voting conservative for those same reasons...


    Well the fact is that if it were that simple the votes would be getting parked with the ndp.   For traditional ndp supporters to go with the conservatives means that there's probably something that is attracting them. IF it's not personality then it's likely policy or at least the perception that the CPC understands their situation and is willing ot do something about it. 

    back in harper's day I used the phrase frequently that "if you don't have a charismatic man you better have a charismatic plan". And I think that Poilievre kind of has a little bit of both going on. People either like him or they like what he's saying

    It is important in the sense that while everybody thinks that "People don't vote in governments they just vote them out" The evidence is crystal clear that that is not true as a rule. People need to believe in what they're going to at least a little bit. Otherwise they stay with the devil they know even if it's bad.

    If it were just a case of them hating trudeau then it might be possible for the conservative support to collapse very suddenly and with little prompting, kind of like what we saw with Aaron during the last election.

    However, it seems that people are buying into Poilievre either because they like what he thinks or they like him personally or both in some cases. That is much more resilient

  9. 25 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

    If you say so.  

    Nobody thinks about you at all when they're not witnessing your latest self-defecation.  🙄

    Of course not. I don't say anything nearly as stupid or hilarious as you. :) 

    21 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

    I can't respond to this conversation. It is far too erratic and nonsensical. 


    You threaten to post more of your ass porn as your argument and then complain that it's become irrational ? LOLOL

    Well ok there big guy :) 

  10. 3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    Yeah... And this here we said that I corrected myself, that I condemned Trudeau for his statements after my initial look into what was happening. What I didn't realize at the time was that he said those things in French. After I found the clip, I condemned him or whatever you call it. 

    I don't get why we keep bringing this up unless it's just because you like bringing up things I was mistaken about? I'm only human 


    You sure do seem to be 'mistaken' a lot tho. 

    To borrow the phrase,  "to mistake the first time looks like misfortune, to mistake a second time looks like carelessness"  :) 

  11. 16 minutes ago, Boges said:

    I live in a Condo Townhome. I deal directly with the electricity provider. If needed to up the amperage, why would I have to consult with them.


    Well you're not telling the truth here at some point. If you are making modifications to the strata corporations electrical grid without advising them or getting permission you're breaking the law. It's that simple.  If you're trying to tell me that you live in a strata Corporation but have independent electrical provisioning that doesn't have anything to do with the strata property then I would have to say that is so unlikely that I would be tempted to say you are being misleading. At the absolute very least you are like the only one in Canada.

    Strata corporations control and own the common infrastructure which includes the electrical. It is absolutely not possible to lawfully upgrade the strata corporations infrastructure without the permission of the strata Corporation.

    Your replies are becoming more and more questionable as we go. It's obvious that you are prepared to be dishonest to support your position.  You can't have a type  charger in your garage just by buying one on amazon.  You can't modify a strata corporation's infrastructure without their permission. 

    So seeing as you were dishonest about that it makes me wonder what else you were dishonest about with regards to your experiences with the vehicles. 


    The technology isn't there, and very clearly those who are in love with the idea are prepared to be dishonest in order to try and sell the concepts to others. A niche market exists where it's a good idea but until the technology improves it is not going to replace ice

  12. 1 hour ago, exPS said:

    Well there is your problem, the Westminster system.  If that has anything to do with the Brits, then we really are talking inefficiencies to the extreme. This is Canada, not some inbred Brit nation.

    Australia, whom you insist we should mimic, uses the westminster system. 

    You're not exactly making yourself look knowledgeable at this point. 

    So here's what it's looking like to me. You have absolutely no education or understanding of this political systems involved or how they work. But somehow somewhere you read that other places have fewer representatives per person and you got it in your head that means we're paying for too many. And now that someone has questioned why you believe that you're not able to give a good answer because your original thought wasn't founded on anything but repeating something you heard somewhere else.

    Look, lots of people make that mistake. But if you're going to be taken seriously by people who actually think you're going to need to be able to defend your positions a little better than that. One MP for every approximately 100,000 people has worked very well for us for a long time. If you can't explain why it would work just as well with one for every 200,000 then there's no reason to change it. And yes, democracy costs money. If you want cheap you have to go with a dictatorship


    • Like 1
  13. 1 hour ago, exPS said:

    What do you call this or are you blind...


    I call that you're clearly illiterate. 

    SHOW ME WHERE YOU ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTION "WHY SHOULD WE HAVE LESS".   Anywhere.  The fact other people have less means nothing. 

    Australia and the us could easily say they should have MORE. 

    Make your argument or admit you're a loser who can't think his way out of a paper bag.  You can't just say "cause austrailia!!!!"  and call that an argument.  Why is ours too many and why isn't theirs too few.  


    • Like 1
  14. 2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

    It's almost June and it's still not a slam dunk who's gonna be running for president in 2024.

    The DOJ is doing everything in its power to derail Trump, and the Whitehouse issued 9 corrections to Biden's short speech the other day. That makes 90,000 gaffes and 9 corrections...

    Since when does the WH draw attention to Biden's ridiculous gaffes? They've always ignored them before, hoping that they'd go unnoticed. Why are they acknowledging his mental difficulties in public now? Is he on the outs? 

    Let's be honest, maintaining the illusion of his mental competence is no small task. Without the DNC, MSM and WH staff running cover for him, even his most devoted cultists will have to admit to seeing the writing on the wall. 

    The way is being cleared to declare Biden unfit and put a new challenger in his place.

    There's also a 50% chance that Trump won't be able to run due to the endless stream of DOJ crimes and political witch hunts against him. Leftists hope it's more than 50%, Americans hope it's less than that, but in any event, if your chances of surviving past Nov 7th were the same as Trump's chances of running in the election, you'd be sweating bullets.

    If not Trump vs Biden, who vs whom?

    I don't think that the democrats or their supporters honestly believe they're going to be able to keep trump out of an election by locking him up.

    I believe that the legal issues are designed to partially discredit him in the eyes of the public as being some sort of criminal while at the same time draining his pocketbook to weaken his ability to conduct an election

    I think actually putting a candidate in jail for anything more than a few symbolic days is probably outrageously unlikely. I think we can probably count trump in as the candidate with a great deal of certainty.

    Biden on the other hand...

    I am sure that they are having a lot of internal discussions about this. And the fact that they proposed a debate date that is before his nomination by 2 months has me wondering if perhaps they're going to see how well he does And if he can't hold it together during the debate they'll go with an emergency backup

  15. 2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

    To be completely fair, in light of all the FBI lies, malfeasance and crimes uncovered during the Russian collusion witch hunt, the FBI shouldn't be allowed in the vicinity of Donald Trump.

    It's like allowing Hamas to do security on elementary schools in Israel, or allowing the RCMP to investigate Rebel News. 


    as much as I really don't think that the FBI did anything horrendously wrong during the execution of this search warrant, even I have to admit you've got a point. As Hewart said, it's not enough for justice to be done, it must be seen to be done. In other words even if the FBI wants to CLAIM it was in the right, because of their past issues it doesn't look that way and that creates trust issues in the public.  It really should be some other branch. 

    Plus they screwed up the evidence chain anyway so....


    We need police to monitor our police in North America.

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  That problem has been around for a while too. 

    • Like 1
  16. 3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

    You must have missed the link where a catholic school was fired at 5 times.... as usual, it does not fit your narrative.

    weekly? That was  your claim. 

    And still can't really seem to explain why you brought up vandalism can you :P  

    As much as you tried to blow this off as 'no big deal' suggesting it happens all the time, we both know that's an utter fail of an argument and this is a big deal. 

    Maybe tell your buddies that shooting up schools is over a line. 

  17. 1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

    What I think about it doesn't matter. 

    That's pretty much true all the time as it turns out :)  But i'm glad to see you being more self aware. 



    The fact is that I wasn't part of this thread, hadn't posted in over a day, but you still felt compelled to bring me up in this nothing of a thread.  🙃 

    Sure,  i laugh about you quite a bit  ;)  Something reminds me of something stupid  you did or said and I laugh :) just like something reminds me of something Jerry said and i laugh ;) 

    We were talking about cockwombles, you fit the definition perfectly, so of COURSE your name is going to come up. :) 

  18. 4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

    OMG...you surely do not want me to post that selfie of you coming out of PP's rear again do you LOL


    ROFLMAO !!!!!  Only you would think that posting ass porn from your own collection and pretending it's me somehow would win an argument :) LOLOL

    Again, disagree with you and a person is a liberal.... you are falling further and further down that 1diot hole again. LOL


    Again, disagree with you and a person is a liberal.

    Seinfeild?  Jerry Seinfeild is an american, so he's a dem or republican. They don't have a 'liberal' party in the states :)  And if you disagree he was funny that's fine but a lot of people disagree with you, it's not that uncommon a position :)  

    LOL - we've talked about the dangers of drinking cough syrup first thing in the morning haven't we?

    4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

    you are falling further and further down that 1diot hole

    Says the guy who's trying to win the discussion with ass porn :)    What is it with you and 'holes' anyway?

  • Create New...