CdnFox

LOL It's monday and you're STILL drinking?

At some point the republican party is going to have to move a little bit back towards the center. Especially in appearance. Trump currently runs on the very far right, but then governs on the relatively moderate right. And that works when your opponents are on the very far left. But sooner or later the american public is going to get very sick of that kind of conflict and want stability and balance. And there's a good chance the next democrat challenger will move to a more moderate stance to try to bring back those soft left voters who were turned off by Gigglin' harris and 'the squad' but aren't that comfortable with some of the farther right rhetoric of trump and would like an alternative. So it would be good if vance was seen as a strong supporter of the current republican priorities, BUT seen as being less into the 'rhetoric' and divisiveness and more of someone who can bridge the gaps in the american public right now and start uniting people a little more. The actual policies dont' have to change much but the presentation will have to over time.

Emotionally anyway. We're still waiting on you to get there, You who say "i poop in people's mouths" is a valid argument LOL

While i do agree with the sentiment that 'he ran on it and should do what he promised', in fairness there is much to support your position as well. Numerous times the issue has been put to referendum in various provinces, and more than once in bc, and even after extensive public debate and consideration the people always vote to stay with the current system. In the latest one in bc for example 61.3 percent of people wanted to keep the current system. While FPTP is flawed, all the other systems are as well, and there are big advantages to having a gov't that has the power and mandate to get things done. And to be held accountable. When people take a hard look at it they generally stick with FPTP I love that you think PP is afraid of offending people

Only when they lie Distorting what people say to switch the argument when he's losing is Aristides go to.

But they should during a gunman's attack, and a good party will defend the leader if that happens. Right now Justin trudeau is hiding in HIS closet. And nobody's trying to shoot him. He's just too petrified of trump. But you as a person certainly demonstrate exactly why we must never vote for liberals. Only a liberal would somehow think that it's perfectly acceptable for his leader to do what he's doing currently and trying criticize someone who isn't a leader currently instead. The liberals and their supporters are so morally bankrupt that they literally think this is a comparable situation. As the man Justin's so scared of would say, Sad.

Sadly i feel like you had to look that up before answering.

No, it's expected that a PM will be defended to ensure the continuance of the gov't. Its not the pm's job to stop gunmen after tall It is the pm's job to negotiate with foreign nations who are a threat to canada. But that's what trudeau decided to run from. Trudeau's been saying how he's the one who's got the balls to face trump... then trump showed up and trudeau ran screaming like a girl and locked himself in his room. Now others are forced to do the job he should have. Never. Vote. Liberal . This is what we get.

Here's an article on the issue from England where he ran the bank. His record is not as stellar as he suggests Mark Carney is not fit to be Canadian PM | The Spectator

The last time was when the prime minister shirked his duties and hid in his bunker refusing to talk to anyone and deal with the issue. Which is also the first time, we have Never in our entire history seen a prime minister behaving the way this one is currently. And that power vacuum is going to be filled by somebody. I rather suspect they would rather be doing a bunch of other things instead of going and doing those job. It is a shame that the NDP did not vote yes for an election when they should have. I imagine they'll have to answer for that during this election

And it's the question nobody is asking. And it's such an obvious one that it makes me feel like it's being asked behind closed doors and probably the people that are putting their money on the table right now are being lied to. Trudeau is pushing Kearney hard inside the party, but loyalty to Trudeau is falling fast. I suspect he will be used as a sacrificial lamb, and shot appropriately, and eaten at the next Leaders victory celebration. There's no way to guarantee that the party will let you have more than one chance. If you lose it's an automatic leadership review regardless and the Liberals are Cutthroat internally. I suspect we will be seeing a book in Carney's future and I expect that the end of it will be heavily tear stained.

He's not even remotely close to one of the best economists in the world. But he has been a successful banker. He did well when he was in Canada working under harper. He had a lot less luck in England unfortunately. But that's the way it bounces sometimes and bankers are bankers not gods and it's not like they can control everything. But as a politician he's horrible. He's got ties to the wrong people including Epstein, he's very much been a tax and spend advocate and a huge massive advocate for carbon taxes, and he has zero political experience fighting campaigns or rebuilding a party that was recently decimated. The liberals are going to select him as the leader, they will use him hoping that they can translate his record and reputation into saving the furniture and losing fewer seats than they would have under Trudeau, they will lose the election, and then they will hold a leadership review and kick his sorry ass to the curb. Then all of the potential leaders who are strong who are backing out right now and not spending their 350k will jump into a real leadership race and the party will look to select someone who is the ideal choice to rebuild and refocus the party in their mind. And if he had a little more political experience he would see that coming but he doesn't And indeed it looks like 'for most canadians' if the polls are to be believed.

It's called reality kid, and while it's true that logic and reason are not dreams the only one woke here is you Of course it is. AI doesn't actually think for itself, it's a product of what it's fed. If 10,000 lefties like yourself go on the web and post articles about how terrible for democracy income inequality is then that's what the AI is going to spit out. There are people at Google right now feeding articles into the AI for it to learn, they are notoriously left-wing. This is why the big companies have just backed away from their fact-checking organizations who all turned out to be left wing and acting deliberately to minimize right wing ad revenue. As I said before we just had an election that proved every single thing you are saying is wrong

Sorry kiddo, they're wrong or they're not talking about what you think they are, depending on the article. You can post what is essentially the same argument 100000 times but it still has the same flaws. First off Every single one of them is making the democracy argument. So obviously you don't have a problem with wealth inequality other than democracy They all have exactly the same premise, that democracy requires that we all have equal standing and then it suggests that you can't possibly have equal standing if you don't have equal wealth. The problem is this is blatantly false. This last election proved that Beyond any sane doubt. Harris had vastly more money. She also had far more influential people and stars backing her. All of the supposed advantages of wealth were hers and at her fingertips. And she still got her ass handed to her by a reasonably broke convicted felon whom she outspent by something stupid like 10 to 1 or something. In fact every citizen has the same standing and while they may use different methods the most effective method is always organizing and a single person with next to no money is quite capable of standing up and starting an organization and organizing people and we have seen that many many times. So the inequity is not a democratic inequity. Money doesn't win elections. Fame and power doesn't win elections. Sorry I didn't see this one earlier respond to it but there's so many. Anyway do you got anything left? Kind of feels like we've been through everything

Every single leftie on this board. "i'm losing, i should make a random but specific homosexual reference." Every. Single. One.

LOL i've literally shot down every one of your cites so far, don't get mad at me just because your cites don't say what you want them to You've made zero case that the wealth gap is a hugely negative thing in the slightest. The majority of people who want the wealth gap to be a problem fall into one or both of two catagories. Those who are jealous as hell that other people have more than them without considering what they had to do to get it and the fact their own lives are pretty good, and those who want to steal what those others have earned and are looking to justify it. Wealth inequity is not a problem, other than it can technically be a sign of other flaws in a system such as the feudal one. You earn what you earn and you can afford what you can afford regardless of what elon musk earns. Sorry.

As we went over the evidence you provided does not support that. And you're flip flopping between claiming you're talking about the past and then that you're talking about the future. You can't use incomplete evidence from the past that leaves out critical information and then claim that's proof of a future that contains dozens of variables you can't account for. And in fact look at this, federal revenues went UP between 2017 and 2019. The changes trump made did not result in a reduction of revenues as you claim. Over all revenues were higher. And corporate taxes were a big hunk of that jump Government Revenue | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data You've just got no where left to go with this. Trump didn't cost anyone any money, never mind 10 trillion or the like. He lowered taxes and expenses for all, grew gov't revenue by improving the economy and reducing gov't costs as a percent of gdp, and not a single person is poorer just because the rich are rich, in fact they're better off because of the rich's success. you fought hard and made at least somewhat reasonable arguments which is why I'm not laughing at you or calling you names but there's no where left to go with this. By every metric and by every way of interpretation your original premise was entirely wrong and no premise that you brought up since then is doing any better

Well that's not true. I brought that up as a result of your discussions about income inequity. I wasn't the one that started the subject I was responding to your previous comments on the subject. But if it makes you feel any better it's extremely typical for lefties around here to be mad about the fact that something they did didn't go their way and to want it to be my fault No. Nobody said anything like that at all. Now you're just getting delusional It's not a problem at all. And none of your citations indicate that it is. The fact that something exists does not mean it's a problem. As I previously noted well inequity is a result of the capitalist system that makes everybody richer. Because of its nature some people will become richer than others but everybody including the "poor" gets richer. Any other system sees EVERYBODY poorer. So again well inequity isn't a problem. It's a byproduct of a system that creates the most wealth for the most number of people including the so-called poor who compared to many points in history and even other countries live what would be normally considered a wealthy life by others. Sorry you're just wrong about this. You've been wrong about just about every one of your claims so far. And your citations do not seem to say what you are arguing.

But your thread was that he was doing it "again" . As in in the future, not the past. Further it's wrong. As noted it doesn't account for any increase caused in increased investment and employment, which did happen. And lastly.... it's NOT "COSTING" MONEY WHEN YOU LEAVE IT WITH THE PEOPLE WHO EARNED IT It's a decidedly 'left wing' concept that if you DON"T take people's money away from them somehow that's costing the gov't. That's not how it works. Trump SAVED people 10 trillion, and offset that gov't revenue with increased revenues from the subsequent increase in financial activity. So no matter how you want to slice it the initial premise is still very wrong.

It was definitely just a joke, just an homage to Twins (arnold Schwarzenegger - "I really don't like violence" Danny devito " really? But you're so good at it... ")

That's unfortunate. You seem so good at it

So like two people earning 55 k per year. Definitely not rich. yet their kids frequently go on to be very very wealthy. Hmmm. Literally everything you started this thread off with and have tried to make true since then has turned out to be incorrect. Trump did not rip anyone off for 10 trillion dollars either in the past or coming up. That was wrong Trump's cuts did substantially benefit the middle class and even the lower class. Your statement that it did not was wrong. Income inequality is not a problem. And people from both the poor and middle classes have every opportunity to become extremely wealthy and in fact make up the bulk of people who become wealthy I don't think you've got anything left to complain about specifically in this thread.

Sigh. You have some serious reading and comprehension problems. I said most wealthy come from the lower and middle class. the 20 percent would be the lower class. To quote: Some 32 percent of the Forbes 400 in 2011 belonged to very rich families, down from 60 percent in 1982. On the other hand, the share of those in the Forbes 400 who didn't grow up wealthy but had some money in the family—the equivalent of the upper middle class—rose by the about same amount. So 20 percent from poor people, 48 percent from middle class, for a whopping 68 pecrcent of the very wealthy coming from poor or middle class. I know math is hard, but c'mon. That was basically addition.

They have the same access. Probability is different. Most people do not want to do the things necessary to become wealthy, just as not everyone wants to do the things necessary to be a nurse or a soldier etc. You're confusing equity of opportunity with probability of outcome. Most people aren't nurses. that doesn't mean most people couldn't be one if that was their focus. Ahh! well then you're an !diot. This was explained to you.

IT means there's numbers. Which you then went on to say didn't exist. Dude, you're having a bit of a meltdown. Slow down, take a breath, read the posts and then type your reply, but wait a minute and read it again before sending and see if it still makes sense to you.