CdnFox

Yeah, it looks really bad on Carney. The CPC maneuvered them really well.

Ah! More "Not angry" from you So no argument, or any kind of rebuttal, just "No You Dumb". Make an argument then. I would say that trump is not so much of a con man as he is a great performer. He has a way of charming people and getting people on board with his ideas and they believe in him. That's not a con man, that's just being charismatic and possibly populist. In many ways Justin Trudeau was very similar So you would have to make an argument as to why trump is a con man rather than just a populist or popular figure. I would argue that carney is more of a con man and trump is more of a circus performer or personality

This is about 90 percent of his arguments. When he paints himself into a corner he'll try to turn the conversation into a debate about the meaning or definition of a word and focus on that, hoping everyone will forget what they were really talking about. LIke I said, he'll claim "I never said evidence, what i said was it's apperen from the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Yeah, that's the definition of evidence. And he'll argue that for 10 pages because now you're not talking about what he knew he was wrong about before.

In other words what you're saying is his behavior is evidence of mental decline. You just lying and trying to dance around the meaning of your words to try and play games and avoid the fact that he caught you out. "I'm not saying it's EVIDENCE, i'm just saying it's the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid!!!"Yeah, that's the definition of evidence you twat.

Yep, definitely no hatred and anger there LOL

Possibly, but then again since the beginning of man, women have been convinced to make bad decisions by snakes if we believe the legends

Is the topic description puppies? No? LOLOL just bound and determined to derail the thread. Well, that's certainly very "you"

You'll see the following argument made frequently about virtually ANY tax cut that's not specifically targeted at lower income earners only: "BUT - THIS IS A TAX CUT FOR ALL SO A RICH PERSON WILL SAVE 100,000 DOLLARS IN TAXES WHILE THE POOR ONLY SAVE 1,000, THAT'S NOT FAIR WHY ARE THE RICH GETTING A BIGGER TAX CUT!?!?!" The short answer is the rich pay vastly more taxes. If an 'average' person pays 20,000 in taxes and a rich person pays 2 million in taxes, of course any tax break is going to give the rich person more actual cash. They will claim this is unfair, but they think it's just fine the rich person pays the vast majority of the taxes But what they often miss is that while the tax break is more savings to the rich, it usually represents LESS Of their disposable income. the rich tend to be able to shelter their money better, it's worth it for them to make the effort to do so. So a 10 percent savings to them really isn't that much in comparison to their total income. Whereas it's a huge amount for the average person paying regular tax rates. There's nothing wrong with the rich getting a tax break but the left does not care for it.

LOL sure kid. So let me guess, you're someone who got punted off of here in the past, or who ran off in shame, and now you're back under another name and reliving your butthurt from the past? So many people have quit crying their eyes out after scrapping with me in the past, wouldn't even want to guess which one you are At the end of the day the truth sounds the same no matter who says it. @User is correct in his claims, as am I, the truth is bound to sound a little similar. So lets see if you can address the points or if you're just going to have an emotional break down and cry.

It's also worth noting that you can't take any one element of the system in exclusion of the others. The presidential vote is not 'direct' democracy which would be one person one vote and highest tally wins, that's true. But it is in fact democratic. BUT - it's ALSO just one part of the people's representation. Then you ALSO have a representative for the house, which is democratically elected in your local district and you have MUCH more direct input into with no voices from outside your district. And then you've got the senate which is also elected by the specific state. So you've got THREE representatives federally that protect the interest of the individual, and each are elected using slightly different models and blend different levels of democracy. So the over all effect is that people actually do have a great deal of overall democratic representation and a great deal of say in their governance even if ONE element doesn't incorporate direct democracy precisely. You have to look at the whole system, not just one element like the president's office.

You can't just make that statement. Progressive or regressive are just words that the far left uses to make something sound good or bad but it doesn't actually have any real palpable meaning. It's more of an opinion Eliminating property tax can significantly reduce the barriers to entry for less wealthy people into ownership. And while the top earners would get a significant tax cut, the biggest tax cut would actually be to the middle and lower classes. Not to mention the fact that it would make rents cheaper. When you think about it renters are the ones that have to pay that tax for the owner The idea of getting rid of property taxes but quite frankly it is an idea that has some merit and would be worth exploring. @Shady does have some good points there and income, consumption and user taxes and fees might actually be a much fairer method of collecting taxes. The problem for the cities is they don't have the power to tax many things, property taxes and the insane fees and permit costs for building homes is their primary revenue. THat would have to be addressed.

Easy. They are forced to comply with laws put in place by left-wing liberals such as yourself that limit their choices and would rather see people die than have any Private participation whatsoever

But it's also to address regional issues. Let's not forget that true democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. You can face the tyranny of the majority. To prevent that a number of things were put in place, including certain rights and guarantees in the constitution to prevent governments from trampling people's rights even if it's popular, but also to ensure that certain regions didn't get completely overwhelmed by areas with higher population density. Even in Canada we have the riding system Which is the same sort of thing on a smaller level. And two of Trudeau's terms happened after he lost the popular vote but won the most seats. America has a democratic process built into its government systems but it is not a democracy nor would you want it to be a democracy. No system is perfect and I think that the Westminster system is a better model than the united states republic system but at the end of the day every single system is going to be a bit of a compromise between how the people have their say and efficient rule of government

But you did. I guess even you don't pay attention to what you're saying Oh look, you're agreeing with me again! Complaining about someone's spelling and then making a spelling error is definitely even stupider and makes you more of a loser So did you have anything intelligent to say about Canadian defense or did you just want to continue to derail the thread? I see others are starting to laugh at you already as well, surely you want to move on and not ruin the thread for the others? Or maybe you don't.

Exactly. Also, anything they do wrong is the conservatives fault and not their own, and (my favorite) elections are pointless, we should just let the liberals stay in power. And he can't understand why someone might think he's a liberal supporter

LOL if that were true you wouldn't need the internet, a mirror would do You LEAP to the defense of the liberals constantly and it's frequently commented on. Sorry kid, your own actions condemn you Oh i'm sure you'll remember if we wait 5 minutes. Your brain works like that. I say quite a bit more than that. But i'm sure considering how bad that usually makes you look you're happy to try to forget that . Awwww you tuckered out little guy? Some of those words WERE pretty big for you. It should, it's about your third bottle

I'm sure that seems to be the case when your comatose but you're the only one that actually understands you when you're like that

Oh I think we both know you're a true Liberal, you spend all day here defending them and blaming others for their failings. I'm sure you'd like to position yourself as being some sort of honest Progressive type of person but you're not. Most of your time here is spent being dishonest. You defend the liberals night and day. You blame Harper for Trudeau's bad actions. I could go on for some time. You're a big L all the way

So this would be another example of the dispassionate and reasoned debate and discussion that you're hoping to have and so disappointed that other people don't seem interested in? I think I may have identified your problem

Heyyy - inna U endo smarta guy, an' you no makka funnama language no more! - Robosmtih's italian uncle Robotony, probably.

LOL is the fact you're drunk why you're having such trouble communicating? Just like your logic apparently LOLOL Drunk Eyeball is often pretty funny but you're just being silly today

No kid I don't. I have a lot of years on this planet and I spend my days dealing with people. You can lie to yourself, you can lie to others, but you can't lie to me Then you would need to make an argument along those lines but what you said is that trump wants to turn America into Russia by following their authortarian model. You're changing your argument now because you realize the way you posed it wasn't a particularly rational or unbiased way, so you're trying to sound more reasonable. Was this your example of reasoned debate? I gave you a completely defensible position, facts, and a well reasoned argument and you retort with this. You could have said I was wrong or given an example of where trump is doing something unprecedented but instead your entire argument was this. I get that you're trying to do the my hardener game of "I'm so above all of you that I can't even respond reasonably to your sensible arguments and that's why I'm not actually countering anything you say", But it doesn't work for him either and he's better at it Seriously, any right you may have felt you had to complain about other people not having reasoned or rational debates or discussions went out the window with that reply Now are you going to make an actual argument, or do I need to just simply have your diapers changed?

LOL only a true Liberal would be as proud of being a liar as you are But you do seem to enjoy it Me telling you that you're giving away the fact you lost and are mad about it is talking to myself? It's Tuesday bud, you're either 2 days too late or 3 days too early for drinking like that But i'm sure it's all harper's fault

Yeah nobody actually needs you to tell us that Take it to the bank. And? I didn't say you lost, I said that your comment was basically an admission of it. It's pretty obvious you know you lost I was just pointing out that when you behave like that you're basically telling the world that you know it LOL Swing and a miss kiddo I love that you're doubling down on the future crime angle Translation: "I, eyeball, can't excuse my behavior today so I'll create a fake event that has never happened and may never happened as justification" That's why you do the childish little fake quotes thing, why you do this little bizarre behavior, or why you try and play things off as a joke or the other usual telltale signs that clearly states as loud as possible that you know you've lost and your big mad about it We can always hire a liberal to teach us They'll do anything if you throw them enough money

You frequently get mad. And while I always approve of a good spot impression I'm afraid that you are frequently emotional here and if you thought otherwise you were sadly mistaken Here's a Hint by the way, people that aren't angry don't respond with the vitralic post flinging insults. Bit of a giveaway The topic was a little troll baity. Like I said you can't get mad at them for their response. I understand you probably intended to be more serious than people took it but at best it was an extreme reach and I have to say when they say they felt that it was intended to be trolling I can kind of see where they would come to that conclusion. No, he isn't. In fact literally everything he is doing has precedent. He often does it in a very flamboyant have flagrant manner but nothing he's doing is actually terribly new in and of itself. Hunting down and deporting illegals? Not new there. Tariffs? Not new at all. shooting up people you think are bad guys without evidence? Common practice. As was pointed out, even biden repressed the press quite a lot. People throw the word unprecedented around an awful lot without realizing what it actually means but as I said virtually everything he's doing has president. I'd agree he's changing America, that part is true but so has almost every president that has ever been. Kennedy certainly did, Reagan certainly did, clinton certainly did, bush did, who didn't?